Tea Party

Slight Upswing in Tea Party Favorability Amidst IRS Scandal

|

Amidst recent revelations that the IRS targeted conservative groups, there has been a slight upswing in public favorability toward the tea party movement. A CNN/ORC poll conducted May 17-18 found 37 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of the tea party movement, up from 28 percent in March. Favorability toward the tea party has not been this high since July 2011. This, however, has not translated into more support for the movement itself, with support remaining steady since before the November elections.

While Reason-Rupe found 27 percent of adult Americans considered themselves "a supporter of the tea party movement" in September 2012, this number stands at 25 percent in May 2013.

Although most Americans do not identify with the tea party social movement, a May ABC/Washington Post poll found nearly three-fourths of Americans thought it was "inappropriate" for the IRS to "single out some conservative political groups for extra questions about their tax status." A majority (56 percent) also viewed this extra focus as a "deliberate effort to harass these groups" rather than an "administrative mistake". CNN/ORC found a majority (54 percent) believes Republicans in Congress are "reacting appropriately" to the matter, while 42 percent say they are overreacting.

NEXT: Fort Hood Shooter Defense: Preventing Harm from Coming to Taliban Fighters

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Are people beginning to realize that all the claims about the Tea Party being racist were just slanderous lies from the state media?

    1. Of course the TP is racist. Who but a racist would go gaga over Herman Cain, who is not a true Scotsman socialist Christian African-American?

      1. They’re an organization whose favorite economists include Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell, who like Benjamin Carson, and who supported politicians like Herman Cain, Marco Rubio, Tim Scott and Ted Cruz.

        Fucking racist baggers.

    2. I’m not sure about “people,” but acquaintances of mine are still carrying all the proglodyte claims of the tea baggers.

  2. I find it incredible that a movement largely aimed at preventing government economic abuse, by either party, has a much lower favorability rating than the worst president in decades. Presiding over the least exciting economy since the early 80s.

    I have my own problems with the Tea Party and its politics, but I’d rather have them fighting their fight than everyone simply accepting the status quo.

    1. A large percentage of people who dislike the Tea Party do so because they’ve been told that they’re evil, depraved racists.

      Whenever I hear someone attacking the Tea Party, it’s never about anything the TP has actually done, it’s about some lie that the media told about them.

      A solid 70% of anti-Tea Party people hate them because they’ve bought various lies about the Tea Party being racist.

      1. They’re anti-government. As we all know, if you don’t want something to be done by government, then you don’t want it to be done at all. If the Tea Baggers had their way there would be no schools, no roads, no bridges, no welfare, no nothing. That’s what anti-government means.

      2. I’m regularly stunned at how far people will go to avoid reality. I shouldn’t be, but I honestly don’t understand why people think their delusions are more important than actuality.

        The left is extra bad about this, though anyone too caught up in partisanship has to have the problem to some extent.

        1. It is natural to make decisions and then rationalize the reasons afterwards. Libertarians are unusual with that regard, in adhering to principles and logic. Most people don’t do that.

        2. There are no penalties–no direct ones–for being delusional in most people’s worlds at this point (this is of course speaking for first world countries). In fact, one might think that the reason statists are so hell-bent of having the government cradle-to-grave everyone is to enable as much delusion as possible. Because it’s the delusional who empower the politicians and the statists.

          When you can believe, for example, that trillions upon trillions of debt has no consequences, and then you experience no consequences so far from it, it’s very easy to be delusional.

          1. It’s occurred to me that our relative affluence makes it easy and relatively consequence-free to be stupid. Couple that with socialism and welfare, and the ability to overcome poor decision-making becomes even greater.

            I suppose one big question is whether we can have this kind of affluence without losing our sense. Is it a flaw too many of us have?

            1. The greater the affluence, the more there is for the government to steal. The more the government steals, the more people it needs to buy off to outnumber those who they are stealing from. The more it steals, the bigger the government gets. The bigger the government gets, the more motivation it has to propagandize the wonders of statism and massive government. The more people it buys off, the greater the number of people who are free to be delusional. And so on.

