The term 'teabagger' - acceptable or not?

[Asguard]

I do not think we should police the term.

They distinctly chose to identify themselves by that term originally and it went on for quite a while before they finally came to realise what it actually meant. And that only happened when the more 'liberal' media started snorting with utter derision, at their, well.. at their dangling teabags and calling themselves teabaggers on national TV.

For example, as David Weigel points out, it was not until more liberal media commentators and others started chuckling about it on national television that the self identifying teabaggers became offended.

Consider the timeline. Even after more liberal pundits were snorting with laughter, at teaparty events, you could still buy "proud to be a TeaBagger" badges and apparently wear it with pride. In September 2009, they were still selling it. However, there was a report that Obama also used the term in describing the self-described "teabagger" movement and that was apparently when it became so offensive to them. As Weigel points out:

If the Tea Party activists and their allies are going to take offense at certain terms being applied to them, they should probably avoid self-identifying with those same terms.

​

Or more to the point:

The origin of the term is relevant in determining the relative size of the Tea Party’s violin. What wasn’t pointed out to Tapper is the fact that the Tea Partiers not only invented the term, they did so in order to inflict a similar double entendre onto the President, the Democrats, and liberals in general. Hence, it’s a violin so small, you need an electron microscope with a zoom lens to see it.

Now, they’re trying to re-cast the term as a slur, on a par with the “n-word,” hurtful to all the Tea Party members who are just ordinary moms, dads, sons, and daughters. The latter point has some resonance, but the former is ridiculous in the extreme.

In emails, protest signs, t-shirts, and online, early Tea Party literature urged protesters to “Tea Bag the White House,” and to “Tea-bag the liberal Dems before they tea-bag you.” The suggestion is that the metaphoric “tea-bags” be shoved in the mouths of the President, Democratic members of Congress, and even ordinary citizens who identify as liberal Democrats. The idea that they just didn’t know the term’s only (at that time) meaning is belied by the fact that they obviously knew it was negative (and non-consensual), since they didn’t want it done to them, and also because it only had one meaning.

It was only after MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and David Shuster, and CNN’s Anderson Cooper, turned the tables on the term that Tea Partiers objected. They were perfectly satisfied to advocate the metaphoric mouth-rape of liberal men, women, and children, but had the nerve to become indignant when the insult boomeranged on them.​

In other words, they really should not be complaining about its use now after liberally using it to describe themselves and what they want to do to liberal Democrats and their President.

(bolding mine)

I just have one question relating to the section in bold, since when is giving someone a felacio non-consentual? (yes i know it doesnt refer strictly to what "felacio" does but they do generally go together)

 

[scheherazade]

I confess that my limited understanding of national and global politics comes from very limited watching of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which is a much awarded news service. Hence, I am guilty of indifference, save when some of the foolishness gets too close to my back yard.

This 'Teabaggers' issue, therefore is not even on my personal radar, but just to demonstrate that Canadians are not totally oblivious to what goes on elsewhere, the following excerpt from some previous news:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2009/05/08/f-rfa-macdonald.html

The purifiers

As the Republicans ponder how to return from political Siberia, a significant constituency in the party is arguing that the solution is ideological purification — a return to conservative principles they believe were lost in the pursuit of power.

These are the same people who, if it had been feasible, would have had Palin at the top of the ticket last fall.

They're also the ones who denounce President Barack Obama as a "socialist" for spending trillions to fight a recession that has taken the jobs of more than five million Americans. And who still answer the "Ban Gay Marriage" war cry, as state after state legalizes it and polls find a clear majority of younger Americans in support of the idea.

They are the hardliners who organized a latter-day version of the Boston "tea party" last month in a handful of U.S. cities to protest what they saw as taxation without representation.

Unfortunately, that idea didn't work out so well. First, any taxation today comes with representation (full congressional approval); and, second, the protesters called themselves "teabaggers," not understanding that term's raunchy double meaning, which we are not going to explain here but which was picked up immediately by delighted left-wing critics.

Bolding, italics and underlining added by me.

 

[Gustav]

Using intentionally insulting terms for the opposition does not engender a serious or balanced discussion and could even be considered trolling. For instance, if I started a thread titled, "Goddless, Pinko, Commie Demo-rats Vote to Raise Taxes", I wouldn't expect much of a discussion to result from that framing of the issue.

