The movement would hurt people
Is that the Tea Party philosophy at work: "Accidents happen," people die, and private industry should be left alone, not even criticized, when they do?
I'm getting a little weary of people insisting journalists must pay homage to the Tea Party as a great infusion of political energy, and not call them racist, and examine their ideas with respect. As I've stated before, it is pretty clear from polling that the Tea Party is just another name for the traditional Republican base -- older, whiter, heavier on males and angrier than the rest of the country. Aside from their costumes and protests, I don't think they're that revolutionary or newsworthy. But OK, I'm willing to respect them. Respect means asking them what they'd do if they were in government, reporting on what they say, and letting the world know. (Joan Walsh, “Taking the Tea Party seriously,” Salon, 21 May 2010)
The movement would hurt people, which is what we want, and why it is (accepted as) legitimate
Tea partiers are racists -- or rather those so self-hating they readily project aspects of themselves they would disown into other people -- but so were -- comparatively -- our parents. Since depression periods are always those where elder wisdom, where "I told you so," once again rules supreme, tea partiers, for demanding people fend for themselves, for wanting for people to be left without resources to offer options other than long-suffering without complaint, is accepted as legitimate.
Any public, good progressive will find him/herself dumbfounded by how many of his/her ostensible friends will turn on them. I wouldn't count on Rachel Maddow, for instance.