Please Tell Me The Difference Between The Neo Tea Party And The Neocon Republicans?

I was wondering what the difference is,

At first, it was Ron Paul's Tea Party based on Taxation.

Then it became a Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Malkin, GOP, Right Winger Party.

These NEW Tea Party types seem to love war, love them some Jesus, hate them some Muslims, support policies which legislate 'morality', they seem to think this is a "Christian" nation, support Israel, hate Iran....etc.

The media keeps saying that the Tea Party is the thorn in the side of the Republicans..

Every time I hear this though I think...."But they are even more REPUBLICAN then previous republicans". Actually, they seem even MORE right wing than previous "Wingers". The Neocons moved under a new tent.

Is there some difference I am missing? They hijacked Ron Paul's movement and I want it back. What the hell is going on here?

I don't think there really is a difference.

I think it's a scam.

GOP is politician led
Tea Party is people-led

HUGE difference!

any other questions?

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
GOP is politician led
Tea Party is people-led

HUGE difference!

any other questions?

GOP is politician led...and the Tea Party is "people" led. Yet both have the same ideals. Gotchya

It has been hijacked because it was a threat to the status quo. Once people like beck and palin started saying they were tea party, it was overtaken by the TPTB. That's why we need to get away from these labels everyone likes to tag people with. Stop voting for the party or label and start voting for the people. Im not voting at all, I'm finished with this crap.

Namaste

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
GOP is politician led
Tea Party is people-led

HUGE difference!

any other questions?

I personally disagree.

Palin commands 100K per speech...which is ludicrous and not bourne of the people she is pandering to.

Every political party/demonstration/affiliation is just a social circle of people with like minds.

To answer the OP...there is no difference. Labels destroy collaborative thought...

My opinion...

I just have a suspicion that all the previous Neocons who were too embarrassed to admit they supported Bush, needed a new hideout.

And voila, you have the "Tea Party"....same Right Wingers....different mask.

reply to post by MemoryShock


I agree about labels. Yet I can only argue using the label because it is a subject. They chose the label, so if they're going to use it, I want to know what makes them different from the previous label/brand?

I compare the 'platform' of the NEO Tea Party vs. the Neocon Republicans previously. It's basically the same thing. The media is portraying the Tea Party as some new enigma never seen before?

I do Internet Marketing. I've seen guys take a previous e-book, wrap it up under a different logo, name, and "e-book cover"....same content, same author...yet sell it for even MORE than it's original price.

Re-branding = as old as humans themselves.

Originally posted by Prove_It_NOW
GOP is politician led...and the Tea Party is "people" led. Yet both have the same ideals. Gotchya

GOP is currently mostly big govt., Tea Party is not, therefore Tea Party is kinda of Anti-Big Govt. and therefore somewhat Anti-GOP.

Originally posted by MemoryShock
Palin commands 100K per speech...which is ludicrous and not bourne of the people she is pandering to.

Most Tea Partiers are pro-issues, Palin is pro-soap-opera
Where is that money coming from, do you have any links?

Originally posted by MemoryShock
Every political party/demonstration/affiliation is just a social circle of people with like minds.

To answer the OP...there is no difference. Labels destroy collaborative thought...

But that means that any form of revolution is nothing more than a group of rebellious like-minded people
And that the current state of corruption should just continue and people who agree with you should just remain stoic about every bad thing going on today.

Of course you agree that is not the correct course of action am I correct?

The mere fact that the media is only focusing on a minority and possibly planted racist picket signs and not focusing on the issues that the Tea Party really addresses is a huge sign that they are afraid of a growing threat to the establishment.

Just like Rachel Maddow who tried to focus on an illusion of racism with Rand Paul and his comments on the civil war.

I just love how people who don't identify themselves with the Tea Party movement seem to know everything about it. I was watching Hardball on MSNBC and Chris Matthews and all his Democratic guests were having a blast telling people what the Tea Party is really all about. That just cracks me up.

The difference is this. The Republicans and Democrats both have small more radical loud elements. They use them as attack dogs and then sweep them under the rug later as both parties know America is in the cemter and to get votes thats where the need to be. The Tea Party is something different to whomever joins it. It has no platform thus attracts all kinds of people with all kinds of views many of the in direct conflict with others (like say cutting spending but keeping huge military spending). It attacks everything. This is a short term boom for the party as everyone thinks that their agenda is the way the party will go. This is also its long term weakness if it last long enough to set a platform. Once you start trying to cut gov you tick off certain elements. Cut defense you loose support, cut Medicade/Medicare you loose support, raise the age of social security you loose support. In the end people say cut spending just as long as it is spending the do not support. Its a catch 22 that will ruin them long term.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Okay well I agree the main line GOP, during Bush, turned into Big Government lovers, and that the Tea Party (says) they want smaller government....so that's one thing.

