Now the Tea Party crackpots are chasing away moderate (true) Republicans, what is next?

You cite Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Nelson Rockefeller, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and George H.W. Bush as examples of "moderate Republicans," and you ask us not to support the Tea Party movement because the Tea Partiers are not as "moderate" as they are. I think you need to check your premises.

The Tea Parties’ (plural, since there is no central leadership) main purpose is to oppose the catastrophic deficit spending that is being pushed through our federal government. None of the so-called moderates that you cite would have supported this level of spending either. So it seems that the government has gotten more radical in its spending and the Tea Partiers remain consistent with the economic thinking of the people you cite.

Even Teddy Roosevelt, who was an early progressive, would not have supported the spending binge that our government is indulging in currently. Roosevelt advocated unemployment insurance and regulation of the market place, but DID NOT believe in or advocate a policy of deficit spending. (See Source 1 below.)

According to the article cited below, the main focus of the Tea Party movement is the economy: "some 36 percent say it is their top issue." A Tea Party member is 3.5 times more likely to say that the national deficit and spending are top issues than a member of the voting public at large. The Tea Partiers oppose deficit spending; so did Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Ford.

Eisenhower advertised his economic program as "Dynamic Conservatism," or "modern Republicanism." His program’s main features were (1) Budget cutting; (2) Government support for big business; and (3) The return of federal functions back to state and local governments.

Eisenhower campaigned as a staunch opponent of deficit spending. He vetoed two public housing measures, two anti-recession public works projects, anti-pollution legislation, and an area redevelopment proposal in the name of deficit reduction. He did not ultimately achieve a balanced budget, but his spending was limited to a 3% borrowing rate. Miniscule compared to today’s budget.

Does Eisenhower sound more like a tea partier or like the democratic party?

His own words: “I will be a conservative when it comes to money matters and a liberal when it comes to human beings.” (See Source 2 below.)

Lincoln was actually more of a progressive, in that he favored heavy tariffs, “stimulus” type programs, and fiat money. Economists say 80 per cent of the costs imposed by these tariffs fell on the import-dependent southern states. In his inaugural speech, Lincoln explicitly promised these states that he would not invade them – provided they paid all “the duties and imposts” that the federal government levied on them. Back in those times, Lincoln’s high tariffs were considered to be the fundamental cause of the American Civil War, since the South was heavily dependent on foreign goods and severely crippled by the tariffs. Is this what you are asking modern Republicans to emulate? (See Source 3 below.)

According to a recent Winston Group poll, 17 percent of registered voters consider themselves a part of the Tea Party movement, and that they "are deeply concerned about the economy and jobs as we head toward the 2010 election." They are not “extreme right wingers” or “neocons”: 4 out of 10 self-identified Tea Party members aren’t even Republican, and a third don’t consider themselves conservative. Two-thirds of Tea Party members identify as conservatives but 26% say they are moderate and 8% described themselves as liberal. (See Source 4 below.)

They're not all "white males" either. 44% are female. More of them depend on CNN for news (14%) than on talk radio (10%).

So the Tea Party movement stands for fiscal conservatism and an end to the deficit spending, regardless of whether a Republican or a Democrat is responsible for it. Sounds pretty consistent with Mr. Eisenhower and with the party line of the traditional Republican, even if most were hypocritical about it (e.g., Nixon and Bush). So I believe you are wrong when you try to say they are out of step with the traditional moderate Republican economic worldview.

The Tea Party is not a party. There are no particular leaders.

It is a non-partisan movement that believes that the people have a right of peaceable assembly and the right to redress grievances. They are composed of the same people you'd see at a 4th of July family picnic.

Obviously such desires as freedom of speech and peaceable assembly are considered acts of war by Liberals, and therefore they will use all available Alinsky methods to slander, infiltrate, and destroy anybody who dares to disagree with them on issues.

RINOs are independents or democrats that chose to call themselves republican instead of liberal when the democratic party ceased to exist.

Considering how bad America has become because of liberal policies we do need to make sure whoever represents the right is as conservative as they come. No more spend happy's like Obama or Bush, government needs to be reformed back to what it was meant to be.

There was a time when Republicans, whether you agreed with them or not, acted like statesmen. It was the Grand Old Party. It is now an embarrassment.

the TEA party is not the lunatic fringe

it is made up of republicans, democrats and independents.

in fact 51% of the tea party is democrat/independent.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/Tea-Partiers-Fai...

ADD:

"their leadership is 100% crazy and delusional"

how so? What has their leadership done to warrant that branding? Sure there are some nuts in the crowd, but what is wrong with the message they profess?

What is wrong with getting govt spending under control?

That also describes the GOP. The Tea Party folks are so prone to attacking, I have no doubt they will continue to find fault even among themselves.

You are a radical liberal

we will take over in Nov and 2012

its all a con game, all a stage act for those who will believe it