Is it time to re-brand the Tea Party?

Primary season began on Tuesday, and it was not a banner start for the Tea Party. On her radio program on Wednesday, Laura Ingraham questioned whether the Tea Party moniker had outlived its usefulness.

“Do you believe that the Tea Party moniker and the quote, ‘idea,’ of the Tea Party brand has kind of run its course,” she asked. “Not because initially it wasn’t a good idea but because there are so many different groups that have different names that I think it ultimately becomes meaningless.”

In a blog post on her website, Ingraham explained that while the movement began with good intentions and is responsible for giving Republicans control of the House in 2010, it has devolved to some degree into a brand with a negative connotation.

“Without the Tea Party there would be no current GOP majority in the House. Since 2010, it has moved the political debate on key issues such as the national debt, ObamaCare, and taxes,” she wrote. “But recently, the groups have lost their unity of purpose. Let’s face it, they’ve become disorganized and poorly run. Out of the $37.5 million raised by the PACS of the 6 major tea party organizations, less than $7 million has been devoted to directly helping candidates. This obviously means fewer tea party candidates will win, and fewer new voters will take notice.”

Ingraham believes it is time “for the Tea Party to rebrand, reorganize, and re-capture its standing as a credible alternative to our failed Establishment,” but on radio this morning, Glenn reiterated the importance of holding fast to values and principles – not politics.

Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV

“Laura Ingraham said the Tea Party moniker has outlived its usefulness… I don’t like the fact that we have to change words because I’m not a progressive. That’s what Progressives do. They just change the words. And then they win,” Glenn said. “But I think we shouldn’t be foolish on holding on to words. What we should be holding on to are principles and values.”

Whether it be ACORN or Common Core, progressives masterfully redefine controversial topics and programs as a means of propaganda. In the case of the Tea Party, Glenn believes the principles that founded the movement must be the principles that continue to drive that movement and names and titles really mean nothing at this point.

“The name doesn’t really matter… What matters is the people living the principles and the values that they espouse. Our crowd does. So you don’t have to worry about what anybody calls you. You don’t have to worry about those things. You could change names every day of the week. People will recognize you for who you are,” Glenn said. “Just like ACORN. It doesn’t take very long. You can change the name of ACORN, but it won’t take very long because they live by a set of principles and values that make them very obvious.”

“That entire point is just an admission of the United States being pathetic, though,” Stu concluded. “We’re all about labels. It’s just sad that this country has developed into that.”

  • Anonymous

    Beck talks out both sides of his mouth. On one hand he says what matters is principals and values. Then he says “it’s all about labels” in this country, so the T-party should re-brand itself. So which one is it, Glenn? If you believe principals are what people will ultimately see, then you can call T-party whatever you want and get the same result. Perhaps the T-party’s problem isn’t that it’s brand is tarnished, but that most people simply don’t support them. The recent debacle at the Bundy ranch sure didn’t help their image. People generally saw the government as the reasonable party and the opponents that most people would equate with the T-Party looking like wackos ready to use women as fodder in their fight for injustice.

    • Fifth_Disciple

      Congratulations, in one short paragraph you’ve tried to hang Bundy Ranch round the neck of the Tea Party. Harry Reid teach you that?
      Just because you say it with conviction doesn’t make it true.

      • Anonymous

        I don’t know that the militia lining women up on the front line against the police at Bundy’s ranch are T-partiers, but I believe the country equates them. That’s what I stated.

        • Fifth_Disciple

          I’m pretty sure you know they were NOT or you would’ve made much ado about it. That’s the problem with some people, they speak mealy mouthed half truths then try to say that’s not what they said

          • Anonymous

            I do not know the whether the militia were not Tea Party either. The militia used the same language as the Tea Party in its statements with the media. They’re quoted repeating words like patriot, liberty, constitution, etc., all language that the Tea Party uses frequently. So the fact that some of the militia members may be even further right than the Tea Party doesn’t matter because people will hear the same language from them that popularized the Tea Party.

