The Tea Party: the assault continues

In a strange way it’s kind of a backhanded compliment. The tea party has been poked, prodded, investigated like some kind of lab experiment. We’ve been defined degraded and at least the left is attempted to discard us, but it’s hard to discard the will of the majority of the American people and that’s why no matter what the left is done our mission continues.

A group of sociologists from the University of North Carolina have now jumped into the fray with the survey of people who identify with the tea party.  the study is flawed in oh so many ways I don’t even know where to begin. The sample is restricted to about 4000 random phone calls in just 2 southern states to people who say they identify with the tea party, plus a visual observation of one tea party rally. The end result according to the sociologists, is that tea party fear change. Damn straight, especially this kind of change.

The study concludes that 18 percent of tea party supporters felt very negatively toward immigrants compared to 12 percent of voters who don’t support the tea party movement.

The poll also found that 51 percent of people who were very concerned about “changes taking place in American society these days” were tea party supporters. Nearly 85 percent of tea party supporters said the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted “as the Founders intended,” compared to only 34 percent of other respondents.

But tea party supporters were twice as likely as others to favor constitutional amendments, including a ban on flag burning and an overhaul of the 14th Amendment, which states that people born in the United States are citizens.

“The (tea party) supporters’ inconsistent views of the Constitution suggests that their nostalgic embrace of the document is animated more by a network of cultural associations than a thorough commitment to the original text,” the report states.

There is nothing inconsistent with the view that the Constitution should be interpreted as the founders intended and at the same time favoring the amendments to the Constitution. The founding fathers understood that the Constitution would likely be amended over time, but they made it a difficult and may I say democratic process to complete.

What is inconsistent is the laughs of view that amendments are unnecessary and that the Constitution itself can be bent and twisted to suit one’s needs.

I have never once met a sociologist who was in the liberal and this I think just reaffirms my limited “observations”.

Seems like a good time to put in this little piece of video. Mike Barnicle with yet another insult of conservatives. I think this is aimed at the tea party actually.


Define, devalue, discard. And yet they still have problem with the last piece of the equation.

6 replies
  1. rachel
    rachel says:

    The “12% of voters who don’t support the Tea Party movement” in those two southern states are most likely registered democrats.? So, in essence, whomever did this poll has managed to compare apples to oranges and get giraffes for results.? Outstanding…only thing that would make it better is if the government funded this study.? Oh! Wait! It was a state school. hahahahaaa??? –? 4000 people over 2 southern states.? Yay for unbiased polling!?

  2. Lynn
    Lynn says:

    I am so ashamed of Mike Barnicle, what an arrogant and stupid question. As for a “group of sociologists? from University of North Carolina” I would expect nothing better. “Educators” at most universities and colleges have only one ideology, there is no difference of thought allowed. Condi Rice is exempt from this observation, she had many students who said, they could not believe she was a conservative, before she was appointed to be Secretary of State by GW. She was totally unbiased, as I wish all educators were.

  3. Jeff S
    Jeff S says:

    When Maxine Waters made her statement last week about the tea party, I thought it was nice that she would invite the folks over to her district!!!

  4. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    Here is the paper for your perusal:
    The paper seeks to portray TEA party members as nativists, nostalgic for 18th century America.? They polled registered voters, not likely voters.? They asked if TEA party members thought ?bama is a Christian, but not if he is a socialist.? The immigration questions were leading (p.5)
    I agree with Jim: the people I saw migrating to a degree in sociology (and I had to take a couple of electives in sociology as a core requirement; the classes were laughable in their content) were not, um, the sharpest knives in the drawer, to put it mildly.? That is why they call sociology a soft science: it is pretty much make up as they go along, creating/fabricating erroneous statistical methods to bolster their assumptions.? This paper was more opinion than fact, but precisely what I would expect from the soft “science” of sociology.

Comments are closed.