Is there absolutely any reason to take the "Tea Party" seriously?

[bascule]

Long ago American colonialists protested British control of the American colonies: no taxation without representation!

 

Last year on April 15th, a bunch of disenfranchised conservatives decided they felt the same way, except they're unrepresented because their candidates lost in a legitimate election. However, why not evoke imagery of colonial America? TEABAG THE WHITE HOUSE! Of course, given certain sexual connotations of "teabagging", the movement would eventually shed this label. I still enjoy it

 

While this movement originally began as a populist uprising fundamentally rooted in libertarian principles of government, Fox News personalities, particularly Glenn Beck, latched onto the movement. The Tea Party was soon swallowed up under the auspices of Glenn Beck's "9.12 Project", and subsequent protests were held on 9/12, one day after the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks (leave it to Glenn Beck to equate terrorism to Democrats in power)

 

Now, there's a large and vocal group worried that America has been taken over by socialists. Sane conservatives are aware such an accusation is laughable, however many in the Tea Party movement prefer to liken Democrats, particularly our President Barack Obama, to Hitler and Stalin.

 

Video of the protests may be found here:

 

q_s-lvpRj00

pilG7PCV448

 

What I've described doesn't even come close to representing the viewpoints of these people. It's difficult to describe their viewpoints as they're so multifaceted, but among other themes of these protests: the government (a euphemism for Democrats) is run by communists, the government are Nazis, the government wants to rob us of our freedom, the government keeps raising taxes, the government is recklessly spending money on healthcare (the healthcare bill seems to be the central thrust of their concerns about government spending).

 

As you may have guessed from the concerns I voiced earlier, there is considerable overlap between the viewpoints and rhetoric of Glenn Beck and the Tea Party. Certainly the 9.12 Project explains this to a large degree: a popular media outlet is telling these people exactly what they want to hear and organizing these protests. I think it's safe to say if it weren't for Glenn Beck and Fox News, there would be no Tea Party.

 

The outcome of the Tea Party seems to be resounding success for the Republicans. Early estimates of the November election show Democrats losing as many as 70 seats in the house. The conservative base is energized in a way that liberals are not. They are firmly convinced that the Democratic Congress and Obama are destroying our country and leading us towards "armageddon" (to quote House Minority Leader John Boehner).

 

While I'll certainly admit the Democrats could be doing better, the sheer level of rhetoric being leveled both by the Republican Party and the Tea Party makes me wonder if all of these people have spent too much time in a hyperbolic chamber. Apparently, in a little more than a year since Bush left office, Obama has practically destroyed the entire country and converted us into a socialist/Nazi state (and of course things were peachy keen when Bush left office).

 

While I'm slightly annoyed by the Tea Party itself, what really annoys me is people who should really know better arguing these people are making a cogent argument that deserves my attention. The message of the Tea Party rings true with some otherwise well-thinking conservatives, who don't think it's fair to completely dismiss them out of hand.

 

What do you think? Is there absolutely any merit to the Tea Party whatsoever, beyond the fact that it will influence the 2010 election? Is there any merit to their argument, or are they simply parroting the ideas of Glenn Beck?

[jackson33]

bascule; It's not so much the tea party or the movement, rather what they represent, the total dislike/distrust for how the Federal Government is operating, primarily the Congress at the seen bequest of the President. You can link the Tea Party itself to promotional media, Hannity, Beck and Fox, making a good argument or you can link the Conservatives with in the movement (your argument), but there is no logical link between the Independent voter and those first two, whom with the Democrat participation, out number the Republicans, if polls mean anything.

 

To emphasize the Independents, they literally shook the political spectrum, with their vote in Massachusetts, which had been weakened in NJ and Virginia. Polls around the country are showing no different attitude or are the known Moderate Democrats (blue dogs), dropping out of the 2010 elections, Stupack simply one.

 

Off topic; What got Obama elected, a new face in the Executive, with a seemingly desire to change Washington to many of the naive electorate, will be exactly what takes Congress from his plans and no doubt himself, being a one term President. The sad problem is the damage, if real, has already been done....that will be there...