            I agree that most people view Obamacare as unfavorable. That may change by the end of Obama’s term.

          • Guardian

            ” ….patriot, liberty, constitution, etc.,…” Funny how Democrats have been heard to say these words too. Maybe they don’t stick because they really don’t mean them.

          • Anonymous

            I doubt it’s democrats defending Bundy, which is problem for the T-party and what we’re discussing here.

          • Guardian

            You said “They’re quoted repeating words like patriot, liberty, constitution, etc., all language that the Tea Party uses frequently.” My response didn’t imply it was Democrats, it was to show that you are falsely attributing something to a group which is not unique to that group and then making a judgement based on this fallacy.

          • Anonymous

            The Bundy Ranch people are in no way representative of the Tea Party movement, nor are they claiming to be at all, in any way shape or form. Got it?

          • Anonymous

            Again, whether or not the militia are Tea Party members is irrelevant. Public perception is that the groups are similar due the principals they state.

        • Guardian

          “…militia lining women up on the front..” you believe that too? You must be one of those people who believe what is presented by the LSM.

          • Anonymous

            The video clips of the militia stating their woman fodder strategy are everywhere ( ), as are pictures of women and children at the ranch, with the local police on the other side and the militia protected behind concrete barriers on the other – pretty sick. Yes, I believe it and so does the majority of the country. Now that the FBI has identified the militia members that pointed their guns at the police and federal agents, we’re going to be hearing about some interesting convictions.

          • Guardian

            I am calling BS. Did it ever occur to you that these women, children and men were there of their own free will, standing where they wanted to be? This is America, you know. As a matter of fact, there was only ONE person talking about putting women in front to discourage BLM from shooting (not as cannon fodder), and it happens to be Richard Mack, the former Graham County, AZ sheriff. It was not “the strategy” of the militias. BTW, the people there (not BLM) identified themselves as militia, patriots and just supporters. Not one identified himself as a member of the Tea Party. Your speculations that they were are just that – speculation. Stop trying to pedal your nonsense about militia men planning to use women as cannon fodder. It simply is untrue.

    • Anonymous

      Wow! Can you actually walk and chew gum at the same time? You just criticized Glenn Beck for making the exact same points that you make in your rant.

      • Anonymous

        I disagree with Becks statement that principals and values of a movement are what people ultimately perceive. I think politics involves the management of perception and that the militia at Bundy’s ranch didn’t help that perception. It’s irrelevant whether the militia are actually T-partiers because people perceive the principals upon which they were willing to shoot their guns to be that of the T-party.

        • Guardian

          I agree, there are so many people who are ignorant and will believe how things are depicted by the media.

    • Jim

      It’s about the principles! It doesn’t matter what name we use. They will find ways to denigrate and belittle us. We use “Tea Party” because the original tea party was fighting against taxation without representation. TEA stands for Taxed Enough Already! They call us “tea baggers”. If we change our name, they’ll find another vile insult. We’re for small government that is subject to the same laws that everyone else has to follow. It’s called The Constitution! It’s purpose was to limit the power of government! Read it! It’s only 4400 words. It prevents us from becoming North Korea. I’m on the fence about Bundy. There’s more to the story than we know yet. If it was just about grazing fees, why not just send a sheriff with a warrant and a property lien to his door? Why show up with a fully armed and armored swat team? If not for all of the cameras and videos, it could have been another Waco. I just don’t know yet.

      • Anonymous

        I get the Tea-party’s principals, and I agree that re-branding would do nothing for the party. Regarding Bundy, he was warned for years about not paying the fees. At some point, whomever owned the land would eventually respond. Seizing the trespassing cattle seems like a reasonable response. Everyone including Beck has stepped back from Bundy. In the end, both Bundy and the militia that pointed their guns at the police and federal agents will pay a hefty price for their actions now that the FBI has identified them.

