News The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

[BobG]

If the Tea Party was a highly-organized movement with a central leadership, I'd agree, but they are not. They are very disorganized. Being this way, they do not have any highly in-depth, detailed policy ideals that they stand for and have outlined. Instead the movements forming the "Tea Party" are united around some simple principles and views:

1) That government is too large

2) That Washington is broken, filled with entitlement-minded elitists who have no connection to real America and no one there is listening to the American people

3) The ideals of limited government and fiscal conservatism

Hippies were united around some simple principles and views:

1) Beware of 'Big Brother'

2) Washington is broken, filled stuffed shirts so entrapped in a materialist world that they had no connection to real America and no one there was listening to the American people

3) The ideals of living in harmony with nature and being sexually liberated

The third item is different - in fact a rather substantial difference. But the style is very reminiscent.

Of course, items 1 & 2 seem to be general complaints about government that have existed almost forever, so maybe the third item is the only important discriminator, anyway.

 

[nismaratwork]

I think that question is a bit loaded. It's perfectly okay to allow private businesses to refuse service to whomever they want. The basis for the refusal, however, is the important element.

In other words; should private businesses be allowed to refuse service to a black person? Absolutely. Should service be refused because that person is black? Absolutely not. Mr. Paul should have resolved any ambiguity in his response.

I don't believe Mr. Paul has an issue with ambiguity, rather it's a flux of the mouth.

 

[nismaratwork]

Hippies were united around some simple principles and views:

1) Beware of 'Big Brother'

2) Washington is broken, filled stuffed shirts so entrapped in a materialist world that they had no connection to real America and no one there was listening to the American people

3) The ideals of living in harmony with nature and being sexually liberated

The third item is different - in fact a rather substantial difference. But the style is very reminiscent.

One of the major differences is that for a short period of time for hippies, that wasn't all talk. Republicans have talking points, not principles, just like the Democrats.

 

[mheslep]

Hippies were united around some simple principles and views:

1) Beware of 'Big Brother'

2) Washington is broken, filled stuffed shirts so entrapped in a materialist world that they had no connection to real America and no one there was listening to the American people

3) The ideals of living in harmony with nature and being sexually liberated

Hopefully you'll consider an alternative view is just as likely, that the above was simply superficial bull to cover self indulgent sexual exploitation and self destructive drug use. From somebody who was there:

BY TED NUGENT

This summer marks the 40th anniversary of the so-called Summer of Love. Honest and intelligent people will remember it for what it really was: the Summer of Drugs.

[subs reqd]
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB118342613870356143-lMyQjAxMDE3ODAzMzQwMjM2Wj.html

 

[nismaratwork]

Hopefully you'll consider an alternative view is just as likely, that the above was simply superficial bull to cover self indulgent sexual exploitation and self destructive drug use. From somebody who was there:

[subs reqd]
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB118342613870356143-lMyQjAxMDE3ODAzMzQwMjM2Wj.html

That works for #3, but in the context of the war in Vietnam, 1 and 2 weren't needed for the kind of justification you're talking about, but more in the lines of social fallout. As I said, it was a VERY brief period of fervent belief, rapidly hijacked... much like the espoused political ideals of a given party or "ism".

 

[CAC1001]

Hippies were united around some simple principles and views:

1) Beware of 'Big Brother'

2) Washington is broken, filled stuffed shirts so entrapped in a materialist world that they had no connection to real America and no one there was listening to the American people

3) The ideals of living in harmony with nature and being sexually liberated

The third item is different - in fact a rather substantial difference. But the style is very reminiscent.

Of course, items 1 & 2 seem to be general complaints about government that have existed almost forever, so maybe the third item is the only important discriminator, anyway.

Hippies I'd regard as a little bit different though. Hippies weren't a grassroots movement, they were a literal subculture. You knew a hippy when you saw one. The Tea Party, on the other hand, is a grassroots movement, but it isn't a literal subculture. You don't go walking along and see someone and be like, "That there's a Tea Partier!"

 

[nismaratwork]

Hippies I'd regard as a little bit different though. Hippies weren't a grassroots movement, they were a literal subculture. You knew a hippy when you saw one. The Tea Party, on the other hand, is a grassroots movement, but it isn't a literal subculture. You don't go walking along and see someone and be like, "That there's a Tea Partier!"