[Moontanman]

I take them serious in a negative way.

[bascule]

bascule; It's not so much the tea party or the movement, rather what they represent, the total dislike/distrust for how the Federal Government is operating, primarily the Congress at the seen bequest of the President.

 

Really? Can we expect these people to vote for a third party (or Ron Paul), or perhaps seek another avenue for changing the government, or will they simply vote for Republicans in the next election? Republicans who will not solve any of the issues the Tea Party brings to the table...

 

That's really my problem. Whine whine bitch bitch socialism spending taxes big central government! Except they don't want to solve any of these problems. Their central goal seems to be getting Republicans back into power. And the last time Republicans were in power, we saw massively expanded federal government and unprecedentedly increased spending. While the Tea Party seems to purport an image of economic conservatism, this is not backed up by their behavior. Really they're social conservatives rallying around an economically conservative theme, who don't really care about economic conservatism and instead just want Republicans back in power.

 

The entire thing is little more than a hypocritical partisan circle jerk.

[toastywombel]

Yeah I am going to agree with bascule on this one, many of the tea party groups seem to be very ignorant of the actions of Republican Administrations, but highly alerted of the actions of Democratic Administrations.

 

I saw a guy driving down the road the other day in a big red truck, he had a sign in the window about 2'x2' and it read, "Obama Sucks".

 

I think these people should be taken seriously, but in reality I cannot understand their stance. They are essentially going to protest everything Obama proposes at this point. I think they are a heavily polarised group, much like many far left anti-war groups.

 

However, the comparison is different. A vast majority of Bush policy decisions were obviously failures and/or errors. The Obama Administration has not had much of a chance to produce results before the tea party protesters started up. I mean if you judged President Bush from just is first year you would be leaving so much out.

 

One could also propose that the tea party movement can also be attributed to the rise in the popularity of libertarianism. (Ron Paul)

[Mr Skeptic]

What do you think? Is there absolutely any merit to the Tea Party whatsoever, beyond the fact that it will influence the 2010 election?

 

Yes. Most of the concern is due to the influence it will have on the elections, of course, but there's got to be a few individuals making some sound arguments among a group that size too.

 

Is there any merit to their argument, or are they simply parroting the ideas of Glenn Beck?

 

It's hard to tell. I'd have to go interview some of them, or watch un-edited video of non-select people. Really, the amount of cutting up of what people say in that video, and an almost certain bias on behalf of the authors, make this video useless for pretty much anything other than point-and-laugh and mis-informed indignation. But then, that is so easy that even Republicans can do it, right?

[Sisyphus]

Inasmuch as it's co-opted by Beck and Palin, the signal to noise ratio has dropped to incoherent levels. I don't think the movement as a whole currently has anything useful to say.

[bascule]

Yes. Most of the concern is due to the influence it will have on the elections, of course, but there's got to be a few individuals making some sound arguments among a group that size too.

 

It's hard to tell. I'd have to go interview some of them, or watch un-edited video of non-select people. Really, the amount of cutting up of what people say in that video, and an almost certain bias on behalf of the authors, make this video useless for pretty much anything other than point-and-laugh and mis-informed indignation. But then, that is so easy that even Republicans can do it, right?

 

I'd be interested in seeing a video of a cogent Tea Partygoer.

 

--

 

In other news, Gallup did a poll of these people, if you're interested in their demographic. Surprise surprise, they are mostly Republicans:

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/Tea-Partiers-Fairly-Mainstream-Demographics.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Politics

[Mr Skeptic]

I'd be interested in seeing a video of a cogent Tea Partygoer.

 

Well if you looked at it when it was a grassroots protest, I'm sure you'd find a decent percentage of them quite well-informed and having reasonable reasons. If those folks are still there, then they've just been diluted.

 

In other news, Gallup did a poll of these people, if you're interested in their demographic. Surprise surprise, they are mostly Republicans:

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/Tea-Partiers-Fairly-Mainstream-Demographics.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Politics

 

I think the poll forgot to ask a rather relevant question: what is their favorite news source.

