There was a survey in the New York Times recently, wherein the Tea Partiers described themselves as smart, above average wealth and white male.
Now, I know it's a survey, but why publish it if you flat out know it to be untrue? So, at least these writers, believed the survey.
From the article:
Tea Party supporters' fierce animosity toward Washington, and the president in particular, is rooted in deep pessimism about the direction of the country and the conviction that the policies of the Obama administration are disproportionately directed at helping the poor rather than the middle class or the rich.
The overwhelming majority of supporters say Mr. Obama does not share the values most Americans live by and that he does not understand the problems of people like themselves. More than half say the policies of the administration favor the poor, and 25 percent think that the administration favors blacks over whites; compared with 11 percent of the general public.
Really? May I have your sources please?
There is also an interactive feature showing some of the Tea Party movement and what they have to say. I particularly thought "Roach McCracken" represented the educated, wealthy quite well. He's a thirty something musician from Boston and his hat, while unusual, could have cost a lot. Then nine of the 20 people shown were women, while they said the "party" consisted mostly of educated white males... but hey, they didn't say they could count... just that they were educated.
Calling the people in the tea party movement "wealthy, educated and white male" and then showing the clips of the representatives of the group, they just do not look to be any of those three, although they may be well educated. But they are not straight out of "Town & Country." In fact another article I read about them recently described the overwhelming amount of evangelical prayer associated with the Tea Party that one young woman attended. And, although I don't have proof, I have yet to personally see a tea party rally where all of the signs were spelled correctly. Although, I suppose, they could all be as rich as Paris Hilton, may be on the way to her house for all I know, after.
But in fact, they do look more like angry evangelicals. If my sister weren't too poor, to old (finally) and too discouraged to rage for the rapture, as she did in her younger days, she would tell you that she is very angry that she didn't get all the riches promised her over 20 years by many an evangelical "preacher." The harder it got to recruit the more they promised. These days it's all "the man is the master", vote our way and then we can get some rock and roll going, talk a little sex, get a little high on adrenaline. The tea party crowd looks and sounds to me like someone who was promised a lot and then, like Haiti, told that if they were poor and a disaster happened, it must be their fault.
Yesterday, I got Time magazine in the mail. They named the 100 most influential people in America. It included Sarah Palin with Ted Nugent writing the story about her. Yick, speaking of... Where is Toddy these days? Has she quit toting him around altogether?
All of this gives me that same feeling you get when watching the local weatherperson saying there will be no rain this weekend... and you look outside to see it pouring. I keep seeing the tea party crowds on TV and it just seems to me that a lot of those signs don't show a great command of the art of spelling and pulling up in limo's--they just don't scream "Harvard" to me. Well, here... see what you think...
Okay, I'll give you Roach McKracken, he does look smart and wealthy... but the rest... not so much. I'm pretty glad that "Mr. Obama" does not share their views. I love America and am tired of all this... "pick up a mop" as they say.