Racism and the Tea Party Movement

Don't believe the media hype.

Ever since the "Tea Parties" gained national attention, the debate has raged on whether they are a grass-roots protest movement in the proud tradition of American dissent, or a hysterical mob driven by fear, intolerance, and selfishness. Recently, two much-discussed surveys—a CBS/New York Times poll and a multi-state University of Washington poll—have been bandied about as proof that the leftist caricatures of the Tea Partiers as mean-spirited rich white bigots are accurate. Yet a look at the data suggests that this interpretation is highly skewed by political bias.

In a Salon.com article titled "The Tea Partiers' racial paranoia," editor Joan Walsh notes that in the University of Washington poll, only 35 percent of pro-Tea Party whites regarded blacks as "hard-working," 45 percent as "intelligent," and 41 percent as "trustworthy." Walsh scoffs, "And Tea Party supporters don't like it when anyone notices the racists in their midst?"

Not so fast. The respondents in the UW poll were asked to rate on a 1-7 scale how intelligent, hardworking, and trustworthy they perceived "almost all" blacks (and, in separate questions, whites, Latinos, and Asians) to be. Whether the findings expose Tea Party bigotry hinges on two things: how the "Tea Partiers'" opinions of blacks compare to their views of other groups, and how their answers compare to those of other, non-Tea-Partying Americans.

The UW researchers' initial analysis compared only whites who were strongly pro-Tea Party and strongly anti-Tea Party, concluding that the latter held a much more positive view of blacks. These data are no longer on the UW website; instead, there are tables for other race-related questions (such as "Over the past few years blacks have gotten less than they deserve"), with separate results for whites who were either neutral toward the Tea Party movement or had never heard of it, as well as for all whites.

But what about the racial stereotyping items? The lead investigator, political science professor Christopher Parker, graciously provided me with the fuller data—which strongly contradict the notion of the Tea Parties as a unique hotbed of racism.

Thus, while only 35 percent of strong Tea Party supporters rated blacks as hardworking, only 49 percent described whites as such. While the gap is evident, these responses are close to those for all whites (blacks are rated as "hardworking" by 40 percent, whites by 52 percent). While whites who are strongly anti-Tea Party seem free of bias on this item—blacks and whites are rated as "hardworking" by 55 percent and 56 percent, respectively—this is not true for intelligence and trustworthiness. Whites in every group are less likely to rate blacks than whites as "intelligent" by similar margins: 14 points for Tea Party supporters (45 percent vs. 59 percent), 13 points for all whites (49 percent vs. 62 percent), 10 points for Tea Party opponents (59 percent vs. 69 percent). On "trustworthy," the gap is smaller in the pro-Tea Party group (41 percent vs. 49 percent) than in the anti-Tea Party group (57 percent vs. 72 percent). One could write headlines about the "racial paranoia" of white liberals who consider blacks less trustworthy than whites!

The endurance of racial stereotypes in this day and age is disturbing; but Tea Party supporters differ little in this regard from mainstream Americans.  (It is also worth noting that, as in many other surveys, Asian-Americans in the UW poll are rated much more positively than whites.)

Compared to middle-of-the-road whites, Tea Party supporters show far more agreement with the statement that blacks should work their way up "without special favors" the way other minorities such as Italians and Jews did, or that blacks would be as well off as whites if they worked harder. The standard left-of-center view, shared by the UW researchers, is that such attitudes represent a subtler form of racism, or "racial resentment." In some cases, that is surely true. Yet these sentiments may also reflect a genuinely race-neutral belief in self-reliance and self-help—or the view, shared by many black commentators, that the black community's problems are partly rooted in damaging behavioral and cultural patterns.

John McWhorter, a noted black scholar and author whose works include the 2000 book, Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America, says that "the idea that 'racism' is behind the Tea Partiers is based on a lazy and vain extension of the term 'racism' to meaning 'that which many black people would not approve of.'" According to McWhorter, "The position that the government does too much to help black people is not necessarily one based in inherent bias against people with black skin—it can be argued as a reasonable proposition based on the spotty record of social programs since the 1960s."

