>>In a word, no. They (there are multiple "parties" not a single one) are based on fiscal responsibility, promotion of free markets and adhering to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. Social issues are out-of-bounds for the majority of the affiliations.
>
>I concede, like any "group", the individuals vary widely.
>
>I can get behind the basic ideals of the Tea Party: I am for fiscal responsibility (who isn't), and free markets (I'm a small business owner), etc. The problem is the loudmouth racist bigots that seem to be the biggest proponents of the Tea Party movement.

The key to your statement is "seem to be". By whom? Journalists whose job is to promote sensationalism for ratings/subscriptions? Opponents whose job is to portray the worst aspects of the other side? By that standard, I offer that Obama's supporters seem to be nothing but noodle spined lap dogs who forgive anything their savior does even when they loudly and supposedly proudly protested the same actions by His predesessor.

>They think it's okay to be disrespectful towards the elected leader of our country.

It is one's protected right to be disrespectful to any individual, especially those chosen to represent us. Elected leaders are not to be treated as if placed on a pedestal, not in the USA. The citizenry is not required to humble themselves before an elected elite simply because they have been chosen to work for their electors. Elected leaders must be held to a higher standard due to the power we entrust with them.

>If instead they engaged in intelligent debate, perhaps their movement wouldn't have stalled.

Please define "stalled". A mere 6 months ago an election provided the greatest Congressional gain by a single party in 62 years. It was the biggest loss by a sitting President's party since 1938. The next election is 18 months away.

Note : I am not a member of nor have I attended a single Tea Party sponsored or affiliated event.