I question whether the Tea Party movement actually needs countering, at this point. So far, it doesn’t actually seem to have had much of a concrete impact.
Hilarious that the Teabaggers believe anyone is convinced by their recent (1/20/09) discovery of and new-found love for the U.S. Constitution, or their equally recent (astoundingly, this occurred on the SAME DAY!) hostility toward deficit spending. It’s almost as if these people were all in a Faux Nooz induced coma between 1980 and 2009. Either that or what’s REALLY bothering them is something only a few are willing to disclose on their misspelled, grammatically challenged signage. Did something else happen on 1/20/09 that might be setting them off?
Also, the perception among these Rubes, Hicks and Goobers that they speak for some silent majority and are actually wildly popular brings to mind a certain South Park episode in which Cartman, depressed over his questionable parentage, holds a tea party for his stuffed animals…
The Tea Party:
Liane Cartman: Hello, boys.
Kyle: Hi. We were wondering why fat@zz [mitt to mouth] I mean-Cartman, hasn’t been showing up for school.
Liane Cartman: Ooooh, he’s just been feeling under the weather. Maybe you boys can cheer him up. He’s in the backyard.
Stan: In the backyard?
[In the backyard. A classical piece plays as the camera looks at the picnic table left over from Cartman’s birthday. Cartman is at table surrounded by four dolls: he is hosting a tea party. Think Mr. Hat, then the Mad Hatter…]
Cartman: Would you like some more tea, Polly Prissy Pants?
Polly: Yes, Eric, I would like some tea. Thank you.
Cartman: You’re very welcome, Polly Prissy Pants. [The boys pop up over some bushes and look at Cartman from a distance] Would you like some tea, Clyde Frog?
Clyde: Yes, please, Eric. Why are you so cool?
Cartman: Oh. I don’t know, Clyde Frog. I just am.
Polly: You are so strong and smart, Eric. Everybody likes you.
Cartman: Why, thank you, Polly Prissy Pants. How nice of you. [sips]
Stan: [behind the bushes with the others] Dude, this is pretty f’d up right here.
Kenny: (I think if we run, try to get Eric to drop his tea)
Kyle: Come on! Let’s go make fun of him!
Stan: No, dude. This look really serious. I think we’d better get help.
Kyle: Really?
Peter: [back at table] We like ya, Eric. You are the coolest guy in the world. This is tremendous tea.
Cartman: Why, thank you, Peter Panda. This is Distinctive Earl Grey.
Polly: Eric is the best!
Clyde: Hooray for Eric!
Peter: Eric kicks @zz!
[At school, the Counselor’s office. The boy who saw the counselor in December is back, but then, so is Kyle]
Kyle: Mr. Mackey, something’s really wrong with Cartman.
Mr. Mackey: Oh, well, there’s a news flash!
Stan: Nono. We saw him having a tea party with his stuffed animals.
Kyle: Yeah. He was doing their voices and pouring tea for them.
Mr. Mackey: Oooh okay-Eric is obviously suffering from some kind of emotional distress, mkay?
Kyle: Woo-whataya mean?
Mr. Mackey: Have you boys noticed anything recently that troubled Eric?
Stan: No.
Mr. Mackey: Well-obviously something is bothering him. [looks left] Oh, of course! [walks over to a shelf] My video camera! Boys, if you could videotape Eric’s behavior, then I can study him psychologically and find out what’s wrong, mkay?
Stan: Is that legal?
Mr. Mackey: Oh, hell yes!
[Back at Cartman’s Tea Party]
Cartman: My goodness, that’s a lovely dress you are wearing, Polly Prissy Pants.
Polly: Oh, thank you, Eric. You are a perfect gentleman, and you are smart and true.
Peter: Yes, Eric, you are strong and smart and true. Everybody likes you very much.
Cartman: That’s niiice, Peter Panda.
[Stan and Kyle are back at the bushes with Mr. Mackey’s camera]
Stan: Dude, this is going to be the funniest tape ever made.
Kyle: How much do you think Mr. Mackey needs?
Stan: I donnow, just keep rolling.
Cartman: More tea, Rumpertumskin?
Rumpertumskin: Yes, please, Eric. You are tough and handsome.
Cartman: Thank you, Rumpertumskin. And what do you think about me, Clyde Frog?
Rumpertumskin: I think you’re a big fat piece of cr@p.
Cartman: [not knowing how to take that, then] Eeeyy!
I don’t usually wade into these Pit quagmires, but I want to share this piece by the Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn.
Zorn is quite liberal, sometimes annoyingly so, but IMO one of his strong points is presenting opposing viewpoints fairly even while disagreeing with them. Here, he writes about trying to keep an open mind while looking for answers about what the Tea Partiers really stand for. His conversation with a prominent local TPer and speaker at a recent rally, whom Zorn admits to knowing and believing to be a smart man, is telling:
This isn’t just some yahoo with a sign, it’s one of the rally’s organizers and a key figure in the Chicago arm of the TP movement. Yet he talks in circles when asked to explain the group’s position in anything beyond vague platitudes.
How can we not generalize about the Tea Party when there are no specifics to go on?
Not to resurrect this horse just to beat it a little more … but where were these yahoos when their boy took our budget *surplus *and turned it into a budget defecit? This is precisely the reason I give the Teabaggers as whole no credit. They bitch about something that needs fixing as though it was Obama that broke it. They don’t give two rat-fucks about the deficit, they just want to howl at the moon because their guy didn’t win.
Right here in this very thread.