    • Anonymous

      First of all, you’re misrepresenting Glenn’s values and motivations which makes your argument false and straw man from the get go. Second, what’s wrong with talking about the issue and separating the content from the flawed man expressing it?

      • Anonymous

        I didn’t represent Becks values or motivates at all. I disagreed with Beck’s idea that re-branding the Tea Party would change people’s perception. The group would have to state its principals and values while managing public perception regardless of the name of the group.

  • Monet

    Maybe they can rebrand it as “The Sucker’s Party”

    “Out of the $37.5 million raised by the PACS of the 6 major tea party organizations, less than $7 million has been devoted to directly helping candidates.”

    Man, if that doesn’t point up what absolute chumpass suckas you clowns are….

    And how much of that money went to Beck? Millions is what the news has been reporting. Millions for bullshtttt, nothing for the candidates. No wonder the Tea Party is going into history’s trash bin, Beck, Levin, Hannity et all bled it to death.

    • Guardian

      Please provide your sources.

    • Anonymous

      Actually Glenn gets his money from the Blaze subscribers. All he did was ask for the money and they gave it voluntarily. They call that capitalism. It works.

  • Fifth_Disciple

    The purpose of the Tea Party wasn’t to supplant the Republican Party but to move it back to it’s roots. They have largely accomplished that goal. Every Tea Party member I know considers themselves a Republican much like every Progressive I know considers themselves a Democrat. Every Progressive I know is trying to move the Democratic Party further left.

    • Keith Liberty

      Its the Neocon Pro-War Tea Partiers that ruined the movement….

      Cut welfare but spend on endless wars and invasions…….hypocrisy, and the Tea-Cons showed it endlessly….especially the TEA PARTY PATRIOT frauds….

      • Fifth_Disciple

        Let me begin by saying I’m not a Republican or a Tea Partier. I’m an independent (and that is with a little I). I’m smart enough to think for myself and don’t need any one telling me how to vote. Financially I’m a conservative. I think the government should balance their checkbook just like I do and when the money’s gone, the money’s gone.
        Yet I’m also a gay rights proponent. It’s not that I condone their lifestyle, it’s that it’s none of my business. Their right to marry stems from property rights not from religious dogma. If their lifestyle is against God’s will then that’s between them and God not them and me.
        Now, on to the main point. You can’t paint the Tea Party as warmongers. War cannot be invoked without a majority and the Democrats were part of the crime. Understand that as soon as your enemies find you are reluctant to defend your selves vigorously they will exploit it. I don’t believe we should have invaded Iraq but I think the invasion of Afghanistan was called for.
        On welfare, I’m all for a hand up but not a hand out. Welfare has become way of life for too many (I did not say disability).

        • Jim

          Welfare belongs either at the state level or the local level. It is best managed in churches or private charities. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the fed authority to spend one dime on it. Local communities know which of their citizens are having tough times and need some help. They also know which ones are playing the system.

        • jen

          Many tea partiers are warmongers just like some dems, including Obama/Hillary. Many tea partiers support vast military empire – that is a warmonger.

          • Fifth_Disciple

            You know so much about me, how could you forget that I oppose the current military budget? Maybe you should engage your brain before putting your mouth in gear?

      • Karen

        I think you are confused. The “wars” were going on long before the “Tea Party” started. They came into play because of Obama and the democrats. But, once we are in war, we must support our troops. And, if there is spending to do in this country by the federal government, one of the enumerated powers is national defense so our federal dollars should go toward our military. Welfare happens not to be something the federal government should be spending the money of the hard-working people for. If you want to give money to welfare, have at it, no one says you can’t give every dime you have to the IRS, but quit crying when other people don’t want our federal tax money going toward things that are not Constitutional.

        • Keith Liberty

          Fraulein……undeclared WARS are unconstitutional you Neocon…..

