The Tea Party Peasants.

As the so-called Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests have grown, many people, including President Obama, have compared the groups to the Tea Party protests. While both groups seem to like dressing up in funny costumes, it seems to me that only two or so substantive factors energize both groups:

1) The stagnant economy.
2) The banking crisis/bailout.

This is where the similarities end. The TPer’s blame the Government for creating the mess through too much Government. The OWS crowd blames the mess on not enough government: "Wall Street"* is the problem and government is not regulating/punishing them enough.

What are the TPers answers to our problems? Less oversight, less government, less economic justice and more regressive taxation. In other words, the Ayn Rand fantasy world that Wall Street loved, right up until they needed a bailout. The two groups might be pissed about similar problems, but their solutions could not be more different. OWS wants policies not seen in a generation. TPers want more of the same stuff that got us into this mess.

Take it from a Conservative:

The tea party stands for a series of propositions that don't meet the reality test: that deficits matter more than jobs, that cutting deficits and tightening credit will accelerate economic growth, that high taxes and over-regulation are the most important reasons that growth has not revived, and that America still offers the world's best opportunity for the poor to rise. Tea party plans call for a radical shift in the burden of taxation from the rich to the poor -- and promise big reductions in government spending without touching any of the benefits of current retirees.

If put into practice, the tea party platform is a formula for political and economic crisis.

David Frum, the author of the above piece at CNN is no lefty.  He worked for President George W. Bush. He might not be calling for a return the Glass-Steagall Act but I think he makes it clear whose side these fools are really on.  He admits that an American Laissez-faire economony does not lift all boats.

If the Tea Party advocates for all that corporate America wants, are they really a populist movement of the right as the MSM has made them out to be? I think not. In reality, they are a mislead group of peasants, carrying water for the ruling class.

They sure aren't patriots.  It's time to call them what they are:  peasants advocating for the landowner.  They are like a sharecropper running to the Government for more land for the landowner.  They are the slave fighting for the confederacy on behalf of the plantation owner. 

The TPers are just too ignorant to realize who is pulling their chain. Between Freedom Works, a lobby firm, funding their operations and Fox News giving them marching orders, I have little confidence they will figure it out.


*For purposes of this article “Wall Street” is shorthand for the international corporate overlords in the Financial, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) Sectors and other paper-pushers who make a boat load of cash at the expense of everyone else.

Read more...

Tea Party less popular than...gasp...atheists!

I reprint this from the NY Times in case their pay wall won't let you through the link. Emphasis mine.

Polls show that disapproval of the Tea Party is climbing. In April 2010, a New York Times/CBS News survey found that 18 percent of Americans had an unfavorable opinion of it, 21 percent had a favorable opinion and 46 percent had not heard enough. Now, 14 months later, Tea Party supporters have slipped to 20 percent, while their opponents have more than doubled, to 40 percent.

Of course, politicians of all stripes are not faring well among the public these days. But in data we have recently collected, the Tea Party ranks lower than any of the 23 other groups we asked about — lower than both Republicans and Democrats. It is even less popular than much maligned groups like “atheists” and “Muslims.” Interestingly, one group that approaches it in unpopularity is the Christian Right.

So if atheists and Muslims begin to be just as loud and obnoxious as the Tea Party asses, do you think one of the two main partys will give them as much respect in the primaries?

Read more...

Tinker Belle for President

While I only digested the low lights of the Republican Presidential debate held last week, it got me thinking about their belief systems. What can we say about people who support, believe and worship the following concepts?

• Supply-side economics
• Creationism
• Tax cuts as government revenue generators
• Being gay is a choice
• Cutting spending as economic stimulus

It seems that every one of the Republican Presidential candidates has based their campaigns on various forms of fantasy.

Surely they are appealing to primary voters, so I must ask these voters: How can one go through life when everything you believe in has been shown through math, economics and science to be pure fiction? Is there comfort in blissful stupidity?

While all the above points to the GOP teahadists/diehards/candidates as being loony, it also demonstrates an electoral strength not held by the Democrats. When your supporters back you due to some sort of “faith” (economic or otherwise) it’s pretty hard for your opponents to shake their dedication at the polls.

