There is no difference between the tea party movement, and the 1967 campaign of George Wallace

[still_one]

[EC]

1. Or a bit more recent

Pat Buchanan's pitchfork brigade.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Sure there is.

Wallace & Buchanan didn't have Koch-level funding.

[JoePhilly]

8. Or Fox news

[Smarmie Doofus]

3. Not much, anyway. Largely the same demographics.

Politics are essentially unchanged. The rhetoric is somewhat different.

I'd say "there's not a dime's worth of difference" between the two .


Tea Partiers are mostly the Wallace constituency's kids.

[still_one]

9. It sure appear so. I don't know why I didn't recognize it. Another difference is that the MSM seem

much more favorable toward the tea party which is extremely disturbing

[Smarmie Doofus]

10. Absolutely true. MSM treated Wallace like a pariah.

The difference is that MSM has changed... not that the Wallace/TP mentality has changed.

Race is less of an issue... overtly, anyway. The rest of the agenda.... basically "America: we can do no wrong , love it or leave it" .... remains, though it's expressed differently now.

[craigmatic]

4. Yes it is. Wallace could just say what he wanted but teabaggers have to hide their prejudice.

[zeemike]

5. That is the difference.

In those days the Wallace supporters had no problem using the N word....used it all the time.
Teabaggers are careful not to use it....but they think it all the time now that we have one of them in the white house.
It is the same people and their span today as then.

[alp227]

6. not this teabagger

http://washingtonindependent.com/73036/n-word-sign-dogs-would-be-tea-party-leader

[polichick]

7. Was Wallace funded by the Koch brothers too? nt