          IRAQ never attacked the USA…

          The USA has spent trillions $$$$$ and hasn’t won a war since WWII and you whine about welfare when at least it keeps $$$$ in the USA?

          It’s not DEFENCE when a country doesn’t attack the USA genius.

          Yeah, the Neocon warmonger Tea Partiers are the reason the GOP is so divided.

          Next thing you’ll be telling me to follow your morality……more GOVT FORCE BS

          • Anonymous

            Hey Democrat…once the government takes all of our guns, and once they stop spending money on national defense, who will protect you? Don’t dodge my question with semantic BS…answer it directly and with all of your ridiculously finite wisdom. HOW will you be protected? I don’t know how, so I need a smart guy like you to tell me what options would be left on the table.

          • jen

            Actually, you are far closer to a democrat than Keith. You believe that anyone who criticizes Republican party/masters/leadership has to be of the ONLY other party your rino masters approve of – dem party.
            You disapprove of people using their independence and thinking outside of the parameters set by gop/dem – (like cheney/Obama) that everyone has to be dem or republican.

          • Anonymous

            There is absolutely nothing “Democrat”, “Leftist”, “Communist”, “Atheist” or self-righteous about me. You don’t know me so therefore I have to regard you as a total idiot since you claim to know me while simply not knowing me. Buzz off. If you reply to me then it is clear to me that you are too stupid to understand that you need not reply to me. I don’t like you.

          • jen

            Booting Hussain for al Qaeda leadership in Iraq is not ‘defense’, but causes radical Islam to flourish. Just like booting qaddafi, Mubarak, etc..

          • Anonymous

            Hussein got booted out of Kuwait for the oil. He got booted out of his own country for slaughtering hundreds of thousands of his own people. However, I didn’t even address Iraq as included in the “national defense” category. You thought I meant that but I’m sorry you are wrong. We didn’t find WMD, Bush wasted money on a war that he couldn’t get approval for. He wasted WAY more money on educational programs that didn’t work and his own version of bailouts.
            The only fundamental differences between Bush and Obama is the ticket they run on and the fact that Obama is smarter about grabbing power for his political party.

          • jen

            R = D. No use of voting for evil. I would only vote if a candidate was decent. I would even vote for Elizabeth Warren over many other republicans. She has fought more against banking cartels than many other republicans.Agreed Bush wasted money on a war and he did not get international approval.

            Many current and recent dictators have slaughtered millions/thousands (China in Tibet, N. Korea, etc..) – however US never publicly denounced anything or did anything other than partner with him to make HR abuses like China even wealthier.

            So Hussein getting booted bec he supposedly slaughtered 200k of his opposition? – no reason Bush/GOP/Dem would ever invade a country such that it brings in al Qaeda though there was never al Qaeda there before.

            There is plenty of oil in the US – no need to go to another for their oil, and then never even bother to take a single penny of it.

      • Anonymous

        Clinton did massive bombing campaigns in the Balkans. LBJ and Kennedy started the Vietnam War and were responsible for the Draft in that war. Richard Nixon was the first to begin the troop withdrawals from there. Obama gave air support in Libya (without Congressional approval I might add) and he oversaw plenty of the fighting in Afghanistan. Seal Team Six caught the bad guy (a good thing), but it was an act of war nevertheless. FDR was a Democrat, and he signed the Declaration of War after Pearl Harbor (again a good thing but an act of war from a Democrat).
        I could go on, but I think you need to remind yourself of a little history and realize that Republicans don’t just start all wars. It really isn’t quite that simple.

        • jen

          Republicans start plenty of wars and Dems start some wars, and both help each other out. There would be no republican Iraq war without Dem party backing just as there would be no war (incl drone wars) in Syria/Libya, etc.. without Republican Party backing it.
          Until people R = D, then you are ok/satisfied with doom as long as rino party masters run off with all the money/victory or dem party masters running off with the loot if a dem.