It's childish and provocative and does little to promote the ideal of an "Intelligent Community". The same goes for "tea-bagger".

are you asserting that this term is something that those in opposition to the tea party came up with?

----------------------------------

surely a poll would be appropriate?
james?

 

[Gustav]

perhaps tiassa can write something about that shit
fish tacos, muff burgers and whatnot
y'know sexualizing food products

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

perhaps tiassa can write something about that shit
fish tacos, muff burgers and whatnot
y'know sexualizing food products

Ah the super 7 incher hey . To funny , Sex still sells . The Iron Post a bar here in town runs a radio add talking a bout its new deck . It emphasizes " come sit on our big Deck , If you like decks . We have the biggest deck in town . It is quite humorous really

 

[Tiassa]

Holistic sex toys, and other notes

I just found it amusing that you could quite literally, see the shift from being proud to be a "teabagger", and self-proclaimed one at that, to when they found it insulting.

One of the funniest parts of about that thread, regardless of the hints dropped about the true meaning of "teabaggers", Buffalo still seemed a bit in the dark.

Because it amuses me so greatly, I'll see your facepalm and raise:

Can you come up with something a little less biased?

Democratic Underground, now really.

(#2333640/2)

Now here's the thing about that. Yes, Joe posted an editorial rant from a Democratic Underground contributor. But what he posted was a theory based on something factual and reasonably well known.

The "Tea Party" of the present day has enjoyed much backing from Republican-affiliated institutions.

The "Brooks Brothers Riot" of 2000 was not, as conservatives tried to depict it, an expression of outrage by everyday Florida citizens, but a bunch of party operatives pretending to be grassroots.

Hence the proposition that the "Brooks Brothers Riot" astroturf attempt constitutes "the original teabaggers".

To me, dismissing the factual record because it is also carried at Democratic Underground reeks of desperation.

To me, the parallel is obvious: Conservative astroturfing.

Now, instead of arguing against a proposition derived from historical fact, Mr. Roam hoped to dismiss the historical fact simply because the source on that occasion was liberal.

Yes, that's the argument: If a liberal source repeats an established fact, the established fact is not credible.

And right there, in a nutshell, you have the Tea Party, at least, if not the broader American conservative outlook.

They're short on ideas, short on intellect, and short on honesty. In a way, what slays me is that we're having a discussion about the propriety of the term teabagger.

Rather, I think the discussion should be at what point the constant dishonesty and stupidity coming from the Tea Party becomes offensive enough that we can skip past the teabagger question and simply say: "Shut the fuck up, and don't bother us again until you have something useful to contribute."

Unfortunately, American politics are ... ahem ... too "civilized" for that.

Yes, note the quote marks. And the clearing of the throat.

(Meanwhile, as I'm looking at the Democratic Underground page from that thread, I see at a "holistic" sex toy advert: "We specialize in healthy, nontoxic sex toys ...." One would think that, in the case of something intended to be inserted into a vagina or rectum, nontoxic should be the standard, not a bonus advertising point.)​

 

[Bells]

(bolding mine)

I just have one question relating to the section in bold, since when is giving someone a felacio non-consentual? (yes i know it doesnt refer strictly to what "felacio" does but they do generally go together)

Because the whole "teabaggers" thing really started when they (Tea Party pundits) were going on about how they wanted to teabag Obama - ie - shove their err teabags into his mouth. I don't think Obama had consented to their suggestions or the notion of it.

In a way, what slays me is that we're having a discussion about the propriety of the term teabagger.

I just find it funny as hell to be perfectly honest.

What comes to mind is 'why now?'.. After all this time, why now? We had months of "teabaggers" proudly proclaiming their *cough* movement *cough*. I mean it got to the point where Buffalo, Constitution Man himself, responded with "Taxed Enough Already" when asked what a "teabagger" was.

It really is too funny.

He identified with the term and he was proud.

And no one, no-one on the right that is, said a word to him that he should not be so proud to be called a "teabagger". All stayed silent. The so called left and liberals were trying to tell him, but those on the right remained stoic and didn't say a peep as to why it may not be the best term to describe the movement. Quite the contrary.

So I have to admit, I am curious as to why now?

 

[Tiassa]

Speculation and Comment

So I have to admit, I am curious as to why now?

Well, this is only speculation, but:

(1) We did strike the terminology already, in 2009 I think.