The other charge against Tea Partiers is that they are not "the people" but the privileged defending their privilege. Walsh gleefully points out that in the Times/CBS poll, 12 percent of Tea Party sympathizers had an annual income over $250,000—forgetting to mention that so did 11 percent of all Americans. Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne asserts that "Tea Party enthusiasts ... side with the better-off against the poor": 73 percent of them, versus 38 percent of all Americans, say that "providing government benefits to poor people encourages them to remain poor." (Of course, they couldn't possibly be sincere in the belief that poor people are often harmed more than helped by government programs.)

What, then, do the new polls tell us about the Tea Partiers—or, at least, Tea Party sympathizers? (In the Times/CBS poll, only one in five self-identified Tea Party supporters reported actual involvement in Tea Party activities.) They are mostly white and more likely to be male (59 percent); three-quarters are 45 and older, compared to half of all Americans. They are more religious than average, though not dramatically so: 39 percent are evangelical Christians and 38 percent attend church every week, while the figures for all Americans are 28 percent and 27 percent.

Not surprisingly, the Tea Partiers are disproportionately Republican and right-wing: 39 percent consider themselves "very conservative" and 34 percent "somewhat conservative" (compared to 12 percent and 24 percent, respectively, of the general population). Their conservatism, moreover, tends to be more authoritarian than libertarian: In the UW poll, pro-Tea Party respondents are much more likely than others to agree that the government should be able to detain suspects indefinitely without trial and to tap phones if there is a threat of terrorism.

In other words, the Tea Party movement is mainly conservative—which is hardly the stuff of headlines. That does not make it a haven for racists.

While the Tea Parties raise important questions about the growth of government, they certainly have their darker side: too often, they promote the politics of personal attack and demonization, of hyperbole and hysteria (though they are no more guilty of this than were Bush-era protesters on the left). Yet to respond with more hyperbole, demonization and hysteria directed at the Tea Partiers themselves will not address the problems but only compound the damage.

Cathy Young writes a weekly column for RealClearPolitics and is also a contributing editor at Reason magazine. She blogs at http://cathyyoung.wordpress.com/. This article originally appeared at RealClearPolitics.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • classwarrior||

    Kathy, given that the Bush administration launched two unnecessary and illegal wars of choice, came to office in a stolen election, trampled on civil liberties, sanctioned torture, took the nation's finances from huge surplus to huge deficit, and other things too numerous to mention, please explain how "hyperbole, demonization and hysteria " are really possible.

  • Hugh Akston||

    The term "BusHitler" comes to mind.

  • Bruce Majors||

    No Bush murdered all the Jews, gypsies, gays and Polish Catholics in America. He missed the Communists, so the Obama regime was still able to find people for SES appointments.

  • J_L_B||

    the Bush administration launched two unnecessary and illegal wars of choice

    Iraq is debatable, but by no means was Afghanistan a war of choice. They launched an attack on our soil resulting in the deaths of over three-thousand civilians. If for no other reason, war is properly conducted to defend your country and thwart others from attacking you when they possess the will and ability to do so multiple times after having already done so once.

    came to office in a stolen election

    Counting until Al Gore was ahead, and stopping at that particular moment, didn't seem like a fair way to determine the result of that election.

    trampled on civil liberties

    The extent to which the administration made marginal adjustments to otherwise long standing policy (FISA Act) is also debatable. I'm not completely comfortable with all the added powers given to the national security aparatus, but it's not as dramatic an increase as you make it out to be.

    sanctioned torture

    Honestly, most people don't care. Whether waterboarding is tortue depends on whether you believe the simulation of uncomfortable and dangerous situations is torture. If so, you could arguably make a case that the simulated experiences from riding a roller coaster are also torture. Lastly, this invovled persons captured on foreign lands by our armed forces, and you're naive if you think civilian police tactics are applicable.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Iraq is debatable, but by no means was Afghanistan a war of choice. They launched an attack on our soil resulting in the deaths of over three-thousand civilians.