Replace peace signs with a thousand bumper stickers, logos on clothing, and more and yeah... you really do say just that.

 

[BobG]

Hippies I'd regard as a little bit different though. Hippies weren't a grassroots movement, they were a literal subculture. You knew a hippy when you saw one. The Tea Party, on the other hand, is a grassroots movement, but it isn't a literal subculture. You don't go walking along and see someone and be like, "That there's a Tea Partier!"

Sure you do!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[WhoWee]

I think that question is a bit loaded. It's perfectly okay to allow private businesses to refuse service to whomever they want. The basis for the refusal, however, is the important element.

In other words; should private businesses be allowed to refuse service to a black person? Absolutely. Should service be refused because that person is black? Absolutely not. Mr. Paul should have resolved any ambiguity in his response.

Good advice...perhaps Mr. Holder would be wise to do the same.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20100922/pl_usnw/DC70077

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/whistleblower_at_justice_a8wyo9qEmRMvml7qhoVtjO?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=

"Christopher Coates, a veteran Justice Department attorney, yesterday de fied his bosses and publicly charged that his agency routinely ignores civil-rights cases involving white victims.

It's a troubling charge, made more so by the fact that too many on Capitol Hill and in the media have ignored it.

Coates, who has worked at Justice since 1997, says the nation's top law-enforcement agency maintains a "hostile atmosphere" and "deep-seated opposition" to "race-neutral enforcement" of the Voting Rights Act.

He cited the decision to dismiss charges against members of the notorious New Black Panther Party, who were videotaped at a Philadelphia polling place on Election Day 2008 in military-style uniforms -- one of them with a nightstick -- as they menaced white voters."


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washin...s-justice-over-civil-rights-enforcement_N.htm
"WASHINGTON (AP) — A former Justice Department official said Friday that his higher-ups told lawyers they are not interested in pursuing Voting Rights Act accusations against minorities who harass white voters.
A large number of people inside the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division "believe, incorrectly but vehemently, that enforcement of the VRA should not be extended to white voters but should be limited to protecting racial, ethnic and language minorities," said Christopher Coates, the former chief of the Justice Department's Voting Section."

 

[Ivan Seeking]

WhoWee, you are talking about a disputed allegation, as opposed to a stated position. The allegation is that there is a moral or legal problem with the department of justice, and the other is a statement about what our policies should be.

The Justice Department denies the accusation.

"The department makes enforcement decisions based on the merits, not the race, gender or ethnicity of any party involved," Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said. "We are committed to comprehensive and vigorous enforcement of the federal laws that prohibit voter intimidation."

If in fact the justice department were guilty of racial bias in its prosecutions, we would all have a huge problem with that. But you are changing the subject. This has nothing to do with the tea party; or does it? In fact, your post is suggestive of the position that Paul is okay because you think Holder is racist.

 

[WhoWee]

WhoWee, you are talking about a disputed allegation, as opposed to a stated position. The allegation is that there is a moral or legal problem with the department of justice, and the other is a statement about what our policies should be.



If in fact the justice department were guilty of racial bias in its prosecutions, we would all have a huge problem with that. But you are changing the subject. This has nothing to do with the tea party; or does it? In fact, your post is suggestive of the position that Paul is okay because you think Holder is racist.

Is that what I said?

I thought I responded in agreement that Mr. Paul should have resolved any ambiguity in his response.

I then made the comment about Mr. Holder doing the same to make lite of the hypocrisy.

But now that you've brought up racism, there does seem to be a lot of discussion about potential racism in the Tea Party - so far those are also disputed allegations. I think a comparison is fitting and on-topic.

 

[nismaratwork]

I find it hard to believe that the hysteria which fuels the Birthers (which form a serious part of the Tea Party(ies), and other such nitwits is absolutely a reaction to our first black president. I believe that hysteria is enhanced by the dismal economic situation, but it's my personal belief that history is going to identify this as a time of relatively (to the previous 2 or 3 decades) racist reaction. When people are comfortable in a crowd with a giant pic of our president as a bone-in-the-nose medicine man, it seems fairly obvious.