              It’s a definite problem. In too many humans, affluence breeds complacency, delusion, and passivity.

              1. tl;dr

                1. Oh, you editors are so superior, aren’t you? Well, would you like to know what you’d be without us, the good old commenters to write stuff for you? I’ll tell you. The smallest fucking blog in the internet, that’s what! So don’t call me long-winded, lady. Just thank me.

                  1. I’ll thank you when you get my jokes about affluence breeding complacency and passivity.

                    1. Jokes are supposed to be funny, Nicole.

                    2. Are you saying women can’t be funny, Irish?!?

              2. So, you’re advocating austerity as a solution to our problems?

                1. I look forward to the Government spending lots of money on something they call Austerity and Paulie Krugnutz then using that to show that Austerity is again a failure.

      3. Whenever I hear someone attacking the Tea Party, it’s never about anything the TP has actually done, it’s about some lie that the media told about them.

        I’ve noticed the same thing about most attacks on Ayn Rand.

        1. Well, I do think she had rape-fantasy issues.

          1. Lots of women have rape fantasies. I don’t see it as an issue. I’d be willing to bet that the most successful a woman is, the more likely she is to have rape fantasies or fantasies about being completely dominated in the sack.

            Or, I could just be projecting.

            1. I see. Tell me more about you mother. And your father.

            2. Or, I could just be projecting.

              Or not.

              1. You and me – birds of a feather, I think. 🙂

                1. Figures that women who hang out with libertarians are rape-lovers. I blame Warty.

            3. That tends to be what I hear from my lady-friends.

            4. I’d be willing to bet that the most successful a woman is, the more likely she is to have rape fantasies or fantasies about being completely dominated in the sack.

              Sort of like the powerful, type-A CEO who sees a dominatrix in his free time.

              1. Isn’t the popular formulation

                X on the streets, Y in the sheets?

                Such as: Butch on the streets, femme in the sheets

                1. You girls who like dominant men, you’re in luck. I have just the guy for you.

                  Choking is also a useful indicator of your alphaness

                  1. This cannot be serious. It’s some kind of satire, right?

                    1. Shut up, pussy. You’re just jelly ‘cuz you never take vaginas to newfound widths.

                    2. The comments suggest it is super serious.

            5. It’s better than being the worlds funniest woman and suffering from rape persecution fantasies.

          2. Like every other woman?

        2. Yes. But making an intelligent critique of Rand’s writing or thinking would require actually reading her books. And liberals just are not real big on that whole book learning thing.

        3. I’ve noticed the same thing about most attacks on Ayn Rand.

          Unless they attack Ayn Rand for her creepy love of rape and her terrible writing. Both of those complaints are pretty accurate.

          1. No they’re not. I’ve read everything up to and including The Fountainhead and She’s no worse and probably better than the other Russian lit I’ve read. She’s WAY the hell better than whoever wrote Fathers and Sons.

            Re rape: well…we’ve got a guy on H&R who would pay ten grand to sodomize Dora so…whatever.

            1. Dude, Turgenev is amazing.

            2. The Fountainhead and She’s no worse and probably better than the other Russian lit I’ve read.

              Are you really going to argue that Ayn Rand’s writing is on par with Dostoevsky, Nikolai Gogol or Vladimir Nabokov?

              I don’t know how people can think Rand is a good writer. 20 page speeches filled with the purplest of purple prose is not my idea of good writing.

              1. I started skipping the speeches when I read Atlas Shrugged. It was a much better story without someone constantly retreading the action with superfluous exposition. It was frustrating because she constantly pulled you out of an entertaining narrative to tell make sure you were picking up what she was putting down.

                1. I skip the speeches, too. I got the message without reading them.

                  I like her well enough, having read several of her books multiple times. But she’s not the greatest writer of all time, either.

                  1. Yep – I skipped all the speeches on re-reading, too, but there are some decent soundbites embedded in them.

                    I skipped the speeches (or one big speech?) in The Jungle also, even though I quite enjoyed the story in general.