[jackson33]

Really? Can we expect these people to vote for a third party (or Ron Paul), or perhaps seek another avenue for changing the government, or will they simply vote for Republicans in the next election? Republicans who will not solve any of the issues the Tea Party brings to the table...[/Quote]

 

bascule; What I think your not understanding; Those involved are for the most part, all upset with one or more issue, certainly not the same issue or are they necessarily on one side, either the Dem/Rep platforms. There are just as many opposed to Republicans, as Democrats, IMO depending on how far they went off target to their constituents wishes. Charlie Crist and John McCain, each very popular in their States (Florida/Arizona) in 2008, will likely not even be the Republican Candidates, after the primary much less win an election in November.

 

No, those involved will vote for the ONE, best promoting whatever their one or more grievance, whether their is a 'TEA' party. This could well be a Democrat, Republican and yes a few seem to be swinging toward Libertarianism. If there is a Tea Party, very unlikely in 2010 (not enough time) or in 2012 (possible), it would split mostly the Republican Part, defeating their own purpose. Keep in mind Unions, with their grievance are planning much the same thing in 2010, which I'd suggest is also not going to benefit their agenda or purpose;

 

Major labor union working against Democrats, forming third party in North Carolina

 

April 9th, 2010 · 30 Comments

 

Apparently inspired by certain Democrats voting against the health insurance reform, the Service Employees International Union – a union representing over 2 million workers – is surprisingly planning to work against Democrats this election season. [/Quote]

 

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/04/major-labor-union-working-against-democrats-forming-third-party-in-north-carolina/

 

 

That's really my problem. Whine whine bitch bitch socialism spending taxes big central government! Except they don't want to solve any of these problems. Their central goal seems to be getting Republicans back into power. And the last time Republicans were in power, we saw massively expanded federal government and unprecedentedly increased spending. [/Quote]

 

I don't believe you really could justify the spending of the current Administration, compared to the last one, much less try and justify projected spending and deficits through the next decade. Frankly I don't think you even understand how much ONE Government Employee, under Union Contract (over a million $ per), is and will be costing taxpayers, then calculate into the equation the numbers increased over the past 15 months alone, much less those proposed increases into the future. It's simply unsustainable and if my own figures are correct, will cause a total restructuring of the US Government, with in the next 10-20 years. I don't believe the Republicans, Libertarians or any 'Party' can be elected to reverse, what has already been done by this administration, which completely ignored (along with the last one) pending financial problems dating back to 1965, with what I still believe should have been a minor recession.

 

The entire thing is little more than a hypocritical partisan circle jerk. [/Quote]

 

No sir, I don't think so. It's somewhat amazing to me, being from the 'Do Nothing' generation (now in our 70's/80's) and screaming this pyramid scheme, first by the Unions (50's-60's), then by Governments, was not sustainable. Our big error was not JFK, but not knowing his VP Candidate, Lyndon Johnson who effectively made FDR look like a ranting conservative, my opinion. I'll repeat this again...You are paying me 1200$/month (more than my annual income while in the service 1950's), for doing absolutely nothing and though I paid in the maximum for years, whether self employed or working for others, I have long since received every penny donated, interest and all. No less is going on TODAY with some Government employees and or Union Workers, who are receiving near or over 100K$/year in retirement.

 

However, the comparison is different. A vast majority of Bush policy decisions were obviously failures and/or errors. The Obama Administration has not had much of a chance to produce results before the tea party protesters started up. I mean if you judged President Bush from just is first year you would be leaving so much out. [/Quote]

 

toasty; Why am I NOT surprised you agree with bascule...

 

Yes, Bush ventures into socialism were errors. Prescription Drug Plans are rapidly equaling Medicare/Medicaid in deficit obligations and there seems to be no end to his 'Compassion' where the 'Conservative' simply got lost and his 'Faith Based Initiatives' has taken on a life, even he couldn't have imagined, by Congress. He did double the Education Department Budget and did nothing to reduce spending by HIS CONGRESS (Republican) or very much of his last two democratic Congress, until the last year. Think he VETOED ONE spending bill in his first seven years.