 

[WhoWee]

I find it hard to believe that the hysteria which fuels the Birthers (which form a serious part of the Tea Party(ies), and other such nitwits is absolutely a reaction to our first black president. I believe that hysteria is enhanced by the dismal economic situation, but it's my personal belief that history is going to identify this as a time of relatively (to the previous 2 or 3 decades) racist reaction. When people are comfortable in a crowd with a giant pic of our president as a bone-in-the-nose medicine man, it seems fairly obvious.

Ivan, I think he changed the subject?

 

[nismaratwork]

Ivan, I think he changed the subject?

Yes... yes I did.

 

[BobG]

How disjointed is the Republican Party, in general?

In the Colorado Gubernatorial election, they were handed a break when the incumbent Democratic governor chose not to run and had a popular 'establishment' candidate, Scott McInnis, set for what should have been a very hotly contested race with McInnis holding a slim, but consistent lead in early polling.

Instead, the Tea Party favorite, Dan Maes upset McInnis in the primary. His nomination would polarize the election, since Republicans are very conservative and Democrats are somewhat conservative for Democrats. It would come down to which party turned out more voters.

Then enters Tom Tancredo, a former Republican Congressman, that decided to mount a third party run, based solely on anti-illegal immigration (his platform encompasses conservative economic values, etc, but his campaign has been solely focused on stopping illegal immigration, an issue he was obsessed with even when he was a Congressman).

Now the Democratic nominee is a shoe-in to win, while Tancredo runs a distant second and Maes an even more distant third. Maes is being out-insurgented by the even wackier Tancredo.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Is that what I said?

I said your comment is suggestive of that position.

I thought I responded in agreement that Mr. Paul should have resolved any ambiguity in his response.

Yet he chose not to? Doesn't that tell you something given the nature of his statements? IF this was a misunderstanding, then, by definition, any politician would be all over this to correct it.

I then made the comment about Mr. Holder doing the same to make lite of the hypocrisy.

There is no hypocrisy here. As I said, were any of the allegations about the DOJ shown to be true, we would all have a huge problem with that. Just as you should have a huge problem with Paul's statements. In the former case it would be a violation of the law or the spirit of the law. In the latter case, it is a statement of what the law should be. I find the latter case far more dangerous than the former - by many orders of magnitude.

But now that you've brought up racism, there does seem to be a lot of discussion about potential racism in the Tea Party - so far those are also disputed allegations. I think a comparison is fitting and on-topic.

Okay, has Paul issued a retraction of his comments?

 

[Gokul43201]

Paul is in a tough spot. His position requires him to make an intellectual argument which really amounts to saying "yes" to the question: "Should private businesses be allowed to discriminate?" I do not doubt that this is his position, nor do I find it vile.

I think there are plenty of good arguments for such a stand, but uttering them directly would likely be political suicide.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Birthers (which form a serious part of the Tea Party(ies)

Do you have any numbers on that?

 

[Gokul43201]

Instead the movements forming the "Tea Party" are united around some simple principles and views:

1) That government is too large

2) That Washington is broken, filled with entitlement-minded elitists who have no connection to real America and no one there is listening to the American people

3) The ideals of limited government and fiscal conservatism

There are a couple more important principles you missed:

4) All problems (complexity be damned) have simple "common sense" solutions.

You find this theme repeatedly prominently by many of the (IMO) airheads like Beck, Palin, Bachmann and O'Donnell, (not so much by the those in the lonely corner occupied by Paul), as well as in websites run by different tea party groups.

For instance, www.teaparty.org summarizes its core beliefs with the slogan "Common Sense Constitutional Conservative Self-Governance".

5) Obama is always wrong.

I don't think this requires much explanation. The rapidity with which the Tea Partiers badmouthed Scott Brown is a good indicator of this sentiment.

 

[nismaratwork]

Paul is in a tough spot. His position requires him to make an intellectual argument which really amounts to saying "yes" to the question: "Should private businesses be allowed to discriminate?" I do not doubt that this is his position, nor do I find it vile.

I think there are plenty of good arguments for such a stand, but uttering them directly would likely be political suicide.

It's true... and even though I disagree with his philosophy it's still disturbing to see him dance around the core issues he believes in because to do otherwise would render him politically inert. Frankly, I think this is why the right-wing (not Republican per se) movement has so much traction: it's a simple monolithic ideology. The conservatism of decades ago, like the liberal views that Democrats still can't organize are fundamentally more complex, AND filled with career killing concepts.