(2) It's becoming pervasive in the media, such that we will have to start censoring a large amount of potential source material, with the functional result of handicapping political discussions; a predictable effect will be an attempt to even out the score a little by striking a bunch of conservative rhetoric, to the obvious effect of absolutely stifling common political discourse.​

To the other, it is impossible to argue that current use of the terms by Tea Party opponents is not derisively intended.

I just think the term is going to survive not so much to imply that the Tea Party is actually a bunch of closet balldippers, but, rather, as an emblem of just how stupid the Tea Party movement really is.

Most of these people would denounce "nanny state" solutions, yet here we are protecting them from themselves.

 

[James R]

A poll has been added.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Its ironic that anyone would continue to chastise the tea party movement since its they who have your government tied up in ball and on the cusp of a default in August. The tea party movement is a small but loud and active fiscal movement and you can deride them all you want but *cough* they're so stupid they actually have political weight, when *cough* those on the left sit idly by mumbling about how grass roots movements don't really work anymore. You all remind me of the liberals who sat around dismissing Mein Kampf and that oh so pedestrian low-bred anti-intellectual Nazi movement it represented. No reason to worry there!

...But anyway, its a fiscal movement and maybe you should take it seriously enough not to treat it with derision but figure out a way of making them ineffectual. Same with the moniker.

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert Title Here)

The tea party movement is a small but loud and active fiscal movement and you can deride them all you want but *cough* they're so stupid they actually have political weight, when *cough* those on the left sit idly by mumbling about how grass roots movements don't really work anymore ....

.... But anyway, its a fiscal movement and maybe you should take it seriously enough not to treat it with derision but figure out a way of making them ineffectual. Same with the moniker.

I would challenge pretty much all of that:

• The Tea Party movement currently in effect came to the fore as a result of Republican-affiliated astroturfing. You know, lobbyists busing in operatives to pretend to be "grassroots", and all. There is a lot of big industry money stroking the ... uh ... teabaggers, and they also have advocates at FOX News.

• The Tea Party is not a "fiscal movement". They like to portray themselves as such, but as Rachel Maddow explained. It's a long excerpt, but:

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How is this—the Tea Party movement, how do they distinguish themselves from the traditional conservatives?

GEORGE WILL, CONSERVATIVE COLUMNIST: Well, I think they are the traditional conservatives, with, at the moment at least, the social issues stripped away. These are limited government, Madisonian conservatives of the sort who trace their lineage directly back to Barry Goldwater, without the detour that we took in the '70s and '80s into deeper involvement in the social issues.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, you know, a lot of the Tea Party is just fiscal conservativism, which is a totally positive force. That was a lot of the message.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, CONSERVATIVE COLUMNIST: Tea Party has distinguished itself in being almost exclusively about governance, the reach of government, taxation, economic issues. It's not the social conservatives. In fact, that's what distinguishes is.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

MADDOW: Not the social conservatives. That's what defines them.

The whole Tea Party phenomenon emerged in Republican politics after 2008 but before the last elections in 2010. And when Republicans in 2010 won the House and won a huge number of governorships and won and huger than huge number of legislative seats at the state level in that election, pundit world, the Beltway, decided that that meant social issues were over because the Tea Party drove those Republican victories, and the Tea Party doesn't care about social issues. That, in fact, defines the Tea Party.

Therefore, 2010's Republican majorities coast-to-coast must be all about budgets, all about money, all about leaving the gays, guns, and abortion rights alone.

If you have believed that common wisdom, then this does not make sense. And this at least is a surprise. Look—before the 2010 elections, before the social issues are over, Tea Party elections of 2010, the most anti-abortion restrictions enacted by states in a single year was 34.

What happened after the “we don't care about social issues” class of 2010 got elected? Look. Boing! Eighty different anti-abortion laws, not just proposed, not just passed by a committee or one House, but 80 new anti-abortion laws enacted in the states this year, thanks to that Tea Party election last year, you know, the one where they didn't care about abortion anymore.

And that does not include the new abortion bill that passed in Iowa, and that it's considered likely to be passed into law there any day now by Republican Governor John Kasich.

The fundamental common wisdom about American politics right now is that the Tea Partiers are driving the Republican Party and that they are fundamentally different than the Republican base has ever been before, they are libertarian, they are isolationists, they are small government, limited government, anti-spending types who just want government off our backs. That's their brand, and they've done a great job selling it.

