Tea Party Capitol Video was Wrong Video - Racist Slurs May Still have Happened

[DinoDoc]

One reason I'm never having kids. I never want to have to explain the last 10+ years to them.

It's not because you'd have to explain to them why you can't afford nice things thanks to your student loans?

[Guynemer]

As I said, that was one reason.

[DinoDoc]

As I said, that was one reason.

Here's hopin Embers hits the NYT Bestsellers list.

[Guynemer]

Here's hopin' you buy a copy.

[Hauldren Collider]

Everyone on poly just rate it five stars

[MrFun]

A new New York Times poll shows Tea Partiers are grumpy, older, well-off Americans who think white people are oppressed—in other words, Republicans.

“Populist,” like “idealist,” is one of those words reporters use when they’ve checked their critical faculties at the door. George W. Bush routinely gets called an “idealist” in foreign policy because he gave soaring speeches on behalf of democracy. Whether his actions—in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Central Asia, the horn of Africa, or for that matter, Washington, D.C.—were particularly idealistic usually escapes scrutiny. He said he was for democracy, therefore he was.

• Tunku Varadarajan: Liberals, Wake up: Tea Partiers Are People TooIt’s the same with “populist.” Every time someone compares Barack Obama to Chairman Mao, the press garlands him with the word. But historically, the standards for what constitutes populism have been a little higher. In American history, populism has a specific meaning: It’s our non-Marxist way of talking about class. Being a populist means standing up for the little guy against ruling elites. Hating Washington isn’t enough, or else J.P. Morgan would have been a populist when he fumed that Theodore Roosevelt was busting his trusts. You have to be angry on behalf of the underdog.

The Tea Partiers aren’t standing up for the little guy; they’re standing up to the little guy.

Which is why we now have scientific proof that Tea Partiers don’t deserve the label. According to a survey in Thursday’s New York Times, Tea Partiers are wealthier and better-educated than average Americans. They’re not today’s version of the Nebraska dirt farmers who rose up against the railroads and the banks more than a century ago. They’re today’s version of the California suburbanites who rose up against their property tax bills in the late 1970s rather than pay for decent schools for the Golden State’s black and Hispanic kids. They’re the second coming of what Robert Kuttner called “the revolt of the haves.”

The Tea Partiers aren’t standing up for the little guy; they’re standing up to the little guy. We’ve long known that their leaders, like Sarah Palin, opposed against real regulation of Wall Street. Now we learn that what the Tea Partiers dislike about Barack Obama’s economic policies is that they don’t do enough for the rich. According to the Times, Tea Partiers are more likely than other Americans to think Barack Obama’s policies favor the poor, and they’re mad as heck about it. Not exactly William Jennings Bryan stuff.

The Tea Partiers aren’t too fond of racial underdogs either. They’re more likely than other Americans to believe that the Obama administration favors blacks over whites, and that black people’s hardships have been exaggerated. America does have a history of right-wing, often racist, populism. Segregationist Alabama Governor George Wallace called his party the Populists in 1968. But at least Wallace’s economic views were reasonably progressive. The Tea Partiers favor the economically and racially privileged. They fail the populism test on both counts.

So the press has a problem: what to call this intriguing new force in American politics? What kind of adjective suits older, grumpy, well-off Americans who believe Democrats are communists, the poor have it too easy and white people are oppressed? The term “Republican” comes to mind.

Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. His new book, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris, will be published by HarperCollins in June. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.

Is the Tea Party movement genuinely populist, or not?

[Drake Tungsten]

Speaking of Democrats taking a second look at the tea baggers...

Geithner praises ‘positive side’ of tea parties

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner praised the “positive side” of the tea party movement Sunday, suggesting the movement’s concern with deficits could align the group with the administration in the future.

Asked by NBC “Meet the Press” host David Gregory about the movement, Geithner said its concerns were informed by the expansion of spending under President Bush, and that the awareness now that there’s no way to pass an “enormous expansion of government without paying for it” is “an important change.”

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0410/Geithner_praises_positive_side_of_tea_parties.html

[Elok]

What exactly have they accomplished by standing around in tricorn hats *****ing for months on end?

They've got most of the Republican politicians in the country actively courting them and there are now calls for Democratic politicians to do the same. They're already having and will continue to have an impact on a number of Congressional races in this election cycle and could become even more influential afterward, depending on the composition of the new Congress.

I don't know why you seem to be expecting peaceful protests to change anything outside of the normal political process.

I don't expect peaceful protests to accomplish much at all by themselves. An active, organized campaign or party, now, that would do something. Especially if they had some concrete goals. Hell, even if they stayed inactive themselves but got real ideas to suggest, that would be something.

Their persistence is getting them attention, fine. The GOP will dutifully swing even further to the right than it already is, pay somewhat more lip-service to the same stuff they've been spewing since around 1980 while doing nothing--because actually cutting government spending means slashing programs, and slashing programs gets your ass kicked out of office. They might as well pose for photo-ops pretending to bugger a horse. But almost any Dem who tries to appease them will just look ridiculous after passing that wretched healthcare bill (and it's too soon for them to take action against it), whether by making insultingly halfhearted approaches or suddenly abandoning his/her original principles for transparent political advantage.

But I will grant that, if we actually manage to get said healthcare abomination repealed, we'll owe some of it to the TP. Waaait a minute, the TP? Okay, is there a short name or nickname for them that doesn't imply an adolescent prank?

[Elok]

To be clear, I would expect sensible people to do maybe one or two of these protests, and use them to network, get together. They'd discuss their ideas with one another, flesh things out, decide to make some calls. By the third or fourth protest, they'd have the beginnings of a political party or at least a lobby going. In addition to protests, they'd have seminars, think-tanks, eventually a platform. Something actionable.

