Parties and Tea Parties

I would applaud the tea party goers if in fact their purpose, as far as they felt they had one, was to decry our Tax System, or to instill the importance of fiscal conservatism. That's not the case. I wish it were; I might have joined in. How nice of you 'Fog to cull the rabble into a coherent view; but you're reaching. An honest protest does have a direction, a focus ("The whole world is watching...").

These 'organized demonstrations' are quite baldly a complaining convention for folks who voted and lost. Denver had the 2nd most attended "tea party," yet it was a spectacle of signs like "Don't Blame Me, I Voted for the American" and "Somewhere in Kenya, a Village is Missing It's Idiot." Hardly a call for fiscal conservatism - especially from GOP partymembers who sat by idly and did not protest while a record surplus (2001) was turned into a record deficit (2008). At least be consistent.

I'm all for protesting - but these are seething dittoheads who are mad about the election.

 

So, let me get this straight. You'll parse out the events till you find what you're looking for.

You refuse to address my points - which are pretty damn close to what is the overall tone of the events - because it's not convenient for your lemming like useful idiot stance on the issue which, near as I can tell is: 'Shut up and go home... you had your chance in November"

Never mind what was promised and what is delivered. And, by whom to whom.

 

I'm pretty sure that "what was promised" didn't have an 87-day guarantee attached to it. You have awfully unreasonable expectations for an administration that you didn't even vote for, which seem to be totally incongruous to your expectations and consternations of the previous administration. Here's my stance in plain - be consistent. Otherwise, it's going to seem partisan.

The "teaparties" are really just more proof that America (which was founded on protestation) has forgotten how to protest. We have our proof of that already - as in how could a bogus war go on for years without there being a real opposition movement? The Left disappointed in that regard, although there was plenty to fear in speaking out. But for the GOP to suddenly list "protestation" under "skills" on their resume, only to have the movement be about the last 87 days and Obama-related injustices... come on. Be consistent.

I missed your old avatar, 'Fog - thanks for bringing it back.

 

It would seem this all boils down to perceived intent. I find it interesting that those who lean left view the timing as coincidental with Obama and infer that the position is that spending was fine and dandy the past 8 years. There has been a growing disconnect between the conservative electorate and the Republican party. The problem is that as long as they were in power, there was no getting through to them. So what's changed? Lost the Legislature, then lost the Executive. Now maybe they'll listen? Probably not, but I believe for many, that is the motivation behind these tea parties. Of course, you'll always have the unwashed masses and their pearls of wisdom. Just like you couldn't have an anti-war protest without some groups spewing Bush=Hitler, Bush is #1 Terrorist, etc.

For the record, I didn't take part in the rally, but I do know some folks who did and my perception is based on their stated motivation.

Agree with Don and Fog that the pols should have been excluded from all of these events. And no argument on the Texas secession issue. It's always been a bluster point, nothing more.

 

First I
didnt say it was non-partisan, I said it was largely non-party affiliated. If you'd read up some instead of drinking the CNN koolaid and laughing at Garofalo's snide remarks, maybe.

And 'immigrants'!!! What do you mean by immigrants? If there's any of them objecting to immigration and naturalization, I'll object too. I objected to PErry's remarks.. I also object to those in which Ron Paul supporters figured greatly. BUT they have the right to be heard and dissent.

Screw it. I had a long response written, but I remember you are a Poli Sci major. What does a Political Scientist DO, Spencer?

Exactly what you're trying to do here, and all the dems and 'informed' are doing: "Marginalize" the dissent. Whose playbook is that?

 

You still dont get it, Spencer. Where are you getting your views on who these people are?

Are you reading the local news outlet pieces on them? Or are you getting the view on CNN and people like them.

These are mostly organized by people who never did anything like this before and weren't much involved in politics. That was the case in Cincinnati.. that was the case in several locations in Florida.

As to the impetus and coincidence aspects, how about you just consider Susan Boyle! When you read the stories in the local press that is often the case; get on the net, build a local social network and things build from there. It's far less contrived than the 'leak' of the DHS summary, just 'coincidentally' two days prior to tax day tea parties... yet that is what you are implying.

Why dont you look for the common thread among all of them... which you would find is anti-bailout. Sure you can find anti-Obama signs.. if you listen to enough interviews you'll also find a lot of them blaming Bush and the Republicans in Congress.

Why dont you step back and read what Carville and Garofalo have to say about them and wonder why they would say such things?

If you think I'm being dismissive of your views, I'm not. I just find it amazing that you OF ALL PEOPLE are so ready to accept the general media/DNC view that this is a managed 'conspiracy' to subvert the Administration. What is that if not 'marginalizing'? And marginalizing doesnt need to be a conspiracy, either, it's a state of mind. That is contempt for those who usually do nothing but go to work, pay their taxes and vote in elections.

Sadly your take just reinforces my opinion of 'Political Science' majors. Which is to say what most who do it really want is to be Rahm Emanuel and Carville or Matalin.
I'm gonna point out something else that bothers me about your attitude; you were dismissive when I brought up the extra-legal injustices perpetrated by the Provincial HRC's. Those are a real problem and especially when a Canadian political operative says "Free Speech is a US thing, it doesnt much apply in Canada".

Which is a surprise to me as I thought it was rooted in the precepts of English Common Law. Which would explain why the US and Commonwealth generally share that right.

 

Now back to the core subject.

This is what the voters are objecting to:
Rogers' earmark requests total nearly half a billion dollars

Now.. you note the guy is a Republican. You note that he's just trying to Out-Earmark Murtha.. or catch up quick. You'll note he represents a depressed area.
And not all the earmarks are a bad thing, viewed objectively. The coal to gas research being a great case in point, Solar is already mostly funded. And when there's an improvement in Wind power tech it's most likely to come from the private sector, anyway.

But at the bottom line the best results at the PRACTICAL level would be to find and give tax breaks to private market based initiatives. The trouble with many University grants is they get redistributed, anyway and, so ironically, to those who give large campaign donations.

Is that really how things should work?