Since it's become so fashionable to simply post links without any real insight into why they're important, here's my two cents: • "The Tea Party & the Circus" • Jon Stewart, The Daily Show, March 18, 2010 That's, what, about twenty-three minutes? Twenty-three minutes of watching these videos if you intend to say a damn thing in this thread.
My Gawd those people are stupid! How can anyone take these people seriously? It's actually sad seeing that not one of those tea baggers could specify a specific provision they disagreed with.
The Prideful Stupid? I have a hard time shaking this creepy feeling that some of those folks are actually proud of their ignorance.
Let them ... drink tea A note on priorities. Grant Brissey makes the point: This is not a new point, but it keeps getting lost in the noise: Estimated cost of health care reform over the next ten years: Approximately $950 billion. Estimated cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan during the last nine years: More than one trillion. Why are we all of a sudden a "socialist regime" since Obama took office? Does military spending not count? Why is this never discussed in typical knee-jerk teabagger arguments? To take the point a step further, it seems one of the big concerns people have about health reform—the cost—presumes that the United States will forever be at war. Averaged out, the health plan will cost a bit under a hundred billion a year over the next ten years, and may well provide equivalent savings in other areas of public spending, or increased tax revenues. According to The New York Times, the 2009 war expenditure was $144 billion; the National Priorities Project puts the number at a round $150 billion; Amy Belasco, writing for the Congressional Research Service, estimates the total cost of the war, according to recorded DOD requests, at $1.08 trillion through fiscal year 2010. To answer Brissey's question, the reason this is not discussed in typical knee-jerk teabagger arguments is a superstitious presumption. It is "defense", and defense is one thing a nation like the U.S. cannot afford to scrimp on. But this argument falls through, much like their tax protest, in consideration of the real facts. Much like the Tea Party and its cohorts cannot fathom the cognitive dissonance people perceived at their sudden, vociferous attack against Obama—who was taxing the great majority of these folks less than Bush—if we look back to the situation Obama inherited, we see the fallacy of the defense argument. For if defense was so vital a point, surely the Tea Party would recognize the folly of sending 130,000-plus troops to Iraq, a war founded in anything but necessity, compared to opening in Afghanistan with less than five thousand. Eight and a half years later, the effort in Afghanistan is in doubt; American troop deployment peaked in Afghanistan under Bush at just over 30,000. Combined with the USA Patriot Act and the prospect of a perpetual War on Terror, it seems disingenuous at best that the idea of reeling in the health care industry before it completely wrecked the nation should stir them to tears and terrorism. The reality is, then, that the Tea Party is simply a menagerie of low sentiments disguised as some noble cause to save America. The reason our war expenditures—and especially the frivolous ones—are not part of the Tea Party discussion is that this isn't really about money or freedom. It's about partisan rancor, racism, and cheap political thuggery more than anything else. In the end, this dispute is about a guy with a funny-sounding name winning the presidency over an adulterous, backstabbing white guy with a respectable Irish-American name. This is about a bunch of angry, immature Americans trying to reassert themselves as the rest of the world prepares to pass them by. This is the last cry of dinosaurs facing a poignant, protracted extinction. And the waves roll on. Except for the Tea Party, who believes their rights are violated if the waves don't roll exactly how they demand. ____________________ Notes: Brissey, Grant. "Teabag this". Slog. March 25, 2010. Slog.TheStranger.com. March 25, 2010. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/03/25/tea-bag-this Glanz, James. "The Economic Cost of War". The New York Times. March 1, 2010; page WK1. NYTimes.com. March 25, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/weekinreview/01glanz.html National riorities Project. "Cost of War". (n.d.) NationalPriorities.org. March 25, 2010. http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home Belasco, Amy. The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11. Congressional Research Service. September 28, 2009. FAS.org. March 25, 2010. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf
Even Frank Rich can see the obvious; what's their excuse? Frank Rich, of all people: In fact, the current surge of anger — and the accompanying rise in right-wing extremism — predates the entire health care debate. The first signs were the shrieks of "traitor" and "off with his head" at Palin rallies as Obama's election became more likely in October 2008. Those passions have spiraled ever since — from Gov. Rick Perry's kowtowing to secessionists at a Tea Party rally in Texas to the gratuitous brandishing of assault weapons at Obama health care rallies last summer to "You lie!" piercing the president's address to Congress last fall like an ominous shot. If Obama's first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory. The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play. It's not happenstance that Frank, Lewis and Cleaver — none of them major Democratic players in the health care push — received a major share of last weekend's abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan "Take our country back!," these are the people they want to take the country back from. They can't. Demographics are avatars of a change bigger than any bill contemplated by Obama or Congress. The week before the health care vote, The Times reported that births to Asian, black and Hispanic women accounted for 48 percent of all births in America in the 12 months ending in July 2008. By 2012, the next presidential election year, non-Hispanic white births will be in the minority. The Tea Party movement is virtually all white. The Republicans haven't had a single African-American in the Senate or the House since 2003 and have had only three in total since 1935. Their anxieties about a rapidly changing America are well-grounded. If Congressional Republicans want to maintain a politburo-like homogeneity in opposition to the Democrats, that's their right. If they want to replay the petulant Gingrich government shutdown of 1995 by boycotting hearings and, as John McCain has vowed, refusing to cooperate on any legislation, that's their right too (and a political gift to the Democrats). But they can't emulate the 1995 G.O.P. by remaining silent as mass hysteria, some of it encompassing armed militias, runs amok in their own precincts. We know the end of that story. And they can't pretend that we're talking about "isolated incidents" or a "fringe" utterly divorced from the G.O.P. A Quinnipiac poll last week found that 74 percent of Tea Party members identify themselves as Republicans or Republican-leaning independents, while only 16 percent are aligned with Democrats. Look, if Frank Rich can figure it out, I'm not sure what to say to some of my conservative neighbors here at Sciforums. Okay? Because Frank Rich is an idiot. He should have stayed an art critic. To the other, his years of reviewing Broadway have helped him bury the obvious in turns of phrase. It's not happenstance that Frank, Lewis and Cleaver — none of them major Democratic players in the health care push — received a major share of last weekend's abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan "Take our country back!," these are the people they want to take the country back from. I quoted that a second time to make sure the Tea Party and its allies are clear on what they're missing, and nearly everyone else is already aware of. This isn't about health care. Or taxes. Or the size of government. This is about cultural supremacism. Once upon a time, normalcy had some certain outward indicators. Normal was white, heterosexual, and nominally Christian. For decades, now, that spiteful grip on social acceptability has been under assault. This assertion of normalcy has in the last sixty years lost its efforts to keep nonwhites out of decent schools, women pregnant and out of the workforce, gays out of sight, and, above all, their own sense of what is normal as an iron-fisted king of the hill. They are running out of people to hate, counting down to having zero groups that they might arbitrarily kick off the island, or push away from the table. Their religion is in disarray; their economy lay in rubble; their principles of justice are a mockery around the world. After how many years, these people have just had it. Not only did we elect a black man to the White House, we didn't elect someone with a familiar name like Bill Cosby or Frederick Douglass. Those names, they could have handled. Good people, even for blacks. Christian, American, familiar names. Black parents. The kind of people you can look good for supporting, helping, or admiring. No, we just had to go and elect a guy with a funny-sounding name. And nothing they could do to scare everyone could stop it. And therein lies the key. Once upon a time, it didn't annoy the conscience to be racist because everybody was racist. But one day these folks woke up and the stereotypes didn't work. The waffle boxes didn't work. The secret-Muslim conspiracy theory didn't work. It got to the point where Democrats like Joe Biden and Harry Reid were defining the edge of what is acceptable racism. This formerly "normal" class felt as if they were cast out in the cold, and even though that would have made them actually normal, they were infuriated. How dare they be treated like everyone else! And so it has been. The election of an educated, well-spoken, capable black man with a name they wouldn't give to their kids was the last straw. It was the seventh sign of the "normal" people's apocalypse. Suddenly they, and everyone who was dancing along with them trying to pretend that they, too, were part of this privileged class, needed to do something. And quick. Which is why we heard about "white slavery", or why a bunch of people who go throwing bricks through the windows of people they don't like could possibly throw the word "Nazi" around with a straight face. Hell, up in Seattle, a Tea Party advocate assaulted a woman who rightfully tore down a flyer. I mean, when the argument is, "How dare you outrage me by not letting the people I support break the law," the argument is pretty desperate. I've sat through people's attempts to explain how one is specifically not racist because they use racist arguments, terminology, and accusations against their political opponents. In other words, the immense stupidity of the Tea Party and its sympathizers is the result of a comfortable ignorance suddenly finding itself under intense pressure. No, really: Is it any mystery why the same people who scream, "Give me back my country!" didn't do anything until Obama was elected? Even if you want to pitch about the insanely stupid rhetoric that throwing racist arguments around somehow proves they're not a bunch of half-witted bigots, you still have to concede that their sudden alarm matches an American pattern. These folks had the comfort of believing themselves a majority. The same majority that didn't prepare for international terrorism. The same majority that didn't see the obvious dead ends in their rube goldberg economics. The same majority that didn't foresee the Iraq quagmire, or that was surprised when someone finally hit the U.S. in 2001. In other words, there is a reason we in Washington state waited until after a Tacoma boy was sexually mutilated by a mental patient who should never have been released before trying to fashion laws addressing such problems. There is a reason why communities all across America are waiting for someone to die before they put in a stop sign or traffic signal at a certain intersections. And no matter what we might say about the Catholic Church's complicity in the widespread abuse and exploitation of children, there is a reason some folks were only surprised by the fact that so many people were surprised when the scandal broke yet again several years ago. And there is a reason why the Tea Party waited until their day was over before crawling out from under their rocks. Just like there is a reason nobody thought to look in a dictionary until after the rest of America and the world were laughing hysterically at the phrase, "tea bag". Acting after the fact is an American tradition inherited from old Europe. Indeed, we had to place a limit on how we might behave after the fact in our Constitution. For years, progressives at home and abroad have criticized American intelligence. And plenty have resented that criticism; there is no shortage of third-world countries they might point to and say, "Well, if you're so unhappy here, why don't you go live in _____?" But what we see in the Tea Party, that ugly, cruel spirit not of dissent but rather of infantile temper tantrum carried on by alleged adults, is actually an American tradition dating at least to the 1920s, though some might suggest the 1860s, or even the 1770s. The Tea Party and its allies are examples of that hideous ignorance and mean spirit so many have criticized of Americans over the years. The America they want back is one in which the white, heterosexual, nominal Christian could expect the comfort of sociopolitical advantage. And now that they are expected to stand equal to their neighbors, they feel oppressed. Poor them. They ought to consider themselves lucky since, now that it's their turn, they only are expected to be equal, instead of second-class. They are the embodiment of America's shameful ignorance. They are the spirit of its toxic hatred. They are a disgrace upon America. ____________________ Notes: Rich, Frank. "The Rage Is Not About Health Care". The New York Times. March 28, 2010; page WK10. NYTimes.com. March 29, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html
Teabonics? The Inevitable: "Teabonics" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (Thanks to Pargon) Further proof that the Tea Party doesn't really have a clue what they're bawling about. Like the anti-immigration advocates who can't spell. And though it's not properly Teabonic, I thought to take a moment to acknowledge my neighbor, Madanthonywayne, because he's right—they're not racist.
