Whence the Tea Party...

[Starving_Artist]

“All this talk about rules: we make 'em up, as we go along.”

~Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Florida

“…it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”

~Rep. John Dingel, D-Michigan

*“I do think at a certain point, you’ve, uh, made enough money!” *

~Barack Obama, President of the United States

“I think there are a lot of very rich people out there that we can tax down the road to recover some of this money…”

~Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts

“I don’t worry about the Constitution on this…”

~Rep. Phil Hare, D-Illinois

“What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages…”

~Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan

“We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it.”

~Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives
Cite
“Those voices don’t speak for the rest of us.”
~Ronald Reagan
Not that I expect any of this will gain any kind of traction around here, but in my opinion it goes a long way toward answering questions like why Sarah Palin is so popular despite her inexperience, what gave rise to the Tea Party, and why the electorate is so angry.

[Robot_Arm]

Is there an actual topic for debate here, or is it just a rant.

While we’re at it, I’m sure you wouldn’t mind providing some context for these quotes.

[Gyrate]

No context and in half the cases not even the complete sentence. Yep, that’s a sound basis for an argument.

[Baboonanza]

If you were trying to make an actual point you would have been better of at least trying to be bi-partisan. Or are you going to claim that Republican’s never say stupid things?

Not that I expect any of this will gain any kind of traction around here, but in my opinion it goes a long way toward answering questions like why Sarah Palin is so popular despite her inexperience, what gave rise to the Tea Party, and why the electorate is so angry.

And the people who support Sarah Palin have clearly based their thinking on a rational assessment the role of government and the current congress people’s opinions on the matter and then decided that what the country needs is a right-wing publicity whore who has folksy charm. Bullshit. Thinking like that was how you ended up with Bush II.

People are angry because the economy is bad and the Tea Party exists because most people hold ignorant stupid beliefs and like to be part of a gang, even though this readily leads to their exploitation by those with vested interests (ie the money behiond the Tea-Party).

[Crackrat]

@Hastings

I wish that I had been there when Thomas Edison made the remark that I think applies here: ‘There ain’t no rules around here — we’re trying to accomplish something.’ And therefore, when the deal goes down, all this talk about rules, we make ‘em up as we go along, and I’m here now 18 years, and a significant amount of that time here on this committee under the leadership of the Republicans…

@Dingel

Let me remind you this [Americans allegedly dying because of lack of universal health care] has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.

@Obama

We’re not, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service. We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy.

I didn’t find any video clip that didn’t cut off right after Barney Frank’s line.

Illinois Congressman: “I Don’t Worry About The Constitution”
As Hare was questioned over the constitutionality of forcing 30 million Americans to buy insurance from private companies, one member of the public asked “where in the Constitution” it says the government can do that.

“I don’t worry about the Constitution on this to be honest,” Hare replied.

“I care more about the people that are dying every day that don’t have health insurance,” Hare said.

“It’s people’s lives. It’s people’s children. It’s when you take your child to the hospital and you think it’s really bad and your heart is thumping, thumping, thumping while you’re waiting for the doctor to tell you what it is and then the doctor comes out and says it’s going to be ok, except you don’t have insurance and you’re stuck with a $10 or $15,000 bill…”

“You care more about that than the U.S. Constitution, which you swore to uphold?” one of the constituents asked.

“I believe it says we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” Hare fired back, before someone else in the room corrected the Congressman, noting that that line is found in the Declaration of Independence.

“Doesn’t matter to me,” Hare said. “Either one.”

@Conyers

“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” said Conyers.
“What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

@Pelosi

“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."

Full text of the speech containing the line is at http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1576

[Ludovic]

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

I am the gander.

[Gyrate]

@Starving_Artist

Not that I expect any of this will gain any kind of traction around here, but in my opinion it goes a long way toward answering questions like why Sarah Palin is so popular despite her inexperience, what gave rise to the Tea Party, and why the electorate is so angry.

After seeing the longer quotes, I think we can thus conclude that what gave rise to the Tea Party, Sarah Palin and the unfocused anger of the masses is a carefully crafted pseudo-reality by unscrupulous individuals pushing a right-wing agenda without any regard for truth.

Congratulations, SA - you’ve won the argument.

[BrainGlutton]

@Ludovic

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

Oh, yeah?! Well, your mind is part of my reality, so I still win! [hunts in vain for tongue-stuck-out smiley]

[DigitalC]

If out of context half quotes is all you got then it’s no wonder the tea parties and Palin make so little sense.

[Boyo_Jim]

“Everybody understand America was built on the rights of free expression, the rights to practice your religion, but come on!” – Eric Cantor, House Republican Whip, supporting the denial of permission to build the so called “Ground Zero Mosque”.

We can swap quotes all day. Isn’t it more important to talk about who votes for or against actual legislation?

[Ravenman]

Also whence the Tea Party:

“Dr. Laura: don’t retreat…reload!”
-Sarah Palin urges Dr. Laura to continue her good work after saying “nigger” 11 times on her radio program

“We needed to have the press be our friend … We wanted them to ask the questions we want to answer so that they report the news the way we want it to be reported.”
-Sharron Angle on the freedom of the press

“The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery, so you can’t masturbate without lust.”
-Christine O’Donnell on… well, you know

“Get a brain, morans!”
-The dude with the American flag do-rag who was into the Tea Party before it was cool, man
Yes, I understand where the Tea Party comes from.