    I'll admit that I don't follow the news as closely as some people, but I think I would have noticed something like the Afghani military landing troops or dropping bombs on the US. Could you be more specific about what incident you're referring to?

    The extent to which the administration made marginal adjustments to otherwise long standing policy (FISA Act) is also debatable. I'm not completely comfortable with all the added powers given to the national security aparatus, but it's not as dramatic an increase as you make it out to be.

    Then why did telecoms seek retroactive immunity from prosecution for their complicity in FISA activities?

    Honestly, most people don't care.

    Can't argue there. Good thing for both Bush and Obama that the US is an unalloyed democracy with no checks on police powers beyond popular sentiment.

    Whether waterboarding is tortue depends on whether you believe the simulation of uncomfortable and dangerous situations is torture. If so, you could arguably make a case that the simulated experiences from riding a roller coaster are also torture.

    Just because a punishment is cruel and unusual, doesn't mean that there is some prohibition on its use.

    Lastly, this involved persons captured on foreign lands by our armed forces, and you're naive if you think civilian police tactics are applicable.

    And as we all know, people from other lands are not protected from the cruel excesses of the US Government. Why it practically says so right in the Constitution.

  • J_L_B||

    Could you be more specific about what incident you're referring to?

    The Taliban provided aid and comfort to Al Qaeda in terms of a safe haven to conduct training for military operations. They were essentially the military of the government of Afghanistan. We initially asked that the perpetrator of 9/11 be handed over for trial, but given the clear inclination of the then government of Afghanistan to shield them, we were left with no choice but to invade to thwart a further attack.

    Then why did telecoms seek retroactive immunity from prosecution for their complicity in FISA activities?

    The cost of shakedowns by trial lawyer types like John Edwards.

    The last comments can all be responded to together. The Constiution is a document stating itself to be the law of the land, this land. Futhermore, it gives no instructions on how the government is to conduct warfare other than stipulating who is responsible for declaring war and executing. Taken together, a document governing domestic law, and it's silence on the conduct of war, we are only to conclude that the Constitution allows to government to conduct warfare in such manner is it has agreed to in treaties and conventions. The US Constitution, being a document framing domestic civilian law, is not applicable to the actions of the US Army overseas dealing with international military law.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I must have the wrong Constitution or something. Because the way I read it, the Constitution is a document that limits the actions that Congress (and by extension, the US Gov't) may perform.

    But all of these apologists for torture and foreign adventurism have the version that says hooking up foreign devils' testicles to car batteries is cricket as long as its done in the name of freedom and dignity.

  • ||

    Just a quick interjection, the Constitution limits what Congress & our Fed Gov't can do to us, citizens of the United States. It does not limit or even state what can be done to captors on foreign soil. That is what treaties & war accords are for.
    But I guess anyone can interpret 18 pages anyway they want (19 including cover), they tend to be the ones who want to dictate what can and can't be done on a battlefield even thou they have never once defended another person in combat or even a street fight in their entire life

  • Hugh Akston||

    Dan, if I have offended you and the other men and women in uniform who bravely waterboard detainees or nobly force them to stand naked in cold cells overnight, I sincerely apologize.

    I will apologize further once you quote the sections of the Bill of Rights that distinguish between citizens and non-citizens of the United States.

  • "it's toasted"||

    "The conventions of a number of the states, having at the time of their adopting the constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, the further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: and as extending the ground of PUBLIC confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."
    -preamble to the bill of rights

    Though the main point here is certainly that our constitutions main objective is to set limits to our Governments power, i see the use of the word PUBLIC as indicative of for whom these rights were written. Now seeing as how we had open boarders and virtually no immigration policy at this time, one could say these rights were afforded to every person in the world, but, that is, as long as they reach our shores. I believe people are confusing their own moral vision of the world with our constitution, or conflating our Declaration of Independence (which speaks to mankind as a whole) with it.

