>>18
That doesn't implicate who hijacked what, though.
The Tea Party movement started as a sort of libertarian-esque/populist grassroots movement, that evolved out of the anti-income tax protests throughout the 1990s. It had potential to be real opposition to the two party status-quo, but didn't.
As I mentioned, the Republican Party was the only one to take the Tea Party even slightly seriously.
Because of the position the party (Republican) was in after the 2006 Congressional elections. They used this to win them back control of the House.
Even today, it's obvious that there's still a distance between the informal Tea Party(ies) (as it has splinter group organization to begin with) and the Republican party.
Nowhere as much as is the case today.
A presumption: you belittle them because they did not form their own formal political party or handle themselves like any of the obvious political parties.
Wrong. I belittle them because it's largely anti-intellectual, brain-damaged populism that offers no clearly defined solutions to any perceived status-quo problem except "returning to the Constitution" which is nothing more than rhetoric for public consumption. It's just used as year-round muscle for the Republican party; saying that it was "hijacked" instead requires less typing.
The "liberal" (to use the American colloquialism) version of the Tea Party; the "Coffee Party", turned out to be even more pathetic.
>>20
Go back to /b/.