 

However, this is where those involved were mislead, thinking Obama and those elected in 2008 several senators/50+ House members), would change things. Not only did NOTHING CHANGE, these programs and others were built on and we have many new ones, all built on other programs that caused the problems. If your expecting different results, I'll leave it to the proverbial definition of insanity. 'If you do the same things over and over, expecting different results..."

[jryan]

I would have to ask whether we should take anyone seriously who chooses to use bias "gotcha!" videos as the basis of their political opinion.

[moth]

nixon kissinger secret bombing cambodia laos

reagon supplying arms to terrorists to finance secret war in nicaragua

bush/cheney/rummsfield trashing the seperation of powers and the constitution

 

where were the teapeople for all of that? cheerleading as far as i can tell.

 

the constitution,seperation of powers,and a free press are what these people can't stand. are the tp standing up for the truth about iraq wmd? what the hell was going on in cheney's office with the cia?, anything? no they just whine about losing an election.

better they lose elections than u.s. lose all our protection from corrupt polticians.

 

as much as i would like to ignore these people i think thats how we wound up with gwbush.

[toastywombel]

bascule; What I think your not understanding; Those involved are for the most part, all upset with one or more issue, certainly not the same issue or are they necessarily on one side, either the Dem/Rep platforms. There are just as many opposed to Republicans, as Democrats, IMO depending on how far they went off target to their constituents wishes. Charlie Crist and John McCain, each very popular in their States (Florida/Arizona) in 2008, will likely not even be the Republican Candidates, after the primary much less win an election in November.

 

No, those involved will vote for the ONE, best promoting whatever their one or more grievance, whether their is a 'TEA' party. This could well be a Democrat, Republican and yes a few seem to be swinging toward Libertarianism. If there is a Tea Party, very unlikely in 2010 (not enough time) or in 2012 (possible), it would split mostly the Republican Part, defeating their own purpose. Keep in mind Unions, with their grievance are planning much the same thing in 2010, which I'd suggest is also not going to benefit their agenda or purpose;

 

 

 

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/04/major-labor-union-working-against-democrats-forming-third-party-in-north-carolina/

 

 

 

 

I don't believe you really could justify the spending of the current Administration, compared to the last one, much less try and justify projected spending and deficits through the next decade. Frankly I don't think you even understand how much ONE Government Employee, under Union Contract (over a million $ per), is and will be costing taxpayers, then calculate into the equation the numbers increased over the past 15 months alone, much less those proposed increases into the future. It's simply unsustainable and if my own figures are correct, will cause a total restructuring of the US Government, with in the next 10-20 years. I don't believe the Republicans, Libertarians or any 'Party' can be elected to reverse, what has already been done by this administration, which completely ignored (along with the last one) pending financial problems dating back to 1965, with what I still believe should have been a minor recession.

 

 

 

No sir, I don't think so. It's somewhat amazing to me, being from the 'Do Nothing' generation (now in our 70's/80's) and screaming this pyramid scheme, first by the Unions (50's-60's), then by Governments, was not sustainable. Our big error was not JFK, but not knowing his VP Candidate, Lyndon Johnson who effectively made FDR look like a ranting conservative, my opinion. I'll repeat this again...You are paying me 1200$/month (more than my annual income while in the service 1950's), for doing absolutely nothing and though I paid in the maximum for years, whether self employed or working for others, I have long since received every penny donated, interest and all. No less is going on TODAY with some Government employees and or Union Workers, who are receiving near or over 100K$/year in retirement.

 

 

 

toasty; Why am I NOT surprised you agree with bascule...