The American people are so willing to shoot the messenger, it's no wonder that so many live in a kind of fantasy created by those willing to pander to what the little dauphins wish to hear.

 

[Al68]

Paul is in a tough spot. His position requires him to make an intellectual argument which really amounts to saying "yes" to the question: "Should private businesses be allowed to discriminate?" I do not doubt that this is his position, nor do I find it vile.

Everyone's answer to that question is yes, in at least some cases.

As an example, movie producers discriminate based on race (and gender, etc.) when hiring an actor to play a specific role. Muhammad Ali, for example. Should they be forced to hire Stallone instead instead of Will Smith, because he's more qualified if we ignore race?

 

[CAC1001]

There are a couple more important principles you missed:

4) All problems (complexity be damned) have simple "common sense" solutions.

You find this theme repeatedly prominently by many of the (IMO) airheads like Beck, Palin, Bachmann and O'Donnell, (not so much by the those in the lonely corner occupied by Paul), as well as in websites run by different tea party groups.

For instance, www.teaparty.org summarizes its core beliefs with the slogan "Common Sense Constitutional Conservative Self-Governance".

Agree partially. Remember, the Tea Party is only organized around a loosely-defined set of core beliefs ("common sense conservative principles" as you mentioned they often say). For core beliefs, I think such a view is fine. One can create specific policy plans based around such ideals. But that isn't the Tea Party's goal, as that would require centralization, which they do not want.

Now for specific politicians and pundits, such as Beck, Palin, Bachmann, O'Donnell, etc...then yes, going on just "common sense conservative principles" doesn't cut it.

5) Obama is always wrong.

Agree here (on them having that view).

I don't think this requires much explanation. The rapidity with which the Tea Partiers badmouthed Scott Brown is a good indicator of this sentiment.

I wasn't aware they had bad-mouthed Scott Brown.

 

[CAC1001]

I find it hard to believe that the hysteria which fuels the Birthers (which form a serious part of the Tea Party(ies), and other such nitwits is absolutely a reaction to our first black president. I believe that hysteria is enhanced by the dismal economic situation, but it's my personal belief that history is going to identify this as a time of relatively (to the previous 2 or 3 decades) racist reaction.

There are the occasional racist and birther here or there, but this type of movement would have arisen if it was Harry Reid, Biden, or Nancy Pelosi as President, if they were governing in the current manner the Democrats are.

I think Glenn Beck's huge D.C. rally was a prime example of how the movement is not racist, as the whole thing basically turned into a peaceful church picnic.

On the contrary in fact, I think one problem for the Tea Party movement is that too many on the political Left, and among the black population, cannot stand seeing criticism of a black President, and thus interpret any kind of protest as racism.

Remember, we just came through eight years of some of the most vile, hate-filled rhetoric said about George W. Bush, but during that time, the attitude was that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism." Now if one dissents, it seems patriotism is the lowest form of racism.

It's true... and even though I disagree with his philosophy it's still disturbing to see him dance around the core issues he believes in because to do otherwise would render him politically inert. Frankly, I think this is why the right-wing (not Republican per se) movement has so much traction: it's a simple monolithic ideology. The conservatism of decades ago, like the liberal views that Democrats still can't organize are fundamentally more complex, AND filled with career killing concepts.

Both the right-wing and the left-wing are simple ideologies. People who really get into the complexities on policy are usually center-left or center-right, but rarely to the extreme of either.

 

[airborne18]

The Tea Party does not exist and is not a grassroots anything. The Tea Party is a business.

The 9/12 Patriots are the real crowd. They are the birthers. And it is basically the anti-abortion wing of the GOP that is mad that abortion has fallen off the radar. The problem with abortion is that most women under 40 are pro-life.

The 9/12 Patriots are the mobs you see, and not the tea party. The tea party only comes around during election time, the 9/12 patriots are a hardcore wingnut group.

The tea party pays the bills for the wingnuts in the 9/12 Patriots. And the tea party comes and goes. The reason is that the Tea Party does not address social issues, so the wingnuts will show up for the money backing, but not for the party.

 

[nismaratwork]

The Tea Party does not exist and is not a grassroots anything. The Tea Party is a business.

The 9/12 Patriots are the real crowd. They are the birthers. And it is basically the anti-abortion wing of the GOP that is mad that abortion has fallen off the radar. The problem with abortion is that most women under 40 are pro-life.