Why do I try to understand these people?

Read more...

Question of the Day (but not every day)

Question:

Is it hypocritical for Republicans, or more specifically Anti-Government Teabag types, to take a government job?

Read more...

I fail to see how this will help

In the past, I have made some minor efforts to defend the tea party movement. I find some of what they have to say persuasive, but for the most part, they come across as being a disjointed, angry, illogical mob. Some of the critiques of them are unfair, and in some cases, fraudulent. As a mostly independent voter, I love to see viable third party movements. In a perfect world, the tea party would dump the nutball rhetoric and find some think tank or intelligent conservative to act as a spokesperson.

In our not-so-perfect world, their biggest fans are Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. Add to that mix, Michelle Bachmann. She has formed the Tea Party Caucus. Michelle is a prolific fund raiser and is very popular among some right wingers. Occasionally, she says something that I agree 100% with, but this is overshadowed by the dozens of ridiculous things she says. I am sure that most ATK readers are familiar with her work, but if you aren't, google "michelle bachmann quotes" and absorb the cognitive dissonance.

I don't know enough about Bachmann's District to say whether this will help her. I ill go out on a limb and say that I have a hard time seeing how this will improve the image of the tea party movement.

Read more...

Broken Record

Enjoy. Discuss.

Read more...

Tea Party's Maine Event

H/T to HuffoPo, the Maine Republican convention was quietly taken-over by Tea Party activists.

A majority of those present voted to abandon the "old" Republican platform and adopt the new 99-piece Tea Party platform.

A few gems:

- Return to the principles of Austrian Economics, and redirect the economy back to one of incentives to save and invest. [note: I suck at math and econ; thus, while I can't articulate why I think this is not the greatest idea in the world, I generally feel that way]

- Discard political correctness, make public the declaration of war (Jihad), made against the U.S. on 23 Feb 1998, and fight the war against the United States by radical Islam to win.

- Defeat Cap and Trade, investigate collusion between government and industry in the global-warming myth, and prosecute any illegal collusion.

Read the whole manifesto here.

The whole thing isn't exactly a bucket of crazy; some of what they say makes sense and is generally already supported by (I guess what I will now call) Reagan-era Republicans and even Democrats (like ditching the Fairness Doctrine). But there is some real crazy in it, like a sort of inordinate adherence to the 2nd amendment (how many times do you have to reinforce our right to bear arms, guys??) and the usual hype and conspiracy theory stuff about secret treaties with the U.N. And black helicopters. And microchips.

Read more...

Imagine if the Tea Party Was Black

I have seen this reposted at a few places including over at Streak's blog and maybe originally found here. I think he has a point.

Imagine if the Tea Party Was Black - Tim Wise

Let’s play a game, shall we? The name of the game is called “Imagine.” The way it’s played is simple: we’ll envision recent happenings in the news, but then change them up a bit. Instead of envisioning white people as the main actors in the scenes we’ll conjure – the ones who are driving the action – we’ll envision black folks or other people of color instead. The object of the game is to imagine the public reaction to the events or incidents, if the main actors were of color, rather than white. Whoever gains the most insight into the workings of race in America, at the end of the game, wins.

So let’s begin.

Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters —the black protesters — spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn’t like were enforced by the government? Would these protester — these black protesters with guns — be seen as brave defenders of the Second Amendment, or would they be viewed by most whites as a danger to the republic? What if they were Arab-Americans? Because, after all, that’s what happened recently when white gun enthusiasts descended upon the nation’s capital, arms in hand, and verbally announced their readiness to make war on the country’s political leaders if the need arose.

Imagine that white members of Congress, while walking to work, were surrounded by thousands of angry black people, one of whom proceeded to spit on one of those congressmen for not voting the way the black demonstrators desired. Would the protesters be seen as merely patriotic Americans voicing their opinions, or as an angry, potentially violent, and even insurrectionary mob? After all, this is what white Tea Party protesters did recently in Washington.

Imagine that a rap artist were to say, in reference to a white president: “He’s a piece of shit and I told him to suck on my machine gun.” Because that’s what rocker Ted Nugent said recently about President Obama.