 

Yes, Bush ventures into socialism were errors. Prescription Drug Plans are rapidly equaling Medicare/Medicaid in deficit obligations and there seems to be no end to his 'Compassion' where the 'Conservative' simply got lost and his 'Faith Based Initiatives' has taken on a life, even he couldn't have imagined, by Congress. He did double the Education Department Budget and did nothing to reduce spending by HIS CONGRESS (Republican) or very much of his last two democratic Congress, until the last year. Think he VETOED ONE spending bill in his first seven years.

 

However, this is where those involved were mislead, thinking Obama and those elected in 2008 several senators/50+ House members), would change things. Not only did NOTHING CHANGE, these programs and others were built on and we have many new ones, all built on other programs that caused the problems. If your expecting different results, I'll leave it to the proverbial definition of insanity. 'If you do the same things over and over, expecting different results..."

 

So if Obama, and the new congress have not changed anything, then what are the tea party people protesting?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

nixon kissinger secret bombing cambodia laos

reagon supplying arms to terrorists to finance secret war in nicaragua

bush/cheney/rummsfield trashing the seperation of powers and the constitution

 

where were the teapeople for all of that? cheerleading as far as i can tell.

 

the constitution,seperation of powers,and a free press are what these people can't stand. are the tp standing up for the truth about iraq wmd? what the hell was going on in cheney's office with the cia?, anything? no they just whine about losing an election.

better they lose elections than u.s. lose all our protection from corrupt polticians.

 

as much as i would like to ignore these people i think thats how we wound up with gwbush.

 

I agree, they really are just protesting losing the election, and that Obama is black, I mean many of them are doing just that, lets face the facts.

[ecoli]

I have an idea for a new poll: how many anti-tea bagger threads do you think bascule will start in the next 4 weeks? two, a dozen, a million??

Edited April 12, 2010 by ecoli

[bascule]

There are just as many opposed to Republicans, as Democrats, IMO depending on how far they went off target to their constituents wishes.

 

This is not reflected in the Gallup polling data.

 

I don't believe you really could justify the spending of the current Administration, compared to the last one, much less try and justify projected spending and deficits through the next decade.

 

What spending is the current administration doing which the previous one didn't which you feel is unjustified?

 

As a counterpoint, I feel the Iraq War was unjustified spending. The current administration has a timetable set to get us out of Iraq. To me that's a positive step forward.

 

However, this is where those involved were mislead, thinking Obama and those elected in 2008 several senators/50+ House members), would change things. Not only did NOTHING CHANGE, these programs and others were built on and we have many new ones, all built on other programs that caused the problems. If your expecting different results, I'll leave it to the proverbial definition of insanity. 'If you do the same things over and over, expecting different results..."

 

The Tea Party seems to expect that if they elect the Republicans back into power, they'll suddenly become economic conservatives, an idea which is not backed up by their track record.

 

They are, in effect, protesting problems which are common to both parties, but suggesting if their party of choice is elected this will somehow resolve those problems.

[jryan]

I have an idea for a new poll: how many anti-tea bagger threads do you think bascule will start in the next 4 weeks? two, a dozen, a million??

 

I wager 4,200 Quatloos on Seventy Five threads.

[Pangloss]

Inasmuch as it's co-opted by Beck and Palin, the signal to noise ratio has dropped to incoherent levels. I don't think the movement as a whole currently has anything useful to say.

 

I agree. This is really about motivation of the two political bases. The right wants to motivate a base that was a bit shaky in 2008. The left needs a way to bring its base back to the voting booth. And after the election the whole thing will just die a shabby and forgettable death. Kind of a pathetic end for a reasonably noble idea, but that's politics for you. A year from now we'll see some story on CNN about one guy in New Hampshire who runs around political rallies waving tea party banners and getting confused looks from the audience.

 

The moderate middle, which actually put Democrats in power, will be more interested in the track record of Democrats and what, if any, alternatives are offered by Republicans. To that end we'll likely see a much more moderate message from both parties this fall. It's an off-year election, but it follows the usual pattern of appealing to the base for primaries, and coming back to the middle for general elections.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I wager 4,200 Quatloos on Seventy Five threads.

 

I call your 4200 quatloos and raise you a thousand bars of gold-pressed latinum!