The 9/12 Patriots are the mobs you see, and not the tea party. The tea party only comes around during election time, the 9/12 patriots are a hardcore wingnut group.

The tea party pays the bills for the wingnuts in the 9/12 Patriots. And the tea party comes and goes. The reason is that the Tea Party does not address social issues, so the wingnuts will show up for the money backing, but not for the party.

Hmmm, I believe you, but damn it's hard to keep track. Business and mob... what a great synergy...

@CAC1001: Frankly I don't think this movement would have arisen if we had another white man in office, and the economy were not in the midst of tanking. It's the combination of those two factors that I believe unsettles people who would otherwise be calm enough to think, but now are essentially inflamed by the mob element airborne18 refers to.

I'm not saying that widespread racism = millions who go home thinking "I hate that black guy", but I think it does have a psychological effect. People seem unsettled by this black man, and when you add economic turmoil all they express is hatred, distrust, and channel into pre-loaded bandwagons like the Tea Parties. You add in the manufactured fear that he's a "secret muslim", and that gives you a window into the other element of cultural fear: people are deeply unsettled by Islam right now. I don't think that this country would be in such a state if you knocked down a leg of that triangle, but as it is, people are scared, and frightened people tend to go to their baser natures.

For 8 years people have been told by an administration, and news (not just Fox, although they are the least subtle) to BE AFRAID, there's one and a half wars on, and the fear-mongering just gets ramped up. Be afraid of Islam, be afraid of terrorists, be afraid of the end of "the American way of life" (a fluid notion)... and now with so many having lost financial security they are viscerally terrified. People in that situation look to external factors to justify the level of fear and uncertainty, and some don't identify the correct targets, so we have Birthers, and bigots, and Evangelicals who've stopped thinking entirely in favor of "feeling".

In the sense that fear and the reaction to it are fundamentally grassroots, I guess you could say that the Tea Party is a "grassroots" movement, but not from an organizational standpoint. The fear works its way up, and there are always people ready to make a buck or get some power through the generation and exploitation of that fear.

 

[Al68]

Frankly I don't think this movement would have arisen if we had another white man in office, and the economy were not in the midst of tanking. It's the combination of those two factors that I believe unsettles people who would otherwise be calm enough to think, but now are essentially inflamed by the mob element airborne18 refers to.

I'm not saying that widespread racism = millions who go home thinking "I hate that black guy", but I think it does have a psychological effect. People seem unsettled by this black man, and when you add economic turmoil all they express is hatred, distrust, and channel into pre-loaded bandwagons like the Tea Parties.

Yeah, there has never been any political opposition to white Presidents with similar agendas.

One might think on a science forum there would be more interest in honest debate instead of hate-mongering about the supposed motives of others.

 

[CAC1001]

Hmmm, I believe you, but damn it's hard to keep track. Business and mob... what a great synergy...

@CAC1001: Frankly I don't think this movement would have arisen if we had another white man in office, and the economy were not in the midst of tanking. It's the combination of those two factors that I believe unsettles people who would otherwise be calm enough to think, but now are essentially inflamed by the mob element airborne18 refers to.

The economy may have something to do with it, but I do not see them as "inflamed."

I'm not saying that widespread racism = millions who go home thinking "I hate that black guy", but I think it does have a psychological effect. People seem unsettled by this black man, and when you add economic turmoil all they express is hatred, distrust, and channel into pre-loaded bandwagons like the Tea Parties.

From what I have seen, there hasn't been much hatred at the Tea Parties. I also do not get why you think people seem "unsettled" by a black man being President.

You add in the manufactured fear that he's a "secret muslim", and that gives you a window into the other element of cultural fear: people are deeply unsettled by Islam right now. I don't think that this country would be in such a state if you knocked down a leg of that triangle, but as it is, people are scared, and frightened people tend to go to their baser natures.

The Tea Party is not made up of the "Obama is a Muslim!" "Obama was not born in the USA!" crowd. Sure, some of those types inhabit it, but not the majority.