    Spitting in the face of human dignity, as Pres. Bush certainly did, is inexcusable, but I'm not convinced it's unconstitutional (except the uncontitutionality of the invasion of Iraq)
    The problems we face now is deciding what laws apply to terrorist/men-who-cause-disasters. Typically in times of war, the Geneva convention applies, but when the enemy we face deliberately evades these laws simply by not wearing a 'uniform' (which thereby actually protects them under Geneva) we find ourselves in a conundrum difficult to get out of. Granting our constitutional rights to our enemies is suicidal...but giving our government free reign to do as the please, flies in the face of all we hold dear.
    Best course of action: end all "overseas contingency operations"

  • Michael Ejercito||

    But all of these apologists for torture and foreign adventurism have the version that says hooking up foreign devils' testicles to car batteries is cricket as long as its done in the name of freedom and dignity.


    So our Constitution is binding law all over the Universe?

    Maybe we should bomb Canada for violating Ernst Zundel's First Amendment rights.

  • ||

    And where exactly does the Constitution give us the right to enforce our national laws against people in other countries? Where does the Constitution give us the right to go to war without a Congressional declaration? Where does the constitution say that the Eighth Amendment only applies domestically regarding our government's actions? The Constitution limits the government - nowhere does it give the government a blank check to do whatever they want beyond our borders.

  • mgd||

    The Constitution doesn't give us rights. The Constitution sets strict limits on the powers of the federal (and to a lesser degree, that various state) governments over the citizens of the United States.

  • John C. Randolph||

    So our Constitution is binding law all over the Universe?

    No, it's binding upon the US government and any agents or employees thereof. It prohibits cruel and unusual punishments of those convicted of a crime, and any such punishment administered without a conviction is a crime.

    -jcr

  • JohnD||

    Hugh, you are a fucking idiot

  • Bruce Majors||

    I don't think Hugh is wrong to think that the natural rights a human being has change when you cross a border or are a different color or religion (or sex...).

    But some legal and even Constitutional rights are constructs, procedural rights, invented to safeguard the higher order of natural individual rights from Government actions that are likely to violate them.

    Procedural rights granted to citizens by the Constitution don't apply to foreigners, especially those who are enemy combatants on a battlefield, even if they have the natural rights implied by self-ownership.

  • ||

    The US government provided money, security and training to the Taliban...oops.

  • wooga||

    Wrong. The US government funded what later became the Northern Alliance. Gabe, there were two main opposition groups to the Soviets. One was persian/afghan, spoke farsi and related dialects, was dominated by Shiites, and predominantly native. The other was mostly Arab, mostly spoke Arabic, was dominated by Sunnis, and was predominantly foreigners. The former became the Northern Alliance, and the later became the Taliban. Sorry to burst your 'pop-history' bubble.

  • ||

    +1.

    Too much Zinn.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    And as we all know, people from other lands are not protected from the cruel excesses of the US Government. Why it practically says so right in the Constitution.


    So everyone in the Universe is entitled to the protection of the United States Constitution?

  • ||

    When they are dealing with the US government, then yes they should be. The Constitution doesn't give any rights, it protects the rights that all men have at birth. Just because other governments trample those rights doesn't mean the US government should as well.

  • Hugh Akston||

    So our Constitution is binding law all over the Universe?

    Yes.

    So everyone in the Universe is entitled to the protection of the United States Constitution?

    Right again.

    Maybe we should bomb Canada for violating Ernst Zundel's First Amendment rights.

    Zundel was arrested in the US for immigration violations, which was not likely the reason he was arrested. What happened to him in Canada and Germany is a damn shame, but not a Constitutional issue.