The evidence we've got, though, in contrast to that brand suggests that whatever they are calling themselves, Republicans now—again, whatever they call themselves, are super anti-abortion. The evidence we've got is self-identified Tea Party supporters are slightly more in favor of the war in Afghanistan than the rest of Republicans. They've been only barely more likely than Republican voters in general to see federal government debt as a serious threat to the country.

However novel the Republican Party wants to be seen as this year, and however much that drives the pundit class to distraction about how different Republican politics are going to be this year, really what Republicans are dealing with is a traditional Republican conservative base this year, that is extra obsessed with abortion.

There is nothing new under the sun. Maybe the universe is trying to remind us of that by having Newt Gingrich run for something again.

The Tea Partification of the Republican Party, when you look at the evidence, seems like just an upsurge of the anti-abortion, religious right faction that the Republican Party has harbored for a generation now and ignoring the religious and theocratic impulses of the Tea Party movement that's supposedly don't have those impulses makes things in politics seem surprising that shouldn't be surprising.​

You all remind me of the liberals who sat around dismissing Mein Kampf and that oh so pedestrian low-bred anti-intellectual Nazi movement it represented. No reason to worry there!

And you remind me of a friend who actually explained to me recently that being informed was a bad thing.
____________________

Notes:

Maddow, Rachel. The Rachel Maddow Show. MSNBC, New York. July 13, 2011. Television.

—————. "'The Rachel Maddow Show' for Wednesday, July 13, 2011". The Rachel Maddow Show. July 14, 2011. Transcript. MSNBC.MSN.com. July 15, 2011. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43756246/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/

 

[quadraphonics]

One general thing: I don't see where the details of the term's origins add up to the automatic negation of any complaints about its use coming from its object. At the end of the day, an epithet is an epithet, no?

Also, Pecker is also where I first encountered this term, as well.

Using intentionally insulting terms for the opposition does not engender a serious or balanced discussion and could even be considered trolling. For instance, if I started a thread titled, "Goddless, Pinko, Commie Demo-rats Vote to Raise Taxes", I wouldn't expect much of a discussion to result from that framing of the issue.

Sure. But isn't the resultant lack of worthwhile discussion exactly "punishment" enough for such trolling? What about the old saw "you don't have a right not to be offended?"

If we have a problem with troll threads taking up too much space and oxygen, maybe that's better addressed by engendering more worthwhile threads, rather than banning the trolls. What's a better allocation of moderator time and energy, in your view?

It's childish and provocative and does little to promote the ideal of an "Intelligent Community". The same goes for "tea-bagger".

Well, trolling is trolling, and can be moderated as such, no? I don't think it's a good idea to ban specific terms (even epithets or obscenities) as a proxy for addressing trolling. It's trivial for the trolls to evade - heck, to exploit - so there's no upside. The only way to moderate trolls is holistically.

None of which is to say that such terms aren't red flags that beg the question of trolling or other impropriety. Point is that reasonable application of reasonable rules against trolling should themselves handle almost every case where such terms are problematic, without requiring any specific prohibitions on any specific terms.

Also: Varda won this thread so hard.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

@Tiassa

How am I suggesting that being informed is a bad thing? Where do you see this in my post? If you are serious and not simply trolling me then I would like you to provide proof for your characterization of me.

If the Tea bag movement isn't a fiscal movement why are they largely protesting fiscal policies?

Maddow is about dismissing this group as they go about trying to dismantle government as we speak:

The Tea Party movement (TPM) is an American populist political movement that is generally recognized as conservative and libertarian, and has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009. IT ENDORSES REDUCED GOVERNMENT SPENDING, OPPOSITION TO TAXATION IN VARYING DEGREES, REDUCTION OF THE NATIONAL DEBT AND FEDERAL SPENDING DEFICIT, AND ADHERENCE TO AN ORIGINALIST INTERPRETATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

The name "Tea Party" is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, a protest by colonists who objected to a British tax on tea in 1773 and demonstrated by dumping British tea taken from docked ships into the harbor. Some commentators have referred to the Tea in "Tea Party" as the bacronym "Taxed Enough Already".