For 8 years people have been told by an administration, and news (not just Fox, although they are the least subtle) to BE AFRAID, there's one and a half wars on, and the fear-mongering just gets ramped up. Be afraid of Islam, be afraid of terrorists, be afraid of the end of "the American way of life" (a fluid notion)... and now with so many having lost financial security they are viscerally terrified. People in that situation look to external factors to justify the level of fear and uncertainty, and some don't identify the correct targets, so we have Birthers, and bigots, and Evangelicals who've stopped thinking entirely in favor of "feeling".

Where did the Bush administration tell everyone to "be afraid" and engaged in fearmongering?

And yes, there are Birthers, and bigots, during the Bush years, we had a share of crazies too.

In the sense that fear and the reaction to it are fundamentally grassroots, I guess you could say that the Tea Party is a "grassroots" movement, but not from an organizational standpoint. The fear works its way up, and there are always people ready to make a buck or get some power through the generation and exploitation of that fear.

The thing is, the Tea Party is not grounded in fearmongering. These are not rallies of angry white yahoos being revved up by speakers who know how to work a crowd and get everyone paranoid.

It seems just that some people cannot understand why the people would calmly protest the current government. It isn't logical in their mind, so it must be something else, like fear, or racism, or anger, or something.

 

[airborne18]

Hmmm, I believe you, but damn it's hard to keep track. Business and mob... what a great synergy...

@CAC1001: Frankly I don't think this movement would have arisen if we had another white man in office, and the economy were not in the midst of tanking. It's the combination of those two factors that I believe unsettles people who would otherwise be calm enough to think, but now are essentially inflamed by the mob element airborne18 refers to.

I'm not saying that widespread racism = millions who go home thinking "I hate that black guy", but I think it does have a psychological effect. People seem unsettled by this black man, and when you add economic turmoil all they express is hatred, distrust, and channel into pre-loaded bandwagons like the Tea Parties. You add in the manufactured fear that he's a "secret muslim", and that gives you a window into the other element of cultural fear: people are deeply unsettled by Islam right now. I don't think that this country would be in such a state if you knocked down a leg of that triangle, but as it is, people are scared, and frightened people tend to go to their baser natures.

For 8 years people have been told by an administration, and news (not just Fox, although they are the least subtle) to BE AFRAID, there's one and a half wars on, and the fear-mongering just gets ramped up. Be afraid of Islam, be afraid of terrorists, be afraid of the end of "the American way of life" (a fluid notion)... and now with so many having lost financial security they are viscerally terrified. People in that situation look to external factors to justify the level of fear and uncertainty, and some don't identify the correct targets, so we have Birthers, and bigots, and Evangelicals who've stopped thinking entirely in favor of "feeling".

In the sense that fear and the reaction to it are fundamentally grassroots, I guess you could say that the Tea Party is a "grassroots" movement, but not from an organizational standpoint. The fear works its way up, and there are always people ready to make a buck or get some power through the generation and exploitation of that fear.

Do some searches on youtube. The tactic is the same all over, they go to the townhall events and shoutdown the congressperson with the birther nonesense.

Tea party events have almost no turnout, the 9/12 Patriot events with the wingnuts have a large turnout.

 

[Gokul43201]

I wasn't aware they had bad-mouthed Scott Brown.

I live in Massachusetts - maybe it's not well known. I'll see if I can dig up something to cite.

Edit: Here's one - http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/05/22/former_allies_tee_off_on_brown/

Senator Scott Brown yesterday drew scorn from former admirers who had hailed the Massachusetts Republican as a new voice for the conservative cause but now say he has abandoned them by joining Democrats to advance President Obama’s plan to overhaul the financial system.

As quickly as they had latched onto his campaign four months ago, they repudiated him yesterday through a flurry of blog posts, editorials, and Facebook messages.

“His career as a senator of the people lasted slightly longer than the shelf life of milk,’’ said Shelby Blakely, executive director of New Patriot Journal, the media arm of the Tea Party Patriots, which includes various Tea Party groups around the country. “The general mood of the Tea Party is, ‘We put you in, and we’ll take you out in 2012.’ This is not something we will forget.’’

 

[CAC1001]

I live in Massachusetts - maybe it's not well known. I'll see if I can dig up something to cite.

Edit: Here's one - http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/05/22/former_allies_tee_off_on_brown/

I don't know why the Tea Party people would feel that way; it was obvious from the start that Brown was not a strict conservative if I remember correctly; I believe he said he was okay with government healthcare, but just at the state level, not on the national level.

Also I think he is pro-choice?