Edited April 12, 2010 by Pangloss
Consecutive posts merged.

[jryan]

I call your 4200 quatloos and raise you a thousand bars of gold-pressed latinum!

 

The Newcomer is a fellow gamester, I see. I shall call his raise contingent upon the appropriate establishment of Triskelion/Ferengi exchange rates.

 

In the mean time I shall gaze upon Shahna through a Vaseline smudged lens...

 

hmmm.. She still appears to be a cross between Tanya Harding and a guitarist for an 80s hair band.

[jackson33]

bascule quotes;

 

What spending is the current administration doing which the previous one didn't which you feel is unjustified? [/Quote]

 

Lets start with the 2009 FY Budget, which Bush wouldn't sign, because of the added pork spending, which Obama signed onto, with ADDED pork spending.

 

How about TARP money, which were and are considered loans, to be repaid and to the Banking Industry, not GM, Chrysler or buying any Banking Stock. As it's being repaid, they are doing whatever needed to keep in some mysterious slush fund for other projects.

 

An 800B$ STIMULUS Program, that had to passed on day one to prevent some world catastrophe and "ANOTHER GREAT DEPRESSION", which is still less than half spent, created a net loss of millions of jobs and will be used as campaign funds in this election and in 2012.

 

The need to raise the National Debt Ceiling by, 190B$ and 1.9T$, months apart to accommodate spending programs.

 

The 10B$ EMERGENCY Jobs, bill, used to increase unemployment befits, which was also in the Stimulus program and we discussed here, followed in weeks (current) by another Emergency Jobs bill, that will increase the increased monies for the unemployed.

 

Then the HC Bill, with 98 different programs, designed to increase government and no one has any idea how in the long term will cost.

Would you supply be a list of Bush projects, that cost ONE T$, let alone 10T$ over said years, especially in a 15 month period of his term.

 

If Middle East Oil had been interrupted for one month, it would have cost a whole lot more than 70B$/year cost of that war, but once there we were and are obligated to see it through. Obama's first lesson in how things work...International Obligation, out trumps campaign rhetoric...

 

The Tea Party seems to expect that if they elect the Republicans back into power, they'll suddenly become economic conservatives, an idea which is not backed up by their track record.[/Quote]

 

Well, I don't see a lot of Liberal Democrats talking to these folks, maybe if one would address their grievances in Town Halls or these demonstrations, opposed to being critical of every move, they would be seen in a different light.

 

Your absolutely correct, the Republican party left their Conservative credentials someplace and from 2001 or so seem to desire acting like Liberal Democrats. It discussed me every time I have to defend their actions, but bad as they were, it's NOTHING compared to PAULSON'S TARP plans or this administrations political 'Social Justice' programs.

 

I have no idea who is coming down the pike, that has even a chance to change things in 2012, but whomever is elected to Congress in 2010, will have a short political life span if they vary one line of what's said while campaigning, this includes Liberal as well. I am sensing a strong acceptance of females for Government Office, which may be the answer to getting something really done. And NO, I'm not specifically talking about Ms. Palin. I will admit this today, short of Ms. Clinton, I don't see anyone that I feel could both win a primary and make a difference, either or all parties.

 

They are, in effect, protesting problems which are common to both parties, but suggesting if their party of choice is elected this will somehow resolve those problems. [/Quote]

 

Yes they are and what they want, could well come from Democrats. Their problem is, to articulate what some want to hear, will be to admonish the current Democratic Machine in Washington. They will be on their own, but I'd do my best support any of them over the current crop of pandering idiots that were elected in 2006 or the die hard republican that gone off course.

[bascule]

Lets start with the 2009 FY Budget, which Bush wouldn't sign, because of the added pork spending, which Obama signed onto, with ADDED pork spending.

 

What are you talking about specifically? And surely you're not insinuating that Bush never signed any budgets containing pork...

 

How about TARP money

 

TARP was signed into law by Bush, not Obama.