Jews, Hitler, and the Tea Party Here's an interesting question: Can the Tea Party do anything without embarrassing the hell out of itself? Now, maybe this is the sort of question that irritates TP sympathizers, but what are we to think? The Stranger's Eli Sanders traveled to Yakima, Washington to cover the arraignment of Charles Alan Wilson, accused of repeatedly threatening Sen. Patty Murray's life because she voted in favor of health care reform; while there, he covered a TP rally at which people allegedly voiced support for Wilson. But it's not Charles Alan Wilson that has my attention at the moment. Rather, it's this photo: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! No way: You're not really going there, are you? Yep, apparently you are. (Photo by Eli Sanders) Or, to make it a little more clear, Sanders explained: Looking at the photos I posted from yesterday's Tea Party rally in Yakima, Slog commenter JoeJo asked: "Is that a magic-marker yarmulke on Patty Murray?" .... Yes, looks like a yarmulke to me. They're really going to go there? Really? Apparently so. The TPers are going to denounce Democrats as Jews. Good one. No, really: What the hell is the point of that? Especially when their fellow TPers are going to compare Obama to Hitler? This is your Tea Party. ____________________ Notes: Sanders, Eli. "Is That a Yarmulke on Sen. Patty Murray? And Did That Guy Really Just Say That About Hitler? Yes, Yes, and More from Yesterday's Tea Party Rally in Yakima". Slog. April 11, 2010. Slog.TheStranger.com. April 12, 2010. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/ar...es-yes-and-more-from-yesterdays-tea-party-ral —————. "Beautiful Day for a Yakima Tea Party". Slog. April 10, 2010. Slog.TheStranger.com. April 12, 2010. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/04/10/beautiful-day-for-a-yakima-tea-party
An odd flavor of tea An exercise in contrasts: Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. The 18 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45 .... .... Tea Party supporters' fierce animosity toward Washington, and the president in particular, is rooted in deep pessimism about the direction of the country and the conviction that the policies of the Obama administration are disproportionately directed at helping the poor rather than the middle class or the rich. The overwhelming majority of supporters say Mr. Obama does not share the values most Americans live by and that he does not understand the problems of people like themselves. More than half say the policies of the administration favor the poor, and 25 percent think that the administration favors blacks over whites — compared with 11 percent of the general public .... .... Nearly 9 in 10 disapprove of the job Mr. Obama is doing over all, and about the same percentage fault his handling of major issues: health care, the economy and the federal budget deficit. Ninety-two percent believe Mr. Obama is moving the country toward socialism, an opinion shared by more than half of the general public. "I just feel he's getting away from what America is," said Kathy Mayhugh, 67, a retired medical transcriber in Jacksonville. "He's a socialist. And to tell you the truth, I think he's a Muslim and trying to head us in that direction, I don't care what he says. He's been in office over a year and can't find a church to go to. That doesn't say much for him." (Zernike and Thee-Brenan) It is a strange profile the poll paints. To the one, Tea Party supporters are well-educated and well-to-do. To the other, though, they seem to have an odd view of reality. They think a president who caters to financial institutions and health insurance companies, supports perpetual warfare, and refuses to prosecute war crimes committed by Americans is "very liberal". By that standard, of course, George W. Bush would be a flaming liberal by comparison, yet fifty-seven percent hold a favorable view of the former president. And, apparently, they think Obama's policies focus too much on race, and do too much to help the poor. I wonder just how a trillion dollar bailout of Wall Street institutions has disproportionately helped the poor. Additionally, one might wonder how deeply Tea Party supporters think through their positions: When talking about the Tea Party movement, the largest number of respondents said that the movement's goal should be reducing the size of government, more than cutting the budget deficit or lowering taxes. And nearly three-quarters of those who favor smaller government said they would prefer it even if it meant spending on domestic programs would be cut. But in follow-up interviews, Tea Party supporters said they did not want to cut Medicare or Social Security — the biggest domestic programs, suggesting instead a focus on "waste." Some defended being on Social Security while fighting big government by saying that since they had paid into the system, they deserved the benefits. Others could not explain the contradiction. "That's a conundrum, isn't it?" asked Jodine White, 62, of Rocklin, Calif. "I don't know what to say. Maybe I don't want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security." She added, "I didn't look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I've changed my mind." (ibid) It seems clear that TPers are tired and frustrated, but the contrasting faces of their expression makes it hard to figure just what has worn them down to the point that anger is all they can manage. Perhaps Frank Rich had it right in the wake of the health care vote: It's not happenstance that Frank, Lewis and Cleaver — none of them major Democratic players in the health care push — received a major share of last weekend's abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan "Take our country back!," these are the people they want to take the country back from.