          • Anonymous

            I’m not too happy with the Republicans anymore. McCain co-opted with Obama to arm Al-Qaida insurgents in Libya and Syria. They aren’t any better. Conservative/God-fearing I am, Republican I vote because it’s the closest thing to my value system. I hope you don’t think that I value your opinion in any way.

      • jen

        Right on!! Yes, the neocon war partiers who want vast military empire that ruined movement.
        Many tea partiers will disagree and say giving only $7 mn out of $37.5mn stolen from people is a GOOD thing.

      • BlueMN

        Rot in pieces, Tea Party. Good riddance.

        Say what you want about the tenets of the pre-Reagan era GOP, but at least it was an ethos.

    • jen

      You are an idiot, hence Ingraham is right. Something different is needed. TP hasn’t accomplished much of anything, but a short term, temp delay on a couple of things like amnesty.
      You are an idiot for siding with an organization/movement that stole tens of millions, – of 37.5mn, only $7 went to candidates.
      Dangerous & Dummy – republican is a progressive party just like all your rino masters from bush family/Romney/McCain/Rubio/cheney/Rumsfeld/rice/Bolton, etc..

      • Fifth_Disciple

        Wow, your argument is so clear and succinct. Your facts so irrefutable and your presentation so respectful that I don’ know how I could have missed that. I’m sure your overwhelming logic has opened the eyes of thousands.

        • jen

          Apparently, you got my point – great. I know it hurts and you can’t argue with truth.

          • Fifth_Disciple

            There you have it. Thank you for making my mind up for me. P.S. Go ahead and sign up for that Writing in English class.

    • jen

      So Republican has moved back to its roots, hence it is firmly for increasing debt, federal reserve bank, vast military empire, ndaa/patriot act, etc.. – wow, such great changes in republican party you praise with TP.

  • Crassus

    On this issue, Laura Ingraham is much smarter than Glenn Beck. Every criticism she made about the Tea Party is correct. It fell apart because it had poor leadership and organization. Glenn just mumbles a bunch of jibber jabber about progressives trying to change the words and standing on principle. No real ideas just jibber jabber.

    • Keith Liberty

      No…its still lives….in Libertarianism……its the Neocon Tea Party that has fallen apart….because of their hypocrisy…..they claim Fiscal Conservatism yet are Pro-War everywhere the govt wants to go kill people….

      Total Hypocrisy….

      Cut Welfare and Govt Spending but….spend endlessly on WARS……hypocrisy and prime reason why they appear foolish

      • Vicki

        The tea party is not for war. You are misinformed.

    • Jaamoose

      Wow – really going out on a limb there calling someone smarter than Beck…

    • jen

      Agreed – sad to see Beck approving of having people’s stolen thru deceit with only $7mn out of $37.5 mn going to actually help candidates and win.

  • Keith Liberty

    Glenn Beck (still a Neocon) threw Ron Paul under the bus even though he won in Iowa, Nevada, Maine and a few other places and was railroaded. Glenn didn’t stand up for him because he is stupefied on ISRAEL and showed he is not really a Libertarian. Glenn is still somehow brainwashed on the Evangelical State of Israel to the death crap…..and he’s a Mormon (they don’t believe in the false state of Israel meaning that Glenn Beck can’t even stick to Mormon principles/beliefs)….

    He’s a fraud…..I use to follow up right up until he threw Ron Paul under the bus and defend Israel no matter what crap…..he supports Rand Paul only because Rand “panders” to the Pro-Israel Neocon crowd…..

  • suz

    no matter what we call ourselves, progressives will malign it.


    we REJECT progressive, socialist, communist, marxist, dictatorship, totalitarian (ETC.) principles or policies or any principle or policy where one entity or person unlawfully holds power over another, including the president whose powers are specified and limited.

    WHAT IS UNLAWFUL? THAT which does not adhere to the fundamental principals and spirit of the static supreme law, The U.S. Constitution: MAXIMUM FREEDOM, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.







