I'm not making any of this up

I'm glad you clarified the post, I was ready to laugh at the contintuation of the joke.

Sarah Palin's popularity grows. She'll be the keynote speaker at the Orange County, Florida (Orlando) annual Lincoln Day Dinner. They are increasing the price from $150 to $250. They are planning for 1,500 attendees but the venue will hold up to 3,000.

‘We’re just incredibly lucky,” said party Chairman Lew Oliver. “She’s a real rock star for Republicans.”

OMG! Our country is going bat-shit crazy.

Tom Tancredo went full nutter this afternoon. He just called for a return of Jim Crow laws.

Is this the forming of a new party? The Tea Party? Or a new wing of the Republican Party? Or a movement,not interested in Party,but a new direction for the country?

A new Party?

Some speakers have dropped saying the Tea Party movement & simply say,the Tea Party.

So there are some interested in forming a new party for 2010 & beyond.

A new Party would entail studying the myrad of the 50 state
laws to become a official Party & that would cost money.

Maybe interest in forming a new Party but once folks discover
the difficults of actually becoming a new Party..may not be able to put the time & effort to becoming a full fledged national Party.

OTH,some state's laws are not as difficult as Tennessee's to becoming a Party.Some states may have a official Tea Party,others,not so much.

A new wing of the Republican Party?

I was struck by one speaker,a radio fellow from Memphis,who was hitting all the sweet spots of a populist movement.Then he ask everyone from Tennessee to stand up.And invited them all to reception for Ron Ramsey.

Additionally,many speakers urged everyone to vote in the Republican primaries & the expressed the goal of taking over the Republican Party.

A new movement?

This is where it gets tricky.Many commented on the Knoxville Tea Party thread,in April,that this was not a partisan movement.It was about both the Democrats & the Republicans ignoring their concerns.And that,I believe,is where the Tea Party movement energy is.We don't want a new political party or become a new wing of the Republican Party.We're just "mad as hell & aren't going to take it more."

Some speakers were Tea Party movement folks & disscussed keeping the movement non partisan.Hold candidate forums & print election guides & keep every candidate,regardless of Party,accountable.

Trouble Brewing?

The trouble I see brewing in the Tea Party movement is:

As the movement attempts to become a political structure it may diffuse the engery of the movement because as a movement it is unstuctured & no matter what folks specfic beefs are they can support Tea Party events because "they are mad as hell & aren't going to take it anymore."

1.Some people being people will define what a real Tea Party patriot is.Nothing to with ideology but more:I've been going to meetings & making phone calls & ringing doorbells.If you want to join us & be a real Tea Party patriot,you must attend weekly meetings & make x number of phone calls & ring x number of doorbells.If you don't want to fill out this form of all the contacts you've made & attend weekly meetings you are a "sunshine Tea Party patriot".That will turn off "mad as hell" folks & those folks won't come back.

2.Those that want to start a new Party will begin to form a platform.Some specfics of the platform will splinter off "mad as hell" folks.Plus,in some places,radicals could
take over the platform process & scare off "mad as hell" folks.

3.Many will resent the politicians trying to hijack the Tea Party movement to extend their political power within the Republican Party.For example,I cited the speaker pushing a reception for Ron Ramsey.Lt.Governor Ramsey is a politicain.Been elected to the state house & senate & now is Lt.Governor & trying to win the Republican nomination for governor.The "mad as hell" folks aren't going to cotton to those political folks pushing an old Republican pol..when they believe pols,from both Parties,are the problem.

3.As long as it is the Tea Party movement,"mad as hell" folks can vote against politics as usual.That's what they did in Mass with Scott Brown & the folks @ the Tea Party Convention sure played up their role in winning Mass.BUT..Come on..what % of the folks attending the Tea Party Convention are libertines? And Scott Brown's a bit of a libertine.After all he posed for a nude pin up & is proud of it!

4.As I've commented before the Tea Party movement must be like Reagan in '80 & not like Goldwater in '64.

IMO,the Tea Party movement,right now,is a powerful political force.

Will the Tea Party movement become a gale force in the elections of November of2010?

Or an April thunderstorm;that effects one while it's happening
but fogotten about when it's over?

Bill, this is nothing like anything that's been seen since the "Birth of a Nation" was at the Bijou. I am always amused at your "compare it back to 19XX" bits. Remember, they are not shooting anybody ... yet.

I've just always dug reading about elections.

I'm fascinated by the fact that,in '64,in Mass.,Goldwater recieved 24% of the vote,but,in 1980 & 1984,Mass.went for Reagan.Metulj,I reckon you are amused by my 19XX bits & that's cool but riddle me this..on issues,very little difference between Reagan & Goldwater..so how does one explain Reagan winning Mass & Goldwater getting only 24%? I believe the answer to the riddle is the '64 Republican Convention.

And I contend,if the Tea Party folks want to win elections, they will act more like Reagan & less like Goldwater.