    See Michael, the US Constitution sets the limits of what the US Federal Government can do. So it applies anywhere the Fed has a presence. The US Government cannot abridge your right to free speech in Ohio, or quarter soldiers in private homes in Morocco, or torture people and detain them indefinitely on Neptune. The Constitution limits the federal government, which is very clear to people who have actually read it.

  • J_L_B||

    This board has been invaded by Spanish judges who believe in the concept of universal jurisdiction. The US Constitution is a framework of civilian law that stipulates the rights which the US government may never violate. It applies to those within its jurisdiction (ie within its borders and territories). Its applicability ends there. But no, we are NOT then technically free to tortue, kill, and detain people outside our border. Our values as Americans prevent us from doing so, and we've also signed various treaties (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Geneva Convention) which then govern the conduct of our state, and all states that signed, beyond our borders.

    I'm sure the Canadian constitution guarantees trials, no cruel or unusual punishments, freedom of the press, etc. Nonetheless, I wouldn't expect it to have juridiction here if they invaded and attempted to torture us; the UDHR seems to up to that challenge.

  • "it's toasted"||

    Well said J-L-B. Bravo

    The Romans had similar ideas about spreading the empire to benefit the barbarians surrounding them. To bring them in and civilize them. Of course this didn't work...Rome became barbaric and fell apart.

    The only rights i believe to be Natural or Universal are the rights to life, liberty and property (granted these are sweeping and at root of our constitution/bill of rights) But the key is that these apply to Individuals. And seeing as how Individuals in most other countries (even our own in many ways)operate in a fundamentally Tribal, or communitarian fashion, i cannot claim that MY ideals are held, Universally. I will maintain however that there seem to be roots for these ideals in most societies, but they are hidden, lost and written off as either dangerous or simplistic and cliche. So we should try our bests to reveal, find and redeem them, and NOT through war, torture or indefinite incarceration, but by intellect and discourse. But also, the sooner we understand that a Peruvian Nomad might not find a connection amongst Locke, Smith and himself, the sooner we can uncover the Peruvian anecdotes, songs and poetry that speak to similar themes.

  • ||

    "The Romans had similar ideas about spreading the empire to benefit the barbarians surrounding them. To bring them in and civilize them. Of course this didn't work...Rome became barbaric and fell apart."

    This sounds suspiciously like that Python line in Life of Brian, "what have the Romans done for us?"

    They DID pacify and enlighten many tribes and cultures. AND to boot, they abandoned the German incursions across the limes showing they were also pragmatic in their empire building.

    Then, a funny thing happened along the way to Rome falling - of which there were many reasons and not just one to consider.

    The waves of barbarian invasions - which played a part in the hastening the slow decay of Rome (helped in part because by the late 2nd century onwards, the Romans didn't enforce their laws and border protection (sound familiar America?)- at the hands of the Germanic tribes didn't look to eradicate Roman civilization but rather sought to be incorporated within it because they viewed Rome as the center of civilization.

    This cherished respect for Rome stayed well into the period of the Holy Roman Empire as German and Frankish kings saw it as prestigious and spiritual thing to conquer Italy - as was much the case throughout history.

    Why not? 60% of Europe's treasures resides within its borders. Lots to get oyur hands on there.

  • DoDoGuRu||

    Libertarianism ends at the water's edge. Chaos and misery may be allowed to spill inward across our borders, but God forbid America even look outward.

  • Crybaby||

    They attacked out soil! They killed our dirt. Those bastards. Kill'em all or they will come for our rocks next!

    They are lining up their donkey carts as we speak and butting on their best sandals to board planes in Kuwait with bombs in their underwear!

    Those bastards!

  • J_L_B||

    Careful, you might set off violence from the eco terrorists if they found out the soil has been mishandled in any way.

  • wayne||

    Crybaby,

    Come on, don't he a total crusted sphincter. Those three thousand people killed in the WTC were a little better than dirt, at least to most normal thinking people, maybe not you and JLB, but most normal people.