[Chronos]

While we’re at it with the quotes:

And I’ll give you a prime example. Reading that 800 page bill. “Oh, what a task!” (laughs) It was nothing! You sit down and you read the bill and you understand the bill. This isn’t like reading War and Peace for God’s sakes, there’s about a paragraph on each page and you just read the bill! But you have to read the bill. And to make the assumption that nobody reads the bill, and for people to stand up and say, “I couldn’t read the bill because it was too long,” it’s a cop-out. It’s a cop-out. You can always find time to do that kind of stuff. Because it’s part of your job.

–Senator Jon Tester (D-MT)

What’s really interesting, though, is how many Republican congresscritters there are who claim that nobody read the bill. It seems to me that anyone making a statement like that is admitting that they, themselves, didn’t read the bill, either. Thus implying that there are a Hell of a lot of Republicans out there who aren’t doing their job.

[River_Hippie]

The Tea Party is (IMHO) the 2010 marketing campaign for the GOP. It arose to give Republicans who were too ashamed to call themselves Republicans after 8 years of Bush something else to call themselves. Despite protestations to the contrary (from Teapublicans) once they retake power, as it looks like they might, they will find the same old establishment Republicans, Neo-cons and Religious Right types calling the shots from backstage.

And the Teapublicans will be just fine with that.
IMHO.

[BlankSlate]

One simple question for Starving Artist: Would the Tea Party movement exist had John McCain won the presidency in 2008?

[Merijeek]

@BlankSlate

One simple question for Starving Artist: Would the Tea Party movement exist had John McCain won the presidency in 2008?

That’s just silly. John McCain is a republican, and therefore would have worked toward smaller government, tax cuts, increased defense spending, he would have gotten the government out of everyone’s Medicare, and he would have cut taxes.

-Joe

[Squink]

@Merijeek

and he would have cut taxes.

While bombing Iran!

[Euphonious_Polemic]

Thanks Crackrat, for posting the context of the quotes that** Starving Artist** so thoughtfully cut and pasted for us.

Once again, Starving Artist proves to be an embarrassment for reasonable conservatives out there.

Will you never learn to actually do some research before cutting and pasting from an idiot blog?

[BrainGlutton]

If you really want to know whence comes the Tea Party, see here, here, and especially here:

Today’s Tea Party movement resembles the Whiskey Rebellion – but emphatically not because it is supported only by ignorant yahoos, as many critics of the Tea Partiers contend. On the contrary, just as the Tea Party is supported and subsidized by many elite conservatives, so the Whiskey Rebellion’s sympathizers included members of the early republic’s elite, including Albert Gallatin, a Swiss immigrant who later became President Thomas Jefferson’s secretary of the Treasury. (The mature Gallatin adopted much of the Hamiltonian philosophy he had denounced in his youth and proposed a massive, federally funded canal and road system.)

Whether they are educated or not, the supporters of the Tea Party movement, like the supporters of the Whiskey Rebellion, are deeply confused. The Whiskey Rebels failed to understand that the federal funding of state debts almost certainly spared them much higher state taxes in the long run. Although the federal excise tax on whiskey was regressive, as a whole Hamilton’s scheme for funding the state debts was more progressive than debt payment schemes by the individual states would have been. For example, the state of Massachusetts alone had planned to pay its debt by raising more than $1 million a year in new taxes. In contrast, the interest on the consolidated national debt of $75.6 million required only $4.6 million from the entire United States. And whereas states repaying their debt would have relied heavily on highly regressive property taxes or poll taxes, the federal government raised revenue mainly from tariffs paid primarily by the affluent. While the rich disproportionately benefited from federal assumption of state debt, they also disproportionately paid the costs, sparing ordinary Americans the taxes that the states otherwise might have imposed. But the Whiskey Rebels were too busy grabbing their muskets to understand their own interests.

In the same way, the Tea Partiers who denounce the TARP and the 2009 stimulus fail to understand that the alternatives to those much-demonized policies would have been much worse. In a financial crisis, the government must rescue the financial system on which the rest of the economy depends. Progressives can plausibly argue that it would have been better to nationalize the banks, while recapitalizing them. But Tea Party conservatives who argue that the government should have allowed the national and global banking systems simply to collapse are, to be blunt, ignorant fools. And they are ignorant fools, too, when they argue that the 2009 stimulus was too large, when in fact it was too skewed toward tax cuts and too small to play its necessary role in boosting aggregate demand when consumer spending had cratered. The depth of their ignorant folly is demonstrated by the fact that most credible Republican conservative economists supported both the TARP and some sort of stimulus.

[Starving_Artist]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Thanks Crackrat, for posting the context of the quotes that** Starving Artist** so thoughtfully cut and pasted for us.

Once again, Starving Artist proves to be an embarrassment for reasonable conservatives out there.

Will you never learn to actually do some research before cutting and pasting from an idiot blog?

I have to confess I expected a somewhat livelier thread this, but c’est la vie.

I take it from most of the responses so far that msot of you are taking the position that fleshing out the quotes has actually changed their meaning in a substantial way? Or that quoting remarks from private citizens or office-holder wannabe’s cancels out remarks by congressional lawmakers, the Speaker of the House and the President?

[Robot_Arm]

@Starving_Artist

I take it from most of the responses so far that msot of you are taking the position that fleshing out the quotes has actually changed their meaning in a substantial way?

Yes.

Or that quoting remarks from private citizens or office-holder wannabe’s cancels out remarks by congressional lawmakers, the Speaker of the House and the President?

Yes, in the same way that a random blogger or obscure academic cancels out someone with a national TV or radio show.