    • Anonymous


  • bucketnutz

    Yes ! and It is time to bring all conservatives under one tent and let the swamp donkeys an the Rino’s form their own one party system.

  • landofaahs

    Be careful in trying to remake yourself. Just be yourself. Let people take you or leave you as you are. As a case in point, when Dorothy was walking down the yellow brick road and met the Scarecrow and the scarecrow spoke, Dorothy asked “If you have no brain, how can you speak?”. The scarecrow answered; “Dorothy my dear, I’m a democrat”.

  • BryanLoberg

    Teabaggers. What a joke.

    • Anonymous

      Please enlighten me as to the Left’s obsession with teabagging. It’s a disgusting term. I know it’s a thing that a lot of gay Leftists participate in, but I’d rather not think about it.

  • Anonymous

    Changing the name of the Tea Party is the same as changing the name for common core. The Tea Party still stands for the same standards–no time to run and hide just because opponents have tried to trash our name. Like our foundIng fathers we need to stand by our principles.

  • Joe Lineman

    I think Laura is spot on. Just change the name since tea party has been depicted in a negative light.
    The msm has done a wonderful job of painting The Tea Party as a bunch of ultra right wing kooks, anti gay, anti woman, and we can’t forget racist. Which is bogus.

  • ken.

    the tea party was started by libertarians based on libertarian principles and was open to anyone from any party who believed in those principles. then the conservatives came in and took over, thats when membership and support dropped. it was about principles, now it’s about conservatives retaking the republican party.

  • Deckard426

    How about calling it the Not McCain Party (NMP) since if he has anything to do with it, it’s doomed.

  • IT IT IT

    —————————-LIBERTY MOVEMENT——————————


  • Anonymous

    A tea bag produces the strongest tea at the very beginning. If the leaders of the movement are not replaced often, the results over time will be a much weaker tea. So I suggest we keep rotating the stock. New fresh leaders to keep the movement strong.

  • Anonymous

    A nation of merit is devoid of liberty because it is controlled by those choice architects who decide which tasks have merit, which chores should be performed, and who has the power to plunder whom.

  • NotPayingAttentionTax

    Regarding the actual subject, Tea Party as a name, the primary concern here is this: perception. The opposing ideologies (against ALL forms of Tea Party people) do their best to spread disinformation, demonize and tie it to a name. By changing the name and pushing your own identity you can use this propaganda to fight it. 1st you pretend the propaganda is real and “announce” a break with the “Tea Party” and introduce your own brand (new name, which is the only “real” break) spend at least a year making sure you don’t get defined by those that demonized the Tea Party. When they try to demonize you you respond “those were evil Tea Party people trying to tear down our pure innocent patriot movement” thus all their previous hate and vitriol works against them. Stop being defined, out maneuver the low information bottom feeding traitor media. Sticking with the demonized tag creates a hurdle to waking up more people and ultimate victory ( the displacement of big government types of all stripes ). If we believe in restoring our freedom, what we call the route should be of little matter. We also would get to call lefty pundits that say the new name is still the Tea Party…conspiracy theorists, thus using not one but 2 of their own inventions against this persecution. If you feel “icky” about any of this it is because the tactic has been stained by those that came before, and under the umbrella of the current media environment we have to be clever, or at least more clever than the group thinking easily predictable people that oppose us.

    A lot of “war” talk in here for a discussion of naming. Don’t confuse a military budget (should not be so ridiculously large) with intent to use in foreign wars. They are different issues. Constitutionally defense is actually a government responsibility, unlike so much of the rest of the idiocy that goes on. Electing competent an moral leaders is our only effective way of preventing cavalier use of the military.

  • Anonymous

    Yes it is time to re-brand! And it must be a Very Strong re-branding against Communism/Marxism/Socialism all, what makes up the Obama Administration~! It has to be Now!

The 411 From Glenn

Sign up for Glenn’s newsletter

In five minutes or less, keep track of the most important news of the day.