                2. I read John Galt’s speech for the first time when I was on an interstate that was closed due to a major accident. The sea of cars surrounding mine, all trapped and unable to move for nearly an hour created a wonderful emotional back-drop for the speech, especially since people were turning off their engines as they waited and it got quieter and quieter, like civilization going away leaving a vacuum behind.

                  I had just finished the speech when I heard engines starting up up the road, signaling that they were starting to open up the road again.

                  1. I’ve read the speeches. I just don’t re-read them.

              2. I haven’t read AS. I have read Crime and Punishment and it was pretty good but not great. I slightly prefer it to Fountainhead. I haven’t read Gogol or Nabokov. Turgenev is execreble F&S is the worst shit I’ve ever read. Her writing is just fine but I prefer her earlier works.

                1. Read the Brothers Karamazov cytoxic. That is a great novel in every sense of the term.

          2. A girlfriend of mine read The Fountainhead and surprised me when she said there was no rape. She said it was perfectly obvious by Dominique’s actions and words that the scene with Roark happened exactly as Dominique wanted it to happen. If you go back and re-read the actual scene, well, she’s right.

            1. Yes, I read it that way, too. But there’s no doubt Rand wrote sex as crazy violent. Something a little off there, most likely.

              1. I tried to get my roommate to read AS with enticements of sexy times, her bf at the time read it instead and just read the sexy-time bits to her.

              2. She was a narcissist. I understand that sex with them is often like BPD sex: awesome-crazy.

        4. Most of the attacks on Ayn Rand I’ve seen were textbook ad hominems.

          1. Most of them amount to “she was icky, she had an affair on her husband, and she embraced selfishness”. The funny part is that Rand at heart is an esthetic Romanticist, “die for your art and truth” kind of thing, which liberals all claim to love.

            1. Or they attack a straw man of individualism by saying individualists oppose any and all collective action, refusing to understand that individualists embrace and celebrate collective action so long as it is voluntary and not coerced.

              1. What is funny about that, is that at the same time they do that, they tell themselves they are romantics and they love the idea of a person sacrificing for art or the truth.

                If you ever want to really fuck with a liberal sometime, bait them a bit with some talk about art and truth. Ask them about the nobility of an artists destroying one of his creations because it is going to be misused. You know, maybe say an architect burning down a building he designed.

                They will never know what hit them.

                1. I know a few executives who are hardcore lefties that really like Atlas Shrugged. What they like is the idea that they are living gods that should play by their own rules. The idea that other people should have such freedoms are, of course, absolutely anathema.

                  1. Modern Liberalism-not so much ‘Progressivism’, which is broader-grows in the fertile soil of narcissism. That’s why FB is full of those people. I like the idea that ‘we’ are hidden because we can shut up and look around while they can’t.

                  2. “What they like is the idea that they are living gods that should play by their own rules.”

                    ^This.

                    My first experience with Objectivists was basically assholes who believed they could be whatever fuckheads they wanted just as long as they could rationalize it in their twisted minds. They were your typical person saddled with confirmation bias, but they believed Objectivism was license to ignore it.

                    It was amazing when I actually studied the subject myself and got past the first impression I had.

                2. If you ever want to really fuck with a liberal sometime, bait them a bit with some talk about art and truth.

                  Someone knows his Prime of Miss Jean Brodie, eh?

        5. I can count on one hand the number of non-Objectivists I’ve seen thoughtfully criticize Ayn Rand, honestly attempting to understand what she actually said and respond to arguments she actually made:

          Robert Nozick
          Michael Huemer
          Michael Shermer

          There may be more, but I’d have to have a long think. (There are philosophers who don’t self-identify as Objectivists but who are close enough that I wouldn’t count them here.)

  3. what happened after Sept 2010? When the Dems lost the House?

    1. I figure it was the time the Tea Party terrorized the president by burning that cross on the White House lawn.

      1. makes sense if you really think about it, dude.

        1. I know I cried that day. Cried for America, which hates the black man. The Secret Service stood by and applauded. Jesus.