But I went over to Wikipedia and found this en.wikipedia.org... for the "Tea Party Movement".

Their "platform" reads as following:

1. Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. (82.03%)
2. Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control carbon dioxide emissions by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of carbon dioxide. (72.20%)
3. Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification. (69.69%)
4. Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words – the length of the original Constitution. (64.9%)
5. Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities. (63.37%)
6. Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%)
7. Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Defund, repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (56.39%)
8. Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation. (55.5%)
9. Reduce Earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%)
10. Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend current temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011. (53.38%)"

This platform seems AWESOME...I would get on board with it.


YET when I hear the the loudest mouthpieces representing them (Glenn Beck for instance) I hear:

1) Support for the ongoing War On Terror (most)
2) Support for Israel (most)
3) Support for integration of church and state on policy (many)
4) Suspicion or hatred of Muslims (many)
5) Obsession with Obama's birth ( Most)
6) Constant interjection of "This country was founded on Christian principles"(Most)
7) Constant talk about "morality" and the hinting of legislating it.(Enough)

Now, I know there is the TEA PARTY. Let's face it, Ron Paul started it and anything stated otherwise is a lie, even it's own Wikipedia Page.

Let's also not lie to ourselves that Right Wingers hijacked it, led by Glenn Beck as the national spokesman.

Let's also not BS ourselves that 5 years ago you could find Bush supporters everywhere. But for some reason I can't find anyone who actually ADMITS they supported Bush. Yet coincidentally, we have a bunch of people who claims to be "Tea Party" folks.

There's a connection.

Look at the latest "O'Donnel Tea Party victory. She's basically another Sarah Palin, and they're LOVING her.

So is the "REAL" Tea Party just Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin types?

If so, it's in BIG trouble.

Let's just cut the crap about the Tea Party being "leaderless" too. We know who 'leads' them. We know who basically gives them their spark. We know who can make them show up in the MILLIONS at events. We know who insulted Ron Paul only later to agree with him, only later to disagree again, only later to RE-BRAND it into his own idea

Just call it the Beck Palin Party and cut the S**T already.

Never heard it referred to as the Neo Tea Party.
The main difference is that the Tea Party is anti incumbent and the other is pro incumbent.
Why do you think Karl Rove is freaking out?
The Tea Party stands for true conservatism so there is nothing RINO about.

reply to post by Prove_It_NOW


This is actually a sad story for all the people who saw a glimmer of hope to break the two party system. The people (under Ron P’s lead) started a movement. The existing political parties saw this new movement and knew they were in trouble. The democrats brushed the new movement as radical, fringe lunatics via the media.

The republican’s needed a new vessel to reinvent their party so they infiltrated the Tea Party with the lure of financing and press. This gave the Democrats more fodder to paint the movement as further right than republicans. Hence we should only look at Democratic or Republicans for office. Any other choice is, “Too extreme.” Hence the two party system is intact.

You got to remember these Politicians are all buddies in the same club, and you are not a member. They run in the same circles of the wealthiest people around.

As to the question, “Tell Me the Difference between The Neo Tea Party and the Neocon Republicans.” The Tea Party mouth pieces are the unelectable from the Republican party.

Originally posted by Alxandro
Never heard it referred to as the Neo Tea Party.
The main difference is that the Tea Party is anti incumbent and the other is pro incumbent.
Why do you think Karl Rove is freaking out?
The Tea Party stands for true conservatism so there is nothing RINO about.

Oh hey, how's it going? You're the guy that started the "why the Muslims are gonna git us" thread. Righteoooo

Anywho,

"Neo" means NEW. As in, the TEA PARTY was RON PAUL'S creation circa 2006, but I wouldn't expect you to know that.

Okay so the Tea Party is "anti incumbent". That's awesome, so am I. But what is the difference if the people they support have the same 'values' as the GOP status quo?

True conservatism is being Pro War, Pro Israel, Pro Empire, Anti Muslim?

Originally posted by Alxandro

The Tea Party stands for true conservatism so there is nothing RINO about.

Depends on who you ask,

some people consider Palin a RINO of the worst magnitude

reply to post by Absum!


You have given one of the most concise, thought out, and simply clean answers to almost ANY question I've posed on ATS.

Thank You.

If Palin is anywhere in the billing or supporters list, it's the fascist wing of big govt.
(The socialist wing is in power currently)

No difference between the two, other than how you choose to perceive them. Fasocialist Republicrats is how I see them.

The true "Tea Party Movement" is about less power in the hands of a few, more local determination, and less intervention into private affairs.

Adherence to the law of the land, a constitution our forefathers agreed to follow, protect and serve.

An agreement to never intervene in another countries politics, and for the military to protect our borders FROM INSIDE OUR BORDERS, and not 1/2 way around the world.

You would have called us "Confederates" not long ago, before "These United States" became "The United States".

Not so subtle a difference, though many refuse to notice.