Us baby boomers & our 19XX bits.In fact one of our 19XX bits is starring @ todays Super Bowl.

Talkin' 'Bout My Generation..Baby!!!!

I don't write well enough convey that I don't believe that because this happened,therefore,the result will be thus.I simply don't know.But I enjoy sharing my thoughts about a subject I've always dug,elections & the history of campaigns.And my opinion of how that reflects on the future.

With respect to the 1964 Republican Convention,I would argue the Convention was viewed,by the voters,as a disaster.
Futhermore,the voters also viewed,the 1968,'72 & '80 Democratic Conventions & the '92 Republican Convention as
disasters.None of those nominees won.And though maybe not a disaster,the 1976 Republican Convention was contentious & the nominee lost.

I guess it is post hoc to argue if the Tea party movement creates a 2012 Republican Convention that is contentious or the voters view as a disaster that the Republican nominee will,for sure, lose.

History says,yes,in the last 48 years that's what happened.

But it would be fallacy to say it will happen.

In 1948,the Democratic Convention was contentious & some have written it was a disaster but the nominee won.

Did TV have anything to do with contentious/disasterous conventions spelling doom for the nominees? Don't know but alot more TVs around in the last 1/2 century than in 1948.

Metulj,I enjoy Knoxviews & I like tossing around what's on my mind.Don't think I'm changing the world or changing anybody's thinking.So if you believe it's just a bunch of post hoc bullshit..I got no problem with you thinking that.

BTW..is it post hoc to argue Goldwater,therefore Reagan,therefore the '94 Republican Revolution?

Maybe post hoc to say because of Goldwater,Reagan & the '94 Republican..therefore the Tea party movement?

Or is the Tea party movement only the result of Obama's
election?

Thats fine.I like the history of campaigns & how they link over time.I've been active in the Democratic Party for 38 years & volunteered for Hal Suit(R)who ran aginst Carter for governor in '70.Long time sitting around talking elections with all kind of people.I like rappin' about Super Bowl III,The Beatles landing in the USA,Frank Clement & it don't amount to hill of beans so just hit ignore & pay no mind.

Look I'm no writer & I know that Metulj's description that some of my posts are "turgid" is true.Plus,the written word is very stark & IMO,it's better to be dry as dust than clever by half.

Before Knoxviews I wrote alot of letters to the editor & back in the day, those letters were one day deals.But what one postes on Knoxviews is forever.And folks,alota people read Knoxviews.And candidates,incumbents et al that don't are informed of what's posted here.So,for those reasons,I don't want to personally attack anybody.

I can't count how many times I've been @ a political meeting or a Council meeting or a Commission meeting or walking downtown that somebody that I disagee with on policy..comes up to me & says..I read what you posted on Knoxviews..Let's talk & then says..whose that jerk that called me an asshole?

Or I'm meeting a candidate/incumbent et al for the first time,a mutual friend walks up & says:"Bill's alright..he took up for me on Knoxviews."

Granted a little..well maybe alot of self-indulgence here.

But,a word to the wise,what one post's on Knoxviews..does not stay on Knoxviews.

A "turgid genealogy"

I've always been interested in post WWII elections in the 11 states of the Confederacy.

Why did JFK get a higher % of the vote in Georgia..than Mass? Because,in '60,Georgia was in the Democratic solid south.

IMO,the political story of the last half of the 20th century,was the shift of the solid south from the Democrats to the Republicans.

Quick look @ South Carolina:In 1936,the Republican nominee for president received .008% of the vote.In '48,the Dixiecrats were born in SC,Thurmond(SC),won the state.In '52,on an independent ticket,Ike won 44% of the vote.In '64,Thurmond became a Republican.At the '68 Republican Convention,Thurmond,kept southern delegates in line for Nixon vs Reagan & won Nixon the nomination.

In '68 Nixon won Fla,NC,SC & Tn.In '76 Carter won 10 of the 11 states of the Confederacy.In '80,though many states were close,Carter lost 10 of 11,only winning his native Ga.

In the begining race played an important role in the solid south shifting from the Democrats to the Republicans.However,I've never believed Ike was a Dixiecrat & in '52 & '56 he did well in the south.

And before one thinks that it was only a bunch of Dixie rednecks,that voted race,keep in mind that,in '76,Dixiecrat George Wallace was losing primaries,in the old Confederacy,to new south governor Jimmy Carter but won Boston on the issue of busing.

IMO,if the Tea party movement can keep the Confederate flags & the radicals away from their rallies,which will marginalize their movement & push the solid south Republican voters,in Va,NC & Fla,back to the Republican fold in 2012..we got us a real tight race in our efforts to re elect the President.

The points made,on unemployement & the promise of health care reform is not yet a reality, are correct but I disagree with with the idea that the President's re-election is impossable.Tough yes..impossable..no.

On another point,about historical context,I was talking to a friend about the Ukranian election & during the conversation this story was related to me.

A Russian fellow was ask:

"Was the French Revolution a success?"

The Russian replied:

"To early to tell."