      2. I thought that was a lower case t, which stood for “time to get out.”

        1. No. TEA stands for The Evil Americans.

        2. It’s a big ‘T’ for Tolerance. It’s a ‘T’ for Truth. Most of all, it’s a big ‘T’ for Togetherness.

  4. You’re not supposed to call it a scandal unless you use either scare quotes or “so-called.” I learned that in the legacy media.

    1. Wait.. there was a scandal?

      1. Only if you listen to the rethuglican liars on faux news. Can you imagine those people who think the government can’t do whatever it wants when its only goal is to keep us safe?

      2. No, no, you’re doing it wrong. Sneer, look down your nose, and say, “Oh, that so-called scandal? How pathetic you are to believe such racist claptrap.”

      3. There aren’t even any links on Drudge, or anywhere else that I’ve seen, anymore.

        Apparently the right people have been paid off, threatened, whatever. It seems to be over. Obama and his entire administration survive how many? 2, 3 more scandals, without even a scratch?

        Maybe a couple of very low level folks got under the bus, and that’s it?

        I said, after Fast and Furious, that they could get away with anything now, and apparently, sadly, that is the case.

        1. The secretly sent thousands of guns to Mexico for the purpose of them being used in crimes which could then be used as justification for more US gun control laws. And they ordered the killing of an American teenager.

          So yeah, at this point there is nothing they couldn’t do and get away with it. And I think they have figured this out. Expect it to get much worse and them to get even more brazen.

          1. Expect it to get much worse and them to get even more brazen

            That’s exactly what I expect.

            1. And it has probably gone past the point of no return for their supporters. To turn on Obama now is to admit that you have been wrong for five years and have supported someone who has done untold damage to the country. And few people have the integrity to do that, and certainly no one in the media.

              1. Not necessarily. Obama’s approval rating has already dropped to 45% as of the last poll that I saw. That’s only half a year after his re-election.

                I could see the wheels completely coming off the second term. His approval ratings are no better right now than Bush’s were at the same time.

                1. Todays Susan Rice appointment seems to have really turned up some people’s ‘cynic meter’, so I don’t think BO has hit the bottom yet.

          2. I don’t know about that. The scandals have not dissapeared. This admin is pretty broken.

            1. I would like to think that they are going to go down in a spectacular ball of flames. Time will tell. But I do know this. They think they can get away with anything and we are going to find out if they are right.

              1. Exactly this. The stuff they will pull now, will probably be shocking even to us who fully expect it.

        2. No the scandals are still alive, and this time, some of the major media outlets are actually digging.

          These things take time. The Watergate break-in to the resignation spanned a period of more than two years.

  5. http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013…..our-place/

    This woman’s speech before Congress was pretty fucking awesome.

    I am not here as a serf or vassal. I am not begging my lords for mercy. I’m a born free American woman, wife, mother and citizen. And I’m telling my government that you’ve forgotten your place. It’s not your responsibility to look out for my well-being, and to monitor my speech. It’s not your right to assert an agenda. Your post, the post that you occupy, exists to preserve American liberty. You’ve sworn to perform that duty. And you have faltered.

  6. …or slight downtick in unfavorability. You know, depending on how you look at it. And all.

  7. OT: Obamas not used to hecklers.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..ead_module

  8. lol, Tea Parties are for little girls with invisible friends!

    http://www.WorldPrivacy.tk

    1. Talk about an invisible friend!

  9. everyone are intered in jerseys can feel free to
    http://mallsjersey.blogspot.com/ to us or go to our shop
    http://modernjerseys.org/ to know about jerseys details.
    1,nfl nike jerseys 1=22$,5=21$
    2,nhl jerseys 1=33.79$,5=32.9$
    3,mlb jerseys 1=17.3$/pcs,5=16.5$
    4,nba jerseys 1=19$,5=18.5$
    5,ncaa jerseys 1=17.3$,5=16.5$
    6,soccer jerseys 21$/pcs
    and other items price here.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.