  • Crybaby||

    Absolutely they were. No issue with an attack on the nation that sponsored them. No issue with CIA sending in teams and assassins to take out people. No issue with sanctions. No issue with stand-off whack-a-mole attacks every time they stick up their heads. No issue with Gitmo. No issue with NSA tapping international phone calls. No issue with rendition or water boarding.

    Big issue with the thinking that they represent any real threat to America or will destroy America somehow or that we should treat them as anything more than extra-national criminal gangs.

    Big issue with a stupid war that has been going on for almost a decade for an enemy that isn't there because a bunch if ignorant believers in the invisible man upstairs are afraid of somebody who believes in a different invisible man upstairs.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Too late. Crybaby isn't the sphincter. He is that for which it is a portal.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Thank God! that Obama (PBUH!) has reversed the Patriot Act and other spying on American citizens, stopped killing whole families in AfPak with predator drones, reversed Bush's bailouts, deficit spending and currency inflation, ushered in transparency in government, stopped allowing adminstration officials to tell lies, and has ended the stealing of elections, refraining from buying, bribing and coercing Congresscritters into voting against the expressed wishes of their constituents.

    Deliverance! Like in the movie.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Is an IRS audit torture? Is having your home seized by eminent domain?

  • ||

    Far be it for me to defend the last administration, which was godawful, but it's nonsense to talk about the wars being illegal or, for that matter, the election being stolen. The wars were authorized by Congress, and the election being stolen is one of the stupider memes out there. Bush won Florida about any way you cut it, and the flaws in the electoral process were entirely in districts with Democratic election supervisors. I'm no Gore fan, but I voted for Harry Browne not that silly Bush person.

    As for the other points, what's different now? In fact, on a couple of issues, the current government is worse We seem to be experiencing greater government excesses with each new president and each new Congress. Not sure what that means, but I think it's a bad sign of things to come.

  • ||

    We need you Pro'L Dib! Is it time for the stone burners?

  • ||

    Metaphorically speaking, absolutely.

  • ||

    I was only speaking metaphorically, just to clarify folks!

  • ||

    As I recall, stone burners can blow up planets, which I tend to oppose. Particularly when I'm on said planet.

  • Barack Obama||

    If the fuel is sufficient, yes. I was thinking in terms of the endemic collateral effects of J-Rays. Most notably blindness from opthalmic tissue disintegration.

  • ||

    Stupid joke handles. That was me.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Busted!

  • SIV||

    Thanking Jennifer for her vote does that to ya.

  • ||

    Yeah yeah. Couldn't resist.

  • ||

    Yeah, well, it won't work, as I can just fall back on my vision. You resign in disgrace next February, by the way.

  • ||

    I'm assuming the vision involves the resignation of the Community-Organizer-in-Chief. If me, then I'd better get cracking on Plan B.

  • Tony||

    Because having a community organizer in the white house is so much worse than a nepotist Harvard frat boy or a B-movie actor.

  • Antony||

    Because having a community organizer in the white house is so much worse than a nepotist Harvard frat boy or a B-movie actor.

    As a matter of fact, it is. Illegal White House occupant Hussein's grades in college were much lower than Reagan or either of the Bush's grades.

    I mean, you can't prove they weren't, can you?

  • Antony||

    As they said in the now-taken-down Hitler finds out Scott Brown won Massachusetts video, "Bush got Cs; 0bama probably failed lunch."

  • Tony||

    Antony,

    I don't know what his grades were, but I presume they were OK since he was editor of the law review and graduated magna cum laude.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Tony can't prove he knows how to wipe. He is the village idiot of reason.com

  • Mr. FIFY||

    No, Tony... basically, it's a wash.

  • Bruce Majors||

    So far it sure is.

  • ||

    Wow!, a fellow Browne voter, and here I thought I was the only one.