The Tea Party movement has caucuses in the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States.The Tea Party movement has no central leadership but is composed of a loose affiliation of national and local groups that determine their own platforms and agendas. The Tea Party movement has been cited as an example of grassroots political activity, although it has also been cited as an example of astroturfing.

The Tea Party's most noted national figures include Republican politicians such as Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, and Ron Paul, with Paul described as the "intellectual grandfather" of the movement. As of 2011, the Tea Party movement is not a national political party, but has endorsed Republican candidates. Polls show that most Tea Partiers consider themselves to be Republicans. Commentators, including Gallup editor-in-chief Frank Newport, have suggested that the movement is not a new political group but simply a rebranding of traditional Republican candidates and policies. AN OCTOBER 2010 WASHINGTON POST CANVASS OF LOCAL TEA PARTY ORGANIZERS FOUND 87% SAYING "DISSATISFACTION WITH MAINSTREAM REPUBLICAN PARTY LEADERS" WAS "AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUP HAS RECEIVED SO FAR".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

Sorry but the statement in bold is exactly what they have been going about proving themselves. Maybe you should stop being snarky and just be informed

The left has become nothing more than arm chair yawner's chastising other's for actually placing their weight on the political process. If there was a god he would charge liberals with sloth. Don't dismiss them, they are pushing people like Cantor into stifling government. And that's to the chagrin of traditional Republicans! The fact that they would cut abortion and school food programs is irrelevant since they are actually trying to cut SOMEWHERE when liberals are not asking for real cuts anywhere. Where are the disgruntled liberals out on the streets demanding bringing home the troops so there are meaningful cuts in military spending? Where are they protesting tax cuts for the top 1% of billionaires in the US? Where are they on the streets protesting corporate banking lobbyists in the US government? I mean why are they not DOING something? You may not like what the tea party movement stands for but you have to give them credit for making desires felt enough to change the political landscape.

 

[Bells]

@Tiassa

How am I suggesting that being informed is a bad thing? Where do you see this in my post? If you are serious and not simply trolling me then I would like you to provide proof for your characterization of me.

If the Tea bag movement isn't a fiscal movement why are they largely protesting fiscal policies?

Maddow is about dismissing this group as they go about trying to dismantle government as we speak:

The Tea Party movement (TPM) is an American populist political movement that is generally recognized as conservative and libertarian, and has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009. IT ENDORSES REDUCED GOVERNMENT SPENDING, OPPOSITION TO TAXATION IN VARYING DEGREES, REDUCTION OF THE NATIONAL DEBT AND FEDERAL SPENDING DEFICIT, AND ADHERENCE TO AN ORIGINALIST INTERPRETATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

The name "Tea Party" is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, a protest by colonists who objected to a British tax on tea in 1773 and demonstrated by dumping British tea taken from docked ships into the harbor. Some commentators have referred to the Tea in "Tea Party" as the bacronym "Taxed Enough Already".

The Tea Party movement has caucuses in the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States.The Tea Party movement has no central leadership but is composed of a loose affiliation of national and local groups that determine their own platforms and agendas. The Tea Party movement has been cited as an example of grassroots political activity, although it has also been cited as an example of astroturfing.

The Tea Party's most noted national figures include Republican politicians such as Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, and Ron Paul, with Paul described as the "intellectual grandfather" of the movement. As of 2011, the Tea Party movement is not a national political party, but has endorsed Republican candidates. Polls show that most Tea Partiers consider themselves to be Republicans. Commentators, including Gallup editor-in-chief Frank Newport, have suggested that the movement is not a new political group but simply a rebranding of traditional Republican candidates and policies. AN OCTOBER 2010 WASHINGTON POST CANVASS OF LOCAL TEA PARTY ORGANIZERS FOUND 87% SAYING "DISSATISFACTION WITH MAINSTREAM REPUBLICAN PARTY LEADERS" WAS "AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUP HAS RECEIVED SO FAR".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

Sorry but the statement in bold is exactly what they have been going about proving themselves. Maybe you should stop being snarky and just be informed

The left has become nothing more than arm chair yawner's chastising other's for actually placing their weight on the political process. If there was a god he would charge liberals with sloth. Don't dismiss them, they are pushing people like Cantor into stifling government. And that's to the chagrin of traditional Republicans! The fact that they would cut abortion and school food programs is irrelevant since they are actually trying to cut SOMEWHERE when liberals are not asking for real cuts anywhere. Where are the disgruntled liberals out on the streets demanding bringing home the troops so there are meaningful cuts in military spending? Where are they protesting tax cuts for the top 1% of billionaires in the US? Where are they on the streets protesting corporate banking lobbyists in the US government? I mean why are they not DOING something? You may not like what the tea party movement stands for but you have to give them credit for making desires felt enough to change the political landscape.

