I’m just an unwashed immigrant (who pays taxes and can’t vote), but I thought the rallying cry for the Boston Tea Party had something to do with the lack of representation.
(Perhaps the fact that the Tea Act lowered the tea price and undercut the local tea smuggling enterprises had something to do with it, as well? Naaah…)
I was making my own argument based on that video (I don’t really care what Media Mattters thinks. I was merely inking to their website so that I could link to the video.) that Fox News is actively supporting these protests. And I find that rather distasteful. Whether or not these protests are “astroturf” has no bearing on the fact that Fox News is promoting them.
As a resident of DC, I’m puzzled by the references to “taxation without representation.” It appears that Glenn Beck has been talking about this quite a bit. If all these well-represented economic conservatives are really concerned about the slogan, I can only wonder how they feel about giving the District of Columbia representation in the House of Representatives. I’m pretty sure I know their views: I’m betting they are mostly against it.
As others have said before, the Boston Tea Party really isn’t a good historical analogue. I think the organizers should have harkened back to the Whiskey Rebellion, when the Feds raised taxes due to high debts. (I’ll ignore the part about jackbooted thugs crushing the dissent/insurrection.)
Kewlist-named incident in American history! 
Ron Paul Tea Party 07 (vid)
Understood and agreed.
Part of my annoyance is seeing the Sean Hannitys of the world leeching onto something that did start out, and largely still is, authentic nonpartisan grassroots activism – which in turn encourages the Hannitys of the left in making their own predictable responses.
Although the only thing they have in common is the name. Just like these tea parties and the original tea party.
Are they going to dress up like Native Americans? Because I don;t really know how I can take the teabaggers seriously if they don’t.
I think Andrew Sullivan essentially nails the hysterial hypocrisy of the Teabaggers:
The latest tempest in a Tea Party is that the DHS is classifying broad swaths of the right as “right wing radicals” and “extremists” and therefore “hate groups” and “terrorists.” It all comes from an article from Michelle Malkin wherein she claims that a DHS report titled Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment wasn’t specific enough in naming the groups it was talking about, therefore Obama classifying everyone on the right as an extremist and a terrorist. The report was clearly talking about groups like the National Alliance and the Creativity Movement and clearly not talking about the Akron Young Republican’s Club, but my uber-conservative facebook friend has altered her profile to read that her political vews are “I say Republican, the Government says ‘Domestic Terrorist’,” and she appears to have a lot of people who agree with her. It’s very, very strange.
Uh, no. Though hysterical and Sullivan in the same sentence is always a good idea.
To call Reynolds partisan is laughable: in 2006 he said the Pubs “deserved to lose,” leading and listed all the reasons why. He is a moderate libertarian on just about any issue you want to name.
More to the point, he did criticize Bush for spending, numerous times over the years. He was and is opposed to bailouts, even the ones Bush supported. He did think the stimulus was highly wasteful. He has often pointed out that defense spending is very often pork-heavy. And he has made entitlement reform – including SocSec but also state and city employee pensions – a running theme. He – and a lot of other people – are, in short, principled, consistient fiscal conservatives.
Sullivan knows this full well. He’s just had a hardon for Reynolds ever since instapundit started getting more hits then him. The fact that one of the things that cost Sullivan readers was his (c. 2001-2003) over-the-top praise of Bush just makes it ironic…
The original Boston Tea Party participants chose Native Americans because such a disguise worked well in that era.
Today, they would choose to disguise themselves as cops and construction workers. I guess a few teabaggers could dress as a Native American for old-times’ sake.
Cite?
It is appalling that the Malkin actually quotes the part of the report that defines the term “rightwing extremist” as being those who are basically racist or anarchist, and then a whole mess of commenters seem not to grasp that though they may be right wing, they were not being called extremists unless they are, indeed, racists or anarchists.
Has the loony right finally embraced political correctness to the point that we cannot call neo-Nazi or militia types “rightwing extremists” for fear of hurting the feelings of Republicans?
Characterizing the two protests as being merely “anti-tax” is like saying a mouse and a brachiosaur are pretty much the same, being “animals with four legs.”
The issues aren’t just different, they’re completely different. At issue in 1773 was interpretation of a well-established constitutional right and whether it applied to Americans - and, consequently, whether Americans constituted part of the nation of Britain or a separate nation entirely.
At issue in 2009 is “I don’t like the budget for FY 09/10.” None of the central issues of 1773 are in any way reflected in today’s protest.
I don’t think they expected anybody to be fooled. The probably chose that disguise just for the kewl factor.
Maybe a few could dress as cowboys to emphasize the value of rugged independence. Or they could dress as soldiers and sailors to show their support for our troops overseas.
Hear, hear. I’ve listened to a lot of experts make arguments I can barely understand about what we should do, and almost all of them sound right. I don’t think there’s anything anyone can do but make their best guess at what to do. I’m glad Obama’s in office because I expect I’ll like his guesses better than I would have McCain’s, but with a massively expensive war and a worldwide economic crash to deal with, I don’t know how much good anyone could do.
As for the protests, I don’t begrudge the right wing a little frothing at the mouth after all the hyperbole that came from the left about Bush (comparisons to Hitler, etc.). But yesterday I heard a quote on NPR a conservative protester who said that they were angry about Obama’s massive deficit spending. WTF??? Bush lowered taxes and initiated an expensive, unnecessary war, and they’re pissed off at Obama?
I suppose the leather outfit is going to be a little more difficult to justify.
Perhaps the leather-clad cowboys could protest Obama’s supression of dissent by wearing ball gags.