    PL, I think you and I may be the only ones left. Whatever happened to Harry Browne? I don't see his name around that much anymore.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Harry is no longer with us, unfortunately. He died in 2006.

    -jcr

  • ||

    Shows how much I keep up on things.

    Damn, that's sad. I liked Browne, much better than the jokers the LP has been running lately.

    Barr/Root... what a joke.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Who do you favor for next time? Root is clearly running.

    Are you going to the convention in St. Louis in May?

  • CJ||

    came to office in a stolen election

    Can we stick to attacking their record on the basis of the horrid things they actually did, which are well more than numerous enough to stand on their own?

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    Classwarrior,

    Still beating on the Bush Admin, huh?

    Start working on the illegal continuation and growth of Obama's illegal wars of choice, Obama's continued trampling of civil liberites, the incredible debt Obama is adding to the country that makes Bush's debts look puny, etc, etc, etc.

    In other words, STFU classworrier.

  • Tony||

    So you're equally mad at Obama as you were for Bush (riiight), because Obama hasn't yet dismantled all of the evil programs Bush created? Yeah, morally really equivalent.

  • ||

    Obama's only worse because he has perpetuated the policies of Bush and caused a hell of a lot of other horrible problems. He gets props for the nuke reduction treaty, the attempt to respect state sovereignty on medical marijuana and the potential coming effort to reform immigration. Had he closed Guantanamo, ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell, gotten us out of Iraq and Afghanistan and ended the Patriot Act, I'd say he'd have broken even.

  • Tony||

    There's only so far executive orders can go. He needs Congress, the policy-making body, to stop being dysfunctional. His positions on these matters are clear, but he can't waive a magic wand and make them happen.

  • Antony||

    No, he needs to step down and give his seat to a conservative Republican. A Democrat, by definition, is not fit to be President of our representative republic.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    "He needs Congress, the policy-making body, to stop being dysfunctional."

    The same congress that voted to )fund those wars in perpetuity? The same congress that painfully passed that "health" "care" abomination like a massive kidney stone? The same congress that folds like a deck of well-used cards anytime a "crisis" crests over the horizon? Depending on this congress to actually "reform" anything is like depending on an insolent child to build a skyscraper. Here is where I am sure I agree with you Tone man: reforming congress and therefore policy requires people to actually give a shit about what those vultures do by voting. But sometimes 2-4 years is enough time to make a bad situation worse.

    "His positions on these matters are clear, but he can't waive a magic wand and make them happen."

    In theory as COMMANDER AND CHIEF OF THE ARMED FORCES, Barry could recall ALL troops from abroad if he felt like it (much to the dismay of our bloated industrial "friends" of the military). That's not exactly a magic wand, but it's a hell of a lot better than nothing. I suspect stopping those wars are in fact not on his list of priorities, since letting American troops get blown to bits in a foreign land while accidentally murdering scores of innocents in no way will ever compare to the dire need to bankrupt the future through entitlements.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Why should Obama want Congress to "stop being dysfunctional", Tony?

  • John C. Randolph||

    There's only so far executive orders can go.

    Woodrow Wilson segregated the civil service, and Harry Truman de-segregated the military with executive orders. Can you offer any better excuse for Obama's utter failure to address the discrimination facing gays in the military?

    -jcr

  • Dakotian||

    The problem with Executive orders is that they are not permanent and can be overturned by the next President. It is unlikely that the next President would re instate something like don't ask don't tell once gays are allowed to serve openly but it would be possible. Especially if there is an Anti-Dem backlash that elects a hard right President.

    Congress is needed to make such a change permanent.

  • Bruce Majors||

    The Democratic Party has no intention of ushering in gay legal equality for the same reason they have no intention to actually make blacks and other disadvantaged groups prosperous. Only if gays are second class citizens and (many) blacks are poor, uneducated and socially dysfunctional is there a "crisis" for the state to solve by demanding more power.

    And