I am not dismissing their errr political clout. This is more about their being offended by a term they originally applied to themselves with pride and wore the badges with pride. And whether we should moderate self proclaimed "tea party" enthusiasts and supporters who are now offended at being called "tea baggers" after they described themselves as "tea baggers" in the first instance.

Look at Buffalo's post linked above, where he responds to a question from James, who sought clarification about what exactly was a teabagger and his response was to say "Taxed Enough Already".

I mean really...

Should we now moderate anyone who tells Buffalo he is a teabagger because he is such a strong supporter of the movement, for example? Should we be the nannies to those who were too stupid to actually know what it meant and didn't realise or connect the dots with the many hints they were given? For a movement with members who support limited Government involvement, the demand that we moderate and become so involved with something they only now consider insulting (after wearing "proud to be a teabagger" badges for so long) is kind of ironic.

You may not like what the tea party movement stands for but you have to give them credit for making desires felt enough to change the political landscape.

Do you really think any organisation or group that brought Palin (and her 'bear cubs - think O'Donnell and co)' back into prominance deserves that much credit?

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert Title Here)

How am I suggesting that being informed is a bad thing?

You're not. But your argument is similar to the friend who was explaining that to me.

See, she decided she wants Rep. Michele Bachmann to be president. Whatever. But as we talked about it, she became more and more frustrated that I was critical of the Minnesota Republican. She actually tried to explain to me that not everybody reads all the news and analysis I do, and I ought to leave their (uninformed) opinions alone.

And as far as I'm concerned, that's just fine with me. If she doesn't want my opinion, maybe she'll stop telling me how great Glenn Beck and Michele Bachmann are.

What reminds me of my friend, then, is that you're repeating the party line you've heard. The echo chamber has succeeded. That is, you believe that crap.

To wit, sure, go ahead and quote Wikipedia all you want. Meanwhile, some of the rest of us will be paying attention to what's actually going on.

The fact that they would cut abortion and school food programs is irrelevant since they are actually trying to cut SOMEWHERE when liberals are not asking for real cuts anywhere.

Oh, spare us. They want to cut these programs in order to hand their corporate masters tax cuts. Or did you just miss the Wisconsin debacle?

And, yes. Your recycling of partisan lies about the nature of the Tea Party does, in fact, remind me of my friend. For her, it's whatever her barfly friends say, and actual facts are just elitist inventions to denigrate the opinions of the uninformed "real" Americans.

In other words, just say what you want, believe you're right, and screw the facts.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

@Tiassa

How do you explain that they are largely attacking fiscal policies? That is evident, you don't have to buy into 'their crap' in order to see that this is what they are doing and its proving formidable as your president is now encountering an intractable party who's pandering to this very group.

I know that they play into the hands of corporate interests, they may not know that but I am aware of that. The tea party movement has spread whereas Wisconsin's uprising has not? Why is that? You all complain about them but you don't do anything to counter-act? Why is that?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

@Tiassa

Why aren't liberals out on the streets demanding Republicans yield to Obama so there is no default in August? Why aren't you out there protecting social security, medicare and medicaid? I would ask why you don't also demand Obama live up to his promises on a variety of other issues but I know that would be asking too much.

 

[Gustav]

Do you really think any organisation or group that brought Palin (and her 'bear cubs - think O'Donnell and co)' back into prominance deserves that much credit?

oh come now
haven't all of us at one point or another admired hitler and co for their passion and gung ho attitude? i mean, they were at least doing something!

 

[quadraphonics]

I know that they play into the hands of corporate interests, they may not know that but I am aware of that. The tea party movement has spread whereas Wisconsin's uprising has not? Why is that? You all complain about them but you don't do anything to counter-act? Why is that?

It's exactly because he isn't a corporation. The whole point is that said "corporate interests" comprise a formidable system of organization, influence and raw power that is able to effectively coordinate and execute political strategies on a national scale.

 

[Tiassa]

Why are you defending this fraud?

