Obama didn’t have the independents?
He didn’t have the racists, the government-is-the-devil and helping-people-is-evil right wingers, and so on. There was never any chance that these people would want anything more from him than his death.
And this is what scares me about the baggers at this point in time. (!!) I wouldn’t even flinch if a group of teabaggers are arrested for conspiracy to assassinate. Since they seems to lack a list of intentions and how to get them, it’s possible that SOME bagging groups feel this is a plan watching Palin and other politicians wink at the violent squawkings from the crowd.
I think their goals and tactics are pretty simplistic. The goal is to get what they want, the tactics are “any means possible”. As clear as they sound on television. :rolleyes:
If they ever got their way, they would say “it was meant to be” or worse, “God gave us the strength.”
A trigger finger requires no divine strength though. (shudders)
+1
Liberals have always acknowledged that there is a lunatic fringe on the right, inexorably opposed to any idea that contains the smallest grain of sense, and probably racist, blindly jingoistic, demagogic and uninformed. IOW, hopeless.
But up until now, pretty much voiceless, too. Now that they’ve found leaders to articulate (!?) their positions (?!) this lunatic fringe is getting TV time and attention, but that doesn’t make them much more of a threat than they ever were. I suspect that liberals actually like the TPers, since their presence only makes more likely the splintering of the Republican votes.
Allright, I’ll admit that this post is at best anecdotal, and I do not have any nice numbers or published polls to back up my assertions. However, my current job entails a lot of travel and spending about a week on average at cities and towns all over the state of florida; and in smaller numbers georgia, and south carolina. During my stays at each i’ve had plenty of time to talk to people there and nearly all of those that support the tea party movement have in common two things: Anger and Ignorance. They are all nearly universally ill informed about politics, financial matters, practical applications of scientific principles, and really most things in general. Most of them also do not WANT to be better informed. They have decided on a way the world simply “is” and anything that does not jive with it is wrong, immoral, or too intellectually lofty to deal with by their own assertion. They are all angry because they perceive life as a system of actions and rewards that hasn’t paid out fairly to them. They think that because they work hard, that life should reward them at some point for being good little soldiers. Most have only a high school education, many less than that. They are suspicious of those with higher degrees, and are surprised to find out that I possess two. They don’t understand that having one doesn’t automatically reward you with a “boss” job. There is a strong jingoistic streak in many, and a little racism in fewer. Nearly all that I’ve spoke to are religious. All are christian. Some joined up over abortion and when pressed can’t provide any sort of good argument for their stance on the issue. Most think that Obama is going to steal their guns. They can’t provide anything further to justify this, they simply reply that everybody knows that he’s going to do it. The older ones want a return to what they felt were the good old days; the younger ones want to be rich; which is odd since they are universally united in their hatred and distrust of the wealthy. Unless of course you manage a small business that you, or your grandad built from scratch. If they can’t get that, then they will settle for burning everything to the ground so that nobody else will get any more benefit from it then they feel that they have: Nothing.
Now while I’m certain that there must be some well thought out conservatives in among them, I’ve never run into one. Mostly they seem to be a bunch of dissatisfied, angry, greedy, entitled people of average to lower intelligence upset at how life turned out and willing to take it out on anyone who feels differently than them.
Not this nonsense again.
Even you should be able to recognise what they want from Obama: low taxation and low spending in government. They’re not going to get it, but that’s a long way from saying they want Obama dead.
Yeah, and it’s merely a coincidence that death threats to the President jumped through the roof when Obama was elected. You can’t turn around without seeing another news story about the loonies on the right issuing threats or attacking someone or destroying something. They want him dead, because he’s the Antichrist, a traitor, a socialist, a Muslim, a black man, and probably some of them think he’s a homosexual alien invader. These are the lowest common denominator of the Right; ignorant, stupid, bigoted in multiple ways, amoral, addicted to violence and the threat of it. They hate him because of what they think he is, which has nothing at all to do with reality. And yes, they want him dead; just as the same segment of the right wanted Clinton dead. That’s the kind of people they are.
And no, they don’t want “low spending on government” either. They don’t want Medicare or anything else they are getting cut, for example; they just want other people to suffer.
I’m sure there are members of Congress who would likely have become members of the Tea Party, if they could. Unfortunately, as a congressman, it’s hard to join some random third party, and it’s hard to stay ignorant on issues. If they had been themselves but working out in the rest of the world, quite likely they would have joined up.
I think you hit the nail on the head. What galls so many liberals is that these people stood by, and even cheered, as Bush ran up huge deficits, trampled all over the constitution and sucked on the collective dick of corporate America. As Marshmallow mentioned above, a lot of these people do have legitimate gripes - deficit spending, stagnating wages, a government that doesn’t seem to cater to the interests of the little people. But those concerns get lost in the extreme rhetoric and overall asshole behavior.