____________________ Notes: Zernike, Kate and Megan Thee-Brenan. "Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated". The New York Times. April 15, 2010; page A1. NYTimes.com. April 15, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html Rich, Frank. "The Rage Is Not About Health Care". The New York Times. March 28, 2010; page WK10. NYTimes.com. April 15, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html
Welcome to Civilization: Would You Like Some Tea? It's a small thing, personally, but validation sometimes helps. How many times have I criticized the libertarian and conservative disdain for society? At any rate, cartoonist Monte Wolverton makes the point: What — are we living in the wild west? Are we mountain men, living off the land, occasionally visiting Fort Vancouver to trade our beaver pelts for hard tack and black powder? Are we Vikings, making our living by plundering settlements on the East Anglia coast? Are we ice-age hunter-gatherers, living in caves in Europe and competing with Neanderthals for food? Or are we living in the 21st century, in a complex world where, in civilized countries, citizens cooperate through government to provide necessary, efficient services? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!____________________ Notes: Wolverton, Monte. "Tea Party: Yearning for Yesteryear". The Word From Wolverton. April 26, 2010. Blog.Cagle.com. April 30, 2010. http://blog.cagle.com/wolverton/2010/04/26/tea-party-yearning-for-yesteryear/
Dear Tea Party, Thank you for making the whole of the United States continue to look like a country full of inbred racist redneck a-holes. Also, thank you for making conservatives like me afraid to admit being conservative for fear of being mistaken for some unreasonably backwards fool stuck in the late 1700's. Sincerely, Black Jack P.S. Stop using the Gadsden Flag please. I like that flag, and now that you're using it, it's being equated by the general population as a symbol of intolerance and hatred. Thanks.
Because they didn't stop to think before they leapt Raven Brooks notes: A small piece hit CNN's blog today stating that the National Tea Party Unity convention was moving from its set date of July 15-17 to October 2010. The reasons given by the organizing committee include: • "it would more advantageous to hold the convention in the middle of October just prior to the November elections." • "The heat in Las Vegas in July is keeping many who would like to participate from attending." • "We have also received numerous emails from people who were forced to decide between family vacations and attending the convention." CNN's piece basically served as publication of their statement without applying any critical analysis to it. There are some basic questions you should be asking here that don't even require you to be a veteran event organizer. To make the point bluntly their stated reasons for moving the convention are bullshit, and CNN buried the real reason this is happening in the story which was "moving back the date allows other Tea Party groups to attend the convention." In other words they're two weeks from their event and they've got no attendees and no interest in it. Brooks also notes some of the problems that come with rescheduling a naitonal convention two weeks in advance of its original date: booking speakers and possible costs of advance fees; attendees changing hotel reservations, flights, and work schedules; costs owed to the original facility; renegotiating and rescheduling vendors; reprinting or retooling promotional materials including tchotchke and memorabilia. I think my favorite excuse from Tea Party Nation, though, comes from Paul Steinhauser's article for CNN: Tea Party Nation organized and held the first national Tea Party convention in Nashville, Tennessee in February. Phillips says that he and fellow organizers were so excited about what they term the success of the first convention that they scheduled the second convention without considering the timing. So let's get this straight: You want to influence national politics, but it's too much for you to consider the common sense of timing? And what was the first national convention for if it left so many issues unaddressed that you require a second? Ladies and gentlemen, this is your Tea Party, bumbling toward America for you. ____________________ Notes: Brooks, Raven. "Tea Party moves their convention". June 26, 2010. RavenBrooks.com. June 28, 2010. http://ravenbrooks.com/2010/06/tea-party-moves-their-convention/ Steinhauser, Paul. "Tea Party Convention moved to October". CNN Political Ticker. June 26, 2010. PoliticalTicker.Blogs.CNN.com. June 28, 2010. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/26/tea-party-convention-moved-to-october/