How do you explain that they are largely attacking fiscal policies? That is evident, you don't have to buy into 'their crap' in order to see that this is what they are doing and its proving formidable as your president is now encountering an intractable party who's pandering to this very group.

I explain it by the fact that's what the Koch brothers, FOX News, American Petroleum Institute, and its other corporate masters want:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Which refinery are you with?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Marathon Petroleum(ph).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And are there other many folks out here today from Marathon working?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. This whole bus right here.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This whole bus right here is from Marathon?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: Marathon - as in Marathon Oil Company? Rally for Jobs, a project of Koch Industries and the American Petroleum Institute, bused in people who work for oil companies to fill up their regular citizens rally promoting what the oil companies want.

Quote, “Most arrived in four buses that delivered them from the Canton area.” This is not the first time that Koch Brothers and Company have done something like this. You might remember us reporting last August when they did this in Houston.

They held a supposedly regular citizens rally against climate change legislation, where the oil companies, again, bused in their own employees. That time, they got busted because you could see the fine print on their signs.
What does that say at the regular person whose interests just happen to coincide with the profit motive of the oil industry, what‘s that fine print say on the sign? Energy Citizens which according to Google in .35 seconds is a project of the American Petroleum Institute.

Frankly, the thing that is most surprising about this is not that they‘re doing it. The thing that is most surprising about this is that they are so bad at it. If you combine the Koch brothers‘ fortune from dad‘s oil and chemical company, their fortune is second only to Bill Gates and Warren Buffett in this country.
These guys have more money than God‘s accountant, but they have taken the cheapest possible route to trying to hide what they are doing in politics. And sure, it‘s interesting that they‘re faking this movement. That supports their bottom line.

But what‘s more than interesting, what‘s fascinating is that they‘re faking it so cheaply. If you go to iStockPhoto, you‘ll find that you can buy the “happy friendly Hispanic waitress serving salads” for like $16 right now. They don‘t even bother to go to page two of the list either.

If you type in “waitress,” “happy friendly Hispanic waitress serving salads” is the first one that comes up. But you know what? Even on the cheap, they did get the headline that they wanted out of their bussing the workers fake rally in Ohio. There it is - in the “Akron Beacon Journal,” “Hundreds rally against taxes on oil and natural gas.”

The Koch brothers are so bad at this that any news outlet looking beyond the press release for their information on this could just as easily have published the headline, “Oil companies bus in workers for pathetic PR stunt in Ohio.”

(Maddow)​

Meanwhile, what those establishment conservative operatives have captured is an ugly movement that is looking for any reason to get the black man out of the White House:

Some of us are paying attention: A "teabagger", March-April, 2010.​

That's the energy the Republicans have harnessed.

I know that they play into the hands of corporate interests, they may not know that but I am aware of that. The tea party movement has spread whereas Wisconsin's uprising has not?

You mean like the standoff in Minnesota that could leave the state without beer and cigarettes?

Progressives are preparing to protest President Obama outside his Chicago campaign headquarters. Organizers claim to have 200,000 signatures on a pledge to withhold support in 2012 if he backs down in the budget fight.

Teachers in Oklahoma City protested yesterday against $100m in education cuts.

I suppose one difference is that the left doesn't have the same kind of astroturf support. We don't have billionaires busing us into protests. We don't have FOX News sponsoring our demonstrations.

And, of course, the left has long learned its lesson. Indeed, many are scratching their heads now. When it was the left acting up, the conventional wisdom was that they were supposed to be despised. Now it's the right wing, and the conventional wisdom is apparently that we're supposed to look past all the lies and hatred in order to pretend they're something great.

The Tea Party is a bit like lightning in tinder. These people are looking for any reason to complain.

It's not about fiscal restraint, but tax cuts for the wealthy.

It's not about small government, but reorienting the force of government to support an agenda. For instance, Kansas conservatives—small government, right?—passing new building codes deliberately and exactly calculated to shut down the last three abortion providers in the state.

Come on, you can't see what's happening? In the Year of the Tea Party?

Why are you defending this fraud?
____________________

Notes:

Maddow, Rachel. "'The Rachel Maddow Show' for Thursday, September 9th, 2010". The Rachel Maddow Show. July 14, 2011. Transcript. MSNBC.MSN.com. July 15, 2011. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3909920...w/t/rachel-maddow-show-thursday-september-th/