Sorry, but there’s really no way to talk about groups of people without generalizing.
When a group’s defining characteristic is something fairly superficial (e.g. skin pigmentation), there may not be any useful generalizations to be drawn. But a group united by a political attitude (I think stance might be too strong a word for the Teabaggers) might well have a number of traits generally held in common.
Well, I guess there’s a difference between something like the (very interesting) article you quoted, which basically says “so I went to talk to the leader of my local tea party, and here’s an interesting conversation we had, and it sure seemed like a lot of the anger they felt was lacking in real direction” and “Those of you who think that branding the teabaggers as racist is premature…”, which is the title of one of the threads that got me to post this OP in the first place.
One of the main issues is this: Given how amorphous and poorly defined the TP movement is, don’t try to claim that you’ve proved things or demonstrated things about the movement as a whole based on any one incident or discussion. And particularly don’t try to claim that you’ve proven something about every individual TP member. As I’ve said before, it’s frustrating and unfair when Shodan does it about liberals, and it’s just as unfair to do it about conservatives, or republicans, or TPers.
Upon consideration, I submit that if they’re amorphous and poorly defined, it’s their own fault. Angry with the government but not a racist? Call your group something else.
Lie.
Lie.
Lie.
Bullshit.
Actually, only 3 of those 4 are lies. For the teabaggers it is about raace in a substantially larger portion than average in America, but that doesn’t mean the movement per se is about race. Liberal protests have wacky conspiracy theorists that protest alongside them and that doesn’t mean their movements are “about” those side causes any more than the tea party is “about” barack’s race.
Newt explains the tea movement:
What this means is that it’s OK for liberals and moderates to poke teabaggers with pointy sticks.[sup]*[/sup]
[sub]*[sub]Of course, as we all know, Newt or anyone else, does not speak for the movement, so it would be terribly unfair for liberals and moderates to poke any teabag associated individuals with a stick.
If you’re going to poke, poke the organization. That way, no one except liberals and moderates will ever get hurt.[/sub][/sub]
A moment of (accidental?) candor that he will probably come to regret and “refine”… nonetheless, refreshing to hear someone admit it rather than attempt to perpetuate the ludicrous fantasy that the Tea Party “movement” is an organic, non-partisan phenomenon.
I’ve been having a trackwreck attraction to them lately as well but have never found one in time to attend.
It’s partially not wanting to subject myself to teabagger websites too much. If you want to fall on that knife for me, tagging along with someone might make the difference between going and not going for me. (I still am not sure if I should go at all as just showing will appear to inflate their numbers.)
My impression is that a wide stance is preferred.
I’ll give you a call when we get back from the wedding stuff. I doubt adding two signless onlookers will do much for their PR anyway.
Until the Pubbie leadership speaks out strongly and consistently against the Tea Baggers, there is no difference in my mind between them.
Pubs are trying to have their cake and eat it too: They’re trying to feed off the alleged grassroots anger of the party for political gain while distancing themselves from the insane movement in the mainstream media where such idiocy doesn’t play well. Well tough shit. The Tea Baggers are majority Pubs, majority white, majority conservative, and majority insane. They are the core that the Pubs have courted for decades. Now that the GOP has been decimated by scandal, corruption, and losses, they want to go back to that core (losers always want to turn back to their core :rolleyes: ) and start from scratch?
Sorry Pubs, but you let this insane fringe fester until it actually posed a threat to your power, so you clean that shit up. When fucking idiots in CONGRESS are asked if they believe Obama was born in this country, you guys dare say “I dunno” and pretend that Tea Bagger and Republicans aren’t synonymous? That violent extremists aren’t controlling the GOP? That kind of BS may play in the uneducated and unwashed masses of the typical Tea Bagger retard, but liberals and independents see right through that filthy lie.
But hey, I’m not going to act like a typical Pubbie and offer simply obstructionism as my answer, I have solutions too (of course the typical “concerned” Pubbie is too lazy, hateful, and ignorant to follow it).
Step 1: Denounce all Tea Baggers, every single one of them. It doesn’t matter that some of them aren’t violent racist extremists, the entire group is tainted like fish left out in the sun too long. The whole Tea Bagger group must be eliminated and to do that, there needs to be unequivocal denouncement of their violent, extremist, and evil ways
Step 2: Confess that it was Republicans who actually ran up the debt, first bailed out the banks, and got us into this economic shithole, because Bush and the GOP were in charge for years and presided over a lot of what is wrong with this country
Step 3: Stop lying about Obama, his policies, liberals, and everything in general. Tell people the truth: Pubbies only voted against health care because it is a good bill that would help Americans, and when Americans realize that, they will flock to Democrats like a fat kid to cake
Step 4: Take an election cycle off. Your party is full of extremists and hateful shitheads. Don’t even have a nominee for President in 2012, or if you do, nominate Ron Paul
Step 5: All of the above stuff is hard, but this step will simultaneously be the easiest and hardest thing for a Republican to do: Be honest, truthful, and have integrity.
Until then, fuck the Republican Tea Bagger party
Just to pick one of the things you seem to “know”…
A 1% increase over 10 years would still be a lot less than the year-on-year increases over the last ten years.
Your “concern” is noted. So is the source.
No. That’s 1% more than would have been projected w/o the HCR law. Now, this certainly isn’t the be all and end all of analysis, but it shows that 1) Reasonable people can disagree about the goodness of this bill, and 2) it’s no slam dunk that this is going to be good, politically, for the Dems.
And Elvis, the “source” is the Associated Press, not me.