The Latest Tinfoil Tea Party Conspiracy Theory Is There Anybody Out There? Is there anyone left in the world who still thinks the twenty-first century Tea Party movement in the United States is somehow a legitimate enterprise? That is, who among us still actually believes the Tea Party? Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking about actual Tea Party support. But at some point, I have to assume the tea partiers are aware of what they're taking part in. For instance, it's kind of hard to not laugh: Remember the story of Kenneth Gladney? You probably don't, unless you're a right-winger. He was a guy who got knocked over for a second during a contentious town hall meeting in St. Louis in 2009. He quickly became a folk hero to right-wing bloggers, because he was, if you squinted, a black conservative victim of Union Thug Violence. He was also uninsured -- yep! -- and the hospital visit he had to make in order to demonstrate the severity of his "beating" also made him a right-wing charity case. He then began appearing at Tea Party rallies and on Fox News in a wheelchair, etc., etc. Liberals laughed bitterly at the "uninsured person protests government-funded healthcare" story and then forgot all about Gladney, forever. But the conservative bloggers never forget an exaggerated or wholly invented tale of victimhood. Now, two years later, there is closure: The two SEIU thugs who viciously beat Gladney went on trial (for misdemeanor assault) on Monday. The trial wrapped up on Tuesday. The jury deliberated for 40 minutes and then found both of the accused not guilty. (CASEY ANTHONY ALL OVER AGAIN!) Gladney's own ridiculous testimony basically exposed how much of an overblown farce this entire incident was from the beginning. (Gladney wore a neck brace during the trial. The neck brace was unrelated to the two-year-old incident. You know that whole thing about frivolous lawsuits and tort reform and the culture of victimhood and ambulance-chasing trial lawyers? Yes, well, the conservative movement totally means all of that, until someone in an SEIU shirt briefly knocks someone over.) Oh, big surprise. No, really. It should be noted that according to Salon, Gladney admitted during testimony that he was only in the wheelchair to begin with because it was hot, and there were no folding chairs. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Folk Hero Fraud: Kenneth Gladney in a wheelchair to beat the heat, left; stunned after acquittal of his alleged assailants, right. At any rate, the story doesn't end there. The acquittal, according to Brietbart blogger P. J. Salvatore, is the product of a conspiracy theory: When you look at the timeline of events and the media calendar in general leading up to the Gladney incident last August, it’s difficult not to conclude that there was collaboration amongst White House staff, components of Big Labor, and certain liberal media outlets. However, we know that all will continue to deny it. That's right, a right-wing con job didn't work, and the only explanation is a conspiracy theory. I mean, sure, we unenlightened dolts who aren't worried about Kenyan anti-colonialism in the White House might think that a jury, upon hearing that the wheelchair was unnecessary, that Gladney actually toured some Tea Party events in the wheelchair, and having seen the video, could have concluded that the whole thing was a con job from the start. But that's the thing, you see? We're unenlightened. We're barbarians. We don't really understand how things work. Which is why we will never understand that a massive conspiracy involving White House operatives, union officials, and liberal media outlets is the only reason for the acquittal of two people accused of misdemeanors. Yeah, this is your Tea Party. ____________________ Notes: Pareene, Alex. "Union thugs found not guilty of assault on Tea Party hero". Salon. July 14, 2011. Salon.com. July 15, 2011. http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/07/14/gladney_case_conspiracy/index.html Salvatore, P. J. "MMfA PROPAGANDA WATCH: Flashback – Tax-Exempt Soros Group on SEIU Payroll". Big Journalism. July 13, 2011. BigJournalism.com. July 15, 2011. http://bigjournalism.com/pjsalvator...hback-tax-exempt-soros-group-on-seiu-payroll/ Jackohoft. "Kenneth Gladney Reaction After Verdict". YouTube. July 12, 2011. YouTube.com. July 15, 2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVI1qt8GrtQ
Your Tea Party Your Tea Party Nominee for Keith Olbermann's "Worst Persons in the World": Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! They've figured it out, sort of. But, yeah, changing the paperwork is probably a bit of a pain. And in the end, I think the Campaign to Defeat "Barrack Obama" is probably emblematic of the conspiracy-laden opposition that sees everything as an "attack by MoveOn.org and Barack Obama's political operatives". In other words, we're not surprised that Mary Pearson, Joe Wierzbicki, Ryan Gill, Donald LaCombe, and Lloyd Marcus have thrown their lot in with the Tea Party Express. I mean, hell, they don't even know who they're whining about. ____________________ Notes: Olbermann, Keith. "Worst Persons in the World". Countdown With Keith Olbermann. Current TV, San Francisco. August 3, 2011. Current.com. August 4, 2011. http://current.com/shows/countdown/videos/worst-persons-a-new-pac-beck-lieberman Campaign to Defeat Barack Obama. "Welcome to the Campaign to Defeat Barack Obama". (n.d.) CampaignToDefeatObama.com. August 4, 2011. http://www.campaigntodefeatobama.com/