Imagine that a prominent mainstream black political commentator had long employed an overt bigot as Executive Director of his organization, and that this bigot regularly participated in black separatist conferences, and once assaulted a white person while calling them by a racial slur. When that prominent black commentator and his sister — who also works for the organization — defended the bigot as a good guy who was misunderstood and “going through a tough time in his life” would anyone accept their excuse-making? Would that commentator still have a place on a mainstream network? Because that’s what happened in the real world, when Pat Buchanan employed as Executive Director of his group, America’s Cause, a blatant racist who did all these things, or at least their white equivalents: attending white separatist conferences and attacking a black woman while calling her the n-word.

Imagine that a black radio host were to suggest that the only way to get promoted in the administration of a white president is by “hating black people,” or that a prominent white person had only endorsed a white presidential candidate as an act of racial bonding, or blamed a white president for a fight on a school bus in which a black kid was jumped by two white kids, or said that he wouldn’t want to kill all conservatives, but rather, would like to leave just enough—“living fossils” as he called them—“so we will never forget what these people stood for.” After all, these are things that Rush Limbaugh has said, about Barack Obama’s administration, Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama, a fight on a school bus in Belleville, Illinois in which two black kids beat up a white kid, and about liberals, generally.

Imagine that a black pastor, formerly a member of the U.S. military, were to declare, as part of his opposition to a white president’s policies, that he was ready to “suit up, get my gun, go to Washington, and do what they trained me to do.” This is, after all, what Pastor Stan Craig said recently at a Tea Party rally in Greenville, South Carolina.

Imagine a black radio talk show host gleefully predicting a revolution by people of color if the government continues to be dominated by the rich white men who have been “destroying” the country, or if said radio personality were to call Christians or Jews non-humans, or say that when it came to conservatives, the best solution would be to “hang ‘em high.” And what would happen to any congressional representative who praised that commentator for “speaking common sense” and likened his hate talk to “American values?” After all, those are among the things said by radio host and best-selling author Michael Savage, predicting white revolution in the face of multiculturalism, or said by Savage about Muslims and liberals, respectively. And it was Congressman Culbertson, from Texas, who praised Savage in that way, despite his hateful rhetoric.

Imagine a black political commentator suggesting that the only thing the guy who flew his plane into the Austin, Texas IRS building did wrong was not blowing up Fox News instead. This is, after all, what Anne Coulter said about Tim McVeigh, when she noted that his only mistake was not blowing up the New York Times.

Imagine that a popular black liberal website posted comments about the daughter of a white president, calling her “typical redneck trash,” or a “whore” whose mother entertains her by “making monkey sounds.” After all that’s comparable to what conservatives posted about Malia Obama on freerepublic.com last year, when they referred to her as “ghetto trash.”

Imagine that black protesters at a large political rally were walking around with signs calling for the lynching of their congressional enemies. Because that’s what white conservatives did last year, in reference to Democratic party leaders in Congress.

In other words, imagine that even one-third of the anger and vitriol currently being hurled at President Obama, by folks who are almost exclusively white, were being aimed, instead, at a white president, by people of color. How many whites viewing the
anger, the hatred, the contempt for that white president would then wax eloquent about free speech, and the glories of democracy? And how many would be calling for further crackdowns on thuggish behavior, and investigations into the radical agendas of those same people of color?

To ask any of these questions is to answer them. Protest is only seen as fundamentally American when those who have long had the luxury of seeing themselves as prototypically American engage in it. When the dangerous and dark “other” does so, however, it isn’t viewed as normal or natural, let alone patriotic. Which is why Rush Limbaugh could say, this past week, that the Tea Parties are the first time since the Civil War that ordinary, common Americans stood up for their rights: a statement that erases the normalcy and “American-ness” of blacks in the civil rights struggle, not to mention women in the fight for suffrage and equality, working people in the fight for better working conditions, and LGBT folks as they struggle to be treated as full and equal human beings.

And this, my friends, is what white privilege is all about. The ability to threaten others, to engage in violent and incendiary rhetoric without consequence, to be viewed as patriotic and normal no matter what you do, and never to be feared and despised as people of color would be, if they tried to get away with half the shit we do, on a daily basis.

