Even you Heather using the Tea Bag.... Just shake my head and walk away.

Stu - I know what you're getting at, but sometimes tea is just tea and we need to use different ways of illustrating a story instead of stock photos or generic graphics.

Heather, you know what the liberal elites call the tea party people, and you know the reference to the Tea Bag. These people who preach compassion and inclusion use a vile, disgusting term to demean a whole group of people who just happen to have a different opinion them themselves.

You and I and Heather R know the full reasoning of the image used. You would not allow a sexually degrading term used to classify a group of LGBT people, or of a different race of people. You wouldn't allow racist words and classifications either (Which I support by the way). I just don't understand why if it is a group of mainly Caucasian-Europeans which happen to lean right, it's acceptable.

Everyone here knows where Heather R stands politicaly. It's her right to do so, and I will respect that right until she crosses the line. The line has been crossed.

I agree w/ you Stu.

I would not denigrate any party by name, and would thus not call a democrat what others have called them, nor would I call a tea party member the name implied by the photo.

However, I'm not too offended by the above photo because the article is listed as an "opinion" piece. If it was listed as a "news" piece, it would bother me more.

By the way, I can't resist:

"Rayne's World! Rayne's World! Party time! Excellent!!!!

Stu, honestly, I used the image because I was trying to think of art for the piece. I think the term to which you refer is disgusting and degrading as well and I will never think it acceptable to use it in reference to the Tea Party and its members. I may or may not agree with their points, but my feelings don't reflect the photo used. I wonder if I'd just waited for my tea to steep and took a photo of the cup filled with tea would that have been better?

So it's OK to be degrading and insensitive if it's an opinion? Heather R knew what she was doing and why she was doing it that way. Like I stated before I don't have an issue with what she said in the "opinion", (well, I have a personal issue with it, but thats philosophical differences between Heather R. and I) but I take issue with the connotation of the photo.

Stu, is Sarah Palin the better choice?

Let me first correct something I had wrong. I was under the impression that the author had put the image there, but now I am understanding that it was not. To Heather R I apologize, and admit I was wrong.

To Heather A, this is your site, and you can use whatever image you choose. I as a user, have the right to comment on that use, unless you do not allow me to. You could have used a tea pot, the boston tea party, or pics at the event, which you have now done. I only wanted to point out that to a somewhat silent group, your image could be viewed as offensive.

You make a good point and that is why I changed the image. I want readers to stay engaged and contributing. I appreciate you reading and commenting.

Is there an official platform from which you're drawing in compiling your state-by-state list of political ideologies of which you have identified as belonging to a political party known as the "Tea Party?" I'm just wondering, because I've been unable to find any official platform of any official political party formally known as the "Tea Party."

From what I have been able to find, there seems to be three core values expressed by a majority of the groups identifying themselves as being a part of the "Tea Party" - 1) Fiscal Responsibility; 2) Constitutionally Limited Government; and 3) Capitalist Economy. In all actuality and reality, the core platforms of these groups actually identifying themselves as "Tea Party" don't appear to be all that much different than those espoused by Libertarians ala Ron Paul and independent Reformists ala Jesse Ventura.

What I can't find is any official platform positions taken on purely social issues, and yet, that is what you have chosen to stereotype self-described "Tea Party" members upon in this opinion piece. It’s apparent that the “Tea Party” movement, in its purest form, is merely limited in ideology to the 3 core values identified. This is probably why the “Tea Party” philosophy is typically referred to as a “movement” and has not evolved into a fully recognized political party – because the platform is incomplete (on purpose). Social issues, such as those that you have based your stereotypes upon, are left to the individual candidate to decide upon.

So, I believe it to be logically and rationally unsound for you to draw a stereotyped conclusion about “Tea Party” members based upon political ideologies that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual platform of the movement. If such ideologies are the basis for your concerns, would it not be more journalistically appropriate to relate your commentary to individual politicians as opposed to categorizing these ideologies into an unfounded stereotype about people who think of themselves as a member of the “Tea Party” in general? I’m just trying to understand if your primary goal is actual truth or the spreading of rhetoric and propaganda.

Let's see Heather, the Democrats enacted legislation that let's mothers murder an unborn child as a means of contraceptive, proposed legislation to severly limit Second Amendment Rights, abolished God from be used in any shape or form in our govt buildings, ban prayer in class rooms and let members of the same sex get married. I think that is a more out-there platform than the Tea Party, fiscal responsibility. follow the constitution and maintain capitalist freedom.

Heather after reading that over dramatized fluff piece. Please, by all mean remind us all again how you're "moderate".

I am an independent voter... I believe not all that is suggested by either side is wrong. English as the only "legal" language makes sense to me on a few levels. #1, what is wrong with a country that has a single predominant historical language from focusing its official communications on that language? That is what I take out of the term legal... official. Meaning, the government need not be required to create documents or websites with alternate languages. Businesses can still choose to, of course. It wouldnt stop the usage of other languages. For a few centuries now, people coming to America pretty much had to learn English, it was encouraged. Creating pockets where people can live without ever having to learn the native language of the United States does everyone a disservice. It increases cases where people cannot even basically communicate, which can be very dangerous in the event of some emergency. #2 is it fair to include support for one or two other languages but not all others? Is it possible to really truly have support for all languages possible? English becoming the common denominator allows everyone to communicate. #3, probably a key part of what the Tea Party is after, is that supporting all sorts of languages officially becomes needlessly costly. Stopping that is another way to control government costs. Any money spent on alternate language support, beyond emergency basics, can be logically and reasonably viewed as money wasted.