I thought the tea party represented the working class, who gains the least amount of benefit from the two ruling classes in Washington. The rich can lobby, while all the liberal fringe have advocates. Those in the middle, pay for the waste with higher taxes. The tea party is about less spending and less government regulation that supports their two favorites. If the tea party appears to side with the Republicans it is only because of what they have in common; they both pay too much in taxes to support wasteful programs that benefit special interests. Unions hate the tea party because the tea party exposes their money laundering scam with the democrats. The unions will gather dues to support Democratic candidates and mud sling the opposite. The payoff will kick back to the unions via wasteful jobs. The union employees then pay due which is then kick backed to the democratic candidates. The tax payer and business pay. The tea party is more about free competition based on skill and not union cronyism. During the debt talk the position of the tea party was get the house in order by trimming the waste. The Republicans were onboard until the democrats did what they do best; spin. Spin is expensive with their solution borrow even more than they began with. The bottom 46% don't pay any taxes and don't care if we borrow to pay their tab, since the tea party will pay. That makes the tea party the bad guys. It is a magic trick to distract from the deception in the process. One of the problems the tea party faces is they are not as skilled at corruption and deception as the democrats. The democrats can lie easier, with the tea party trying to maintain a higher level of honesty. If the tea party doesn't learn to cheat, spin and use the double standard like their opponents, they will be mischaracterized in the imaginary worlds of those who can't determine reality. The tea party also touches upon the liberal dual standard.
The Tea Party Delusion Quite clearly, based on the rest of your post, it is not that you thought, but, rather, that you believe. That is, you believe the Tea Party represents the working class. It's obvious because your post is nothing but Tea Party spin. If the Tea Party represents the working class, then the working class wants the United States to cease operating as a sovereign nation, and that's going to be a hard sell for anyone, regardless of what they have dangling from their tricorner. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Tom Tomorrow, September 22, 2010 (via Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) Nobody who has been paying attention actually believes your campaign literature, Wellwisher. Except, maybe, the Tea Partiers themselves, and from a pit of neuroses. It is impossible to reconcile the proposition that the Tea Party represents the working class when it struggles so hard to be the voice of industrialist billionaires. How many times can Republicans try to feed us the same platform that panders to the rich and expect people to believe it's really about the working classes? “Here’s how it works,” [MIT economist David] Autor wrote in an e-mail. “1. You have a set of policies that you favor at all times and under all circumstances, e.g., cut taxes, remove regulations, drill-baby-drill, etc. 2. You see a problem that needs fixing (e.g., the economy stinks). 3. You say, ‘We need to enact my favored policies now more than ever.’ I believe that every item in the GOP list that you sent derives from this three-step procedure. “That’s not to say that there are no reasonable ideas on this list. But there is certainly no original thinking here directed at addressing the employment problem. Or, to put it differently, is there any set of economic circumstances under which the GOP would not actually want to enact every item on this agenda? If the answer is no, then this is clearly now-more-than-everism.” I've been hearing this song and dance from Republicans for thirty years. It's not even that "all Nickelback songs sound the same" trope, but the same damn song. Meanwhile, every time the Republicans get part of what they're after, the usual outcomes occur, namely a degradation of the quality of life in this country and a widening of the wealth gap. The problem with accepting that anyone in the Tea Party actually believes that the movement represents the working class is that it is impolite to actually consider someone to be that stupid. ____________________ Notes: Klein, Ezra. "GOP jobs plan: Old ideas, fancy new clip art". The Washington Post. May 26, 2011. WashingtonPost.com. August 4, 2011. http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...y-new-clip-art/2011/05/26/AG3XZKCH_story.html