But they do not. There's nothing to unify them except common anger, so they *****, *****, *****. They are the political equivalent of a toddler throwing a full-blown tantrum in the middle of Wal-Mart so he can get his toy.

[HalfLotus]

Local Tea Party groups do have mailing lists, and do organize for and against specific certain policies and candidates. The recent TP trek across the US was all about tossing out certain incumbents for their voting record on HCR, among other issues. They get their message out and vote accordingly.

Seems like critics are wanting or expecting the TP to metastasize into something akin to the Dem or Repub party, or one of the many failed third parties - but that is the absolute worst thing they could do.

Decentralized politics will help from being swallowed up by the establishment right, which is exactly what US national politics needs. The Tea Party is a rejection of establishment politics from the Dems and Repubs, why on earth would they want to follow their failed models with crap like lobby groups and think tanks?

Establishment-minded people are obviously baffled by grassroots politics. All the TP needs is an idea and a vote.

[Ecofarm]

Wow, Elok really hates the tea party. How strange, he seems rather level-headed in general.

[Elok]

I hate all whinging rabble. Flog them, flog them, I say!

I make exceptions for MLK's protests, not for the righteous cause but because they had some dignity.

[MrFun]

By MATTHEW BARAKAT and NAFEESA SYEED, Associated Press Writers Matthew Barakat And Nafeesa Syeed, Associated Press Writers – Mon Apr 19, 7:45 pm ET

ARLINGTON, Va. – Carrying loaded pistols and unloaded rifles, dozens of gun-rights activists got as close as they could Monday to the nation's capital while still bearing arms and delivered what they said was a simple message: Don't tread on me.

Hundreds of like-minded but unarmed counterparts carried out a separate rally in the nation's capital.

The gun-carrying protesters in Virginia rallied on national park land, which is legal thanks to a new law signed by President Barack Obama that allows guns in national parks. Organizers said it's the first armed rally in a national park since the law passed.

The District of Columbia's strict gun laws, however, generally make it illegal to carry a handgun, so rally participants there were unarmed.



Daniel Almond, who organized the "Restore the Constitution" rally in Virginia, said he wanted to convene in a place where "we can exercise our rights." He pointed in the direction of Washington and said, "Over there, the Constitution is being violated in that we cannot bear arms."

Among the speakers in Virginia was former Alabama Minuteman leader Mike Vanderboegh, who has been denounced in recent weeks after calling for citizens to throw bricks through the windows of local Democratic party headquarters across the country. Several such incidents occurred after Vanderboegh issued his call.

Vanderboegh said the broken windows are a wake-up call that many people feel threatened by an expanding federal government.

"We are done backing up. Not one more inch," Vanderboegh said to cheers, after telling the crowd that for too long Americans have acquiesced at the loss of liberty.

In an interview, Vanderboegh said he considers armed resistance justified only "when they send people to our doors and kill us."

But he suggested that an arrest at the hand of federal government is tantamount to a death sentence and that he would fight back in such a case. Specifically, he outlined a scenario in which people who refuse to buy health insurance under the new health reform law would be subject to arrest and that such confrontations could turn violent.

"If I know I'm not going to get a fair trial in federal court ... I at least have the right to an unfair gunfight," Vanderboegh said.

After his speech, gun control advocate Martina Leinz confronted Vanderboegh and called him a "small, little bully" and said the rally was designed to intimidate.

"If they wanted to have dialogue, they don't need to bring a big weapon with them," she said of the protesters.

The rally began in Fort Hunt Park and moved to Gravelly Point in Arlington, next to Reagan National Airport and just south of the nation's capital, with the Washington Monument and the U.S. Capitol in the backdrop. Departing planes frequently drowned out speakers, and reporters nearly outnumbered rally participants.

Ken Garvin of Newville, Pa., said he had never before attended such a rally but came Monday because he believes the government is out of control. He stressed that the people attending the rally "are not a bunch of crazed thugs. ... They're just people." He said all sides need to listen to each other's viewpoints.

"I don't hate the left. I just don't understand where they're coming from," he said.

Wes Wdzieczny of Essex, Md., said people are unduly alarmed if they see rallies like these as promoting violence.

"I don't think anyone here has delusions of storming the Capitol. ... People are just basically fed up," he said.

In Washington, signs reading "Which part of 'shall not be infringed' confuses you?" and bright orange stickers saying "Guns save lives" dotted the crowd at the Washington Monument.

Organizer Skip Coryell said he chose the date to mark the anniversary of the Revolutionary War battles of Lexington and Concord, and dismissed any associations with the actions of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. The bombing occurred on April 19, 1995.

"I think there are some people out there who have an agenda and they want to paint us as gun-toting, lunatic, militia types, and we're not that way," Coryell said.

The event also attracted 78-year-old Audrey Smith of Clearfield, Pa., who said she and a group of local Tea Party activists traveled to show their solidarity.

"We'll support anything that is in jeopardy of being taken out of our Constitution," Smith said.

U.S. Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., said in a statement that armed protests in national parks were a public safety concern. He also said that while the Second Amendment has become a rallying point for gun rights activists, "virtually every action the federal government has taken in the past decade has weakened commonsense gun laws already on the books."

Implicit Threat of Violence

Maybe these thugs should carry out another Oklahoma City bombing to show how "ordinary" they are, just like us.

[Wezil]

...former Alabama Minuteman leader Mike Vanderboegh, who has been denounced in recent weeks after calling for citizens to throw bricks through the windows of local Democratic party headquarters across the country...

Excuse me?

How can this not be a crime?

[DaShi]

Implicit Threat of Violence

Maybe these thugs should carry out another Oklahoma City bombing to show how "ordinary" they are, just like us.

Is this why Bill Clinton wrote an op-ed in the nytimes about the Oklahoma City bombings recently?