 

On 800B$ STIMULUS Program, that had to passed on day one to prevent some world catastrophe and "ANOTHER GREAT DEPRESSION", which is still less than half spent, created a net loss of millions of jobs and will be used as campaign funds in this election and in 2012.

 

Net loss of millions of jobs? What? Used as "campaign funds"? By who? Please cite some sources on this stuff.

 

The need to raise the National Debt Ceiling by, 190B$ and 1.9T$, months apart to accommodate spending programs.

 

And how many times was the debt ceiling raised under Bush, to finance an unnecessary war?

 

Well, I don't see a lot of Liberal Democrats talking to these folks, maybe if one would address their grievances in Town Halls or these demonstrations, opposed to being critical of every move, they would be seen in a different light.

 

The NewLeftMedia videos in the OP are a good illustration of what happens when a liberal asks them simple, informed, common sense questions about their positions.

 

Your absolutely correct, the Republican party left their Conservative credentials someplace and from 2001 or so seem to desire acting like Liberal Democrats. It discussed me every time I have to defend their actions, but bad as they were, it's NOTHING compared to PAULSON'S TARP plans or this administrations political 'Social Justice' programs.

 

You're comparing the Republicans to Republican Hank Paulson's TARP plans that were signed into law by Republican President George W. Bush? You seem to be awfully confused about TARP. Do you think Paulson is a Democrat or something, or that it was signed by Obama? That statement doesn't make sense. TARP went into effect months before Obama even took office. That's the kind of flat out misrepresentation of reality I'm used to seeing from Fox News. TARP did not take place under the Obama administration, although they inherited it.

 

Both administrations are spending a lot of money. I grant Obama more leeway because of the financial crisis. I think deficit spending to help the economy recover, such as what we saw with the Stimulus, is justified. For that matter I think TARP was a good idea conceptually although the execution was rather flawed. For that I also blame Paulson.

[iNow]

I just want to thank bascule for having enough integrity and depth of character to ignore the idiocy and ridicule put forth by the two mods (ecoli & Pangloss) and jryan above. Thank you for leading by example.

 

Now, can we maybe stay on topic there folks? You are not forced to participate if you are tired of seeing these types of threads. Thanks.

[padren]

Is there any coherent, organized platform coming from the Tea Party movement? Even if the videos represent "Gotcha" moments of the worst of the lot, someone or some people organizing the movement must distill some semblance of a cause for the group. So far, the very best I've heard from this movement is a rejection of Obama's general policies because they don't fit with their "more government is always bad" philosophy. From those sympathetic to the movement, I've heard some abstract Randian ideas of how things "should" work but nothing resembling a plan and absolutely nothing resembling a functional strategy.

 

For the members themselves, all I have seen are people protesting things that are completely separate from reality - Obama introducing Russian Monarchs into the government for the first time in American history, government healthcare, death panels... the only things they hit are either abstract (a general increase in spending, signing the healthcare bill) or are as large and vague as the broad side of a barn like "Signing the Health Care Bill."

 

Again, these may not be representative of the whole but where is the "majority" of TPers who are telling those other guys to shut the hell up and read something for once? If there is a core within the movement that is in touch with reality with a coherent message, those on the fringe must really tick them off.

 

The thing is while I could see how the intellectuals and organizers would be marginalized, I don't actually see any evidence they exist at all. I would very much welcome evidence to the contrary.

[bascule]

I just want to thank bascule for having enough integrity and depth of character to ignore the idiocy and ridicule put forth by the two mods (ecoli & Pangloss) and jryan above. Thank you for leading by example.

 

Now if only I could take a DNFT approach to the substance-free arguments of the Tea Party itself. Unfortunately, it's looking like it will have a major effect on the governance of this country.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I just want to thank bascule for having enough integrity and depth of character to ignore the idiocy and ridicule put forth by the two mods (ecoli & Pangloss) and jryan above. Thank you for leading by example.

Dude, calling people idiots isn't really the best way to continue leading by example. Responding to "idiocy" with flaming isn't the best strategy.

[ydoaPs]

I like turtles.....especially the ninja kind