Matters Of Opinion

What’s Not Being Said About the TEA Party

First, it should be noted that the image chosen caught my eye because as winter grows nearer my taste buds are calling out for a Sam Adam’s Winter Lager. Perhaps the best beer on the planet.

Anyways, I felt the need to write (or vent? or rant?) about how the TEA Party has sort of become the synonym for conservative and how the positives and negatives of this are already being felt.

The TEA Party thing was mostly started as a way for the “silent majority” to get together and protest fiscal issues; some dealing with taxation, some with spending, some with monetary manipulation, etc. Or, at least, that was my main understanding, and when I spoke at several of these that was primarily what I kept to. Sure, there were segments where I might have rambled into another issue here or there, but primarily, I kept it fiscal matters and didn’t deviate into other ideological spectrums because, well, not everybody who is a fiscal conservative is going to be socially conservative, or a defense hawk, or etc., etc. I was excited that there was a movement like this to veer the party into a fiscally disciplined direction, and the rhetoric that is coming from our presidential candidates are definitely reflecting those sentiments.

I remember talking to a couple of different buddies about whether or not some kind of strong leadership should be established with this, in order to make sure that it stayed on track; at the time, the consensus was that it was more exciting to see it be run as it was, just a group of like-minded people who spoke out against irresponsible fiscal behavior. Hind sight being 20/20, I think some kind of solid leadership should have been established. The main problem is that TEA Party is becoming a replacement for “conservative” (not in real life, but rather in the words or columnists, politicians, and news anchors). And that isn’t good, since there is so many different facets of the TEA Party.

The TEA Party in Pennsylvania is different from the one in Maine, which is different from the one in California, and so on and so on. Heck, the TEA party in Lake County here in Indiana had different rhetoric and direction than the one that was operating in Porter County, which had a very libertarian tone to it. That was the problem. Some TEA Parties focus only on fiscal issues, while others talk about defense, and others talk about social issues, and others talked about immigration. At the TEA Party Presidential debate, the question was asked whether or not somebody who did not have health insurance and was in an accident should die, and a couple of people in the crowd cheered…this did not look good for the TEA Party. Yes, I understand that this only makes up the couple of percent that fall into the fringe; but that couple of percent makes people who don’t know any better think that all conservative minded people fall into that category. At some TEA party’s there were people with shirts and signs with President Bush on it with “Miss me yet?” written as well, others had pictures of Bush and Obama side by side like they were the same person. There are Facebook groups that demand that the neoconservatives stop taking over the TEA Party, there are others that demand that Obama get tougher on defense.

Given the lack of congruency with this movement, it’s sort of troubling when people ask me, “So, are you part of the TEA Party?”

Because I don’t know what to say! I usually respond yes, just to make it simple, though Porter County has no active group and I had left the one that had been there before because I didn’t dig the whole “anti-vaccination” vibe that was happening. No hard feeling, just not my gig. Plus, I’m a conservative; so while fiscal issues do come first with me, and there are a whole host of other ones I’m willing and able to find middle ground on, social issues, along with defense and immigration, just to name a couple, do matter to me. BUT, with fiscal issues not being the only focus for the TEA Party, does that mean I’m, like, the perfect embodiment of the TEA Party? I don’t know, it’s sort of like arguing about whether or not one can travel through time (theoretically, a wormhole could be formed…but there is no amount of fuel that can travel faster than the speed of light…and what would happen if I killed my Grandpa? Ahhhh it’s so confusing!!!).

Over all, this isn’t necessarily a criticism of the TEA Party in general, since each organizer has (and should have) their right to run their ship as they want. But, it still is a bit of a misrepresentation when media starts throwing around the groups name, making is synonymous with conservatism. Though, in that respect, the recent “Flea Party” (the Wall Street Protesters) being compared to the TEA party makes sense. The wall street protesters have no idea what they are protesting, they have everyone from hardcore Communists to college drop outs to hippies and hipsters to Steelworkers. Many aspects of the media have compared this “movement” to the TEA party, and it sort of irked me at first, until I started to look at what was underneath: no organization, no clear cut message. Granted, I haven’t read any news stories saying that this was what they meant, and I probably won’t because it probably isn’t, but it works none the less.

A Country Boy Can Survive…

Monday Night Football may never be the same…

Hank Jr.’s “Are You Ready For Some Football?!” intro to Monday night’s NFL game is…well…legendary. For as long as I can remember Junior has introduced the Monday Night Football game, but tonight that has stopped. ESPN decided that, because Hank Jr. made remarks of a political nature on Fox’s “Fox and Friends”, that his intro would no longer run.

Now, ESPN has a rule: No announcer will go on television to talk about politics, one way or another. And that’s a fine rule, nobody wants to watch their football game and have to deal with that person jamming his or her’s politics down their throat. But, Hank isn’t an announcer; he’s just a musician who does the intro to MNF…does that really count?

Apparently it does. I sit here watching MNF (I don’t know why, a Manning-less Colts vs. the Bucs is a pretty sorry game no matter how it goes) and the exclusion of the classic theme song was definitly sorely missed. Certainly this decision is exclusively up to ESPN, no question about that. Is it within their rights to exclude Hank? Sure. But I still think that it’s a hypocritical one.

After all, how many times have people who have been decidedly liberal sang the National Anthem? I know the Dixie Chicks have, and the Black Eyed Pea’s have played half time shows, and those are just the first two that pop into my head! Granted, Junior’s words about Obama were pretty harsh. He used a “Hitler analogy”, and that NEVER goes over well, even if one is making a really great point.

And I mean, really, who DIDN’T KNOW that Hank Junior was conservative?

Anybody?

That’s what I thought. It’s not a secret, it never has been. I think that this decision has more to do with WHAT he said (regarding the Hitler analogies) and less about the fact that he was talking politics. If that was their case, ok, but that isn’t the reasoning that they gave. They tried to lump Hank into the same category as the announcers, and that just doesn’t sit well with me. (Also, as a side note, Hank Junior said in that same interview that he will probably be running for Senate, as a Republican.)

I think that, though it is within the rights of that particular broadcasting group to make whatever decisions that they want regarding theme songs or whatever, in the long run it will kick them in the butt. I know I wasn’t the only person in America that was missing the theme song, and I know that Hank Junior himself is an immensely popular artist (in my own opinion not as good as his father, but that’s another article itself) and his fans are livid about this.

I hope that whoever made that decision over at ESPN changes their mind, because Monday night just won’t be the same without Bocephus.