This is what makes it impossible to really discuss their beliefs, goals and tactics. They’re too undefined. I would say though that they’re not diverse in a good way. It’s not that they’re all concerned about spending but one group in Indiana has reasonable goals and another in Tennessee wants to end all entitlement programs. They’re actually diverse and unfocused in their overall objectives.
One of the biggest schisms in the movement right now is what role god and religion should play. As wrong as I think they are, one side of the tea-bagger movement is genuinely focused on secular things. Whether it’s bona fide fiscal worries or poorly informed vaguely racist ire, they’re not focused on religion and don’t want to be. The other side is increasingly trying to inject religion and their twisted morality into the movement, while also fighting all the horrible minor changes Obama has passed. Naturally it’s leading to infighting and power struggles.
So which one is their goal or belief? Obviously there’s no consensus yet.
Incoherence is a hallmark of the American Right in modern times. Taken as a whole, the Right’s collected positions are both vague and mutually contradictory. Small government but don’t touch my Medicare, and make Jesus the law of the land. Low taxes, big military. Say you want to cut government waste but never agree on what is waste.
Which makes me very optimistic about the political future.
I think religion will be the wedge by which we separate the ignorant from the rest of us. The Democrats can say, reasonably, we embrace religious and non-religious views alike, but religion is a private and personal matter because we are a diverse society in which reaching a consensus on religious matters is impossible. This is an intolerable position for the tea-baggers (I love calling them that–fuck this “Tea Party” bullshit–they chose it, and I’m sticking with it). For some Tea-baggers, it’s all about religion, and for others, religion doesn’t matter at all, probably to a much greater degree than in the country generally, so it should be easy picking to splinter your tea-bagger opponent in any election over the question of whether they approve of imposing Christian values on US policy–if they say that Christianity rules, they’ve lost the secular wing of their party and if they say that it doesnt rule, they’ve got the Christian religious nutters calling them traitors. But they need to take a definite stand on this issue, which Democrats don’t.
Who are these leaders? Is there a cable news network, and former vice presidential candidate, I’m unaware of? Is everyone else on an email chain that I didn’t get included on?
We should also keep in mind that saying things like, “where were these guys during Bush’s reign…” isn’t really relevant. The Tea Party didn’t exist until until the douche bag of the economy, Rick Santelli, kicked it all of in February of 2009.
At the end of they day, they are the right wing equivalent of the moronic teenagers protesting at every G8 convention. And it’s too bad, they have a concept that, if thought thought, would be refreshing to hear. We have a group in power that is pushing for more government spending and more government control. Whether those two things are good or bad isn’t really the point, we need to have an alternative voice to keep things in check. It’s unfortunate that this group needed to rally the lowest common denominator in order to get enough numbers.
So, if we don’t stop insulting them, we face the threat that they may not support us in causes that they hate with every fiber of their being? Oh, dear.
Must be sad to be that angry all the time.
I can understand why the long-term unemployed would be kind of mad – it sucks to be out of work. But what do the rest of them have to bitch about? Especially since polls seem to indicate that’s the only issue they all seem to care about.
For insight into the question “Who the hell are these people, anyway?”, I offer the excellent article in the New York Review of Books, by Johnathan Raban. I have long been a fan of Mr. Raban’s work, and this is no exception. Joe Bob **'luc **says “Check it out!”
“Our side”? Indulging in bipolar monolithicality once again, are we?
If you’re referring to “the Democrat party” as you so charmingly call them (:rolleyes:), then no, just the opposite is true. Schisms in the Republicans work FOR the Dems. You always want to see your opposition divided. And that’s who they are.
They don’t have to go very far. There have been far more, and far more blatant, examples than the ones that have made it through the filters into the blogs you’re using for “news”.
:shrug: Name a few. Or name any leaders of national significance who aren’t on the Fox payroll, for that matter.
Because there’s no coherence, just anger.
That again? How are all the previous examples working out for ya?
You didn’t even look at that URL before copy/pasting it from whatever blog, did you? One click would have shown it to be a Republican polling operation, not a cigarette manufacturer. Gawdamighty, man, don’t you even try anymore?
The comment was a joke. I’m pretty sure elucidator got it. I was pretty sure you wouldn’t.
I have no doubt whatever that Sam’s speaking in jest regarding the cigarette company. As to why he offered a cite from a clearly biased source without offering the obligatory “shields up!” warning for a clearly partisan source, I am content with the most generous possible explanation, that he saw The Truth and mistook it for fact.
And no, I guess that, strictly speaking, the “shields up!” warning is not “obligatory”. I’m working on that. Taking longer than I thought.
Well, the “TEA” supposedly stands for “Taxed Enough Already.” Agree with that or not, it’s as mainstream as Prop 13.