More on the the author can be found here.

Read more...

Last Night's Recap

I won't write a recap of last night's elections results, because Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com always does a better job.

He agrees with the assessment of Mr. Furious that "all politics are local."

Of course the MSM will enter into horserace mode and have to interpret the results for all us simpletons, while the right wing intelligentsia will continue full force in their 48 hour circle-jerk.

Special thanks to Sarah Palin and Fred Thompson for blowing it for the Republicans in NY-23.

Read more...

Third Party Rising?

ATK regulars have debated the impact of the ultra conservative, "TEA Party" movement in several posts. In his post on October 12th, ATK contributor Steve suggested that the teabaggers might branch off into their own party. I discounted this suggestion at the time, because I surmised that the teabaggers don't need to do so when they really have complete control over the existing Republican Party. I thought that it was more likely that moderate Republicans would need their own party.

Judging by what is going on in one New York State Congressional race, Steve may have been right.

From what I have read, New York’s district #23 is usually a shoe-in for Republicans, but not so this year. It seems that New York Republicans aren’t conservative enough for the national party base, so Republicans like Fred Thomspon, Dick Armey and Sarah Palin have endorsed Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman.

Up until today it looked like the foolish teabaggers, and the outsiders like Thompson, might be about to throw a solid Republican seat to the Democrats. Today, a Daily KOS poll (Yes, Kos.) showed that the race is a dead heat between Democrat Bill Owens at 33% and Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman at 32%. The Republican, Dede Scozzafava is way behind at 21%. Other polls by conservatives have shown similar numbers.

As a Democrat I see this situation as a win, no matter what the outcome on Tuesday. If the Democrat pulls it out, that is fine with me. Add one more to the Democratic majority in Congress. If the teabaggers claim victory and strengthen a third-party base, I am OK with that too.

If the Conservative Party becomes a more permanent, growing force in politics, I see the Republican Party even more fractured that it is. The ability of Republicans to deliver statewide or national elections will be endangered, perhaps setting up a long era of Democratic governance not seen since the beginning of the New Deal era.

What’s your take?

Read more...

TP v. GOP

Not really a surprise, but the Tea partiers are turning their sights on the GOP. An example:

In Florida, where the national party has signaled its preference for centrist Gov. Charlie Crist in the GOP Senate primary, tea party activists are lining up behind former state House Speaker Marco Rubio in reaction to Crist’s public backing for President Barack Obama’s stimulus package.

Another:

Tea party activists are also lining up behind challengers to GOP establishment-backed Senate candidates in Colorado and Connecticut. In California, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina — like Crist, another National Republican Senatorial Committee-favored Senate contender — is the target of tea party animus in her primary against conservative state Assemblyman Chuck DeVore.

I still see the TP movement as being mostly without direction and mixture of well-intentioned folk and obnoxious teabaggers, spouting off all sorts of nonsense. Time will tell if this turns into a lasting political movement. If it does last, then what will it look like?

There are several options. One is that they will break off and form their own party. This would seem to be a disaster for both them and the GOP. They would attract the more conservative elements and some libertarians. The GOP would lose them and both would be relegated to third party status and influence. The other option would be that the TP'ers would force the GOP to adopt some or most of their positions. While they wouldn't lose the conservatives, they would have a difficult time attracting moderates and moderate Democrats.

Among TP enthusiasts, I hear praise and admiration for one of the few Republicans that they still support, Sarah Palin. As unfairly as I thought the media treated her, I still don't think she is a good choice for leadership. She is so polarizing and would be unable to generate any support among non-conservatives. Democrats worried about Obama's chances in 2012 should rest easy is she is on the ticket.

I understand that politics is cyclical and that both parties have seen good times and lean times. I also think it is a bit premature for Democrats to say the GOP is finished. Both parties enjoy die-hard loyalists, but the key to any election is appealing to the huge number of voters in the middle. At this point, I have a hard time seeing the TP'ers being able to do this, and I also have my doubts that a TPlite version of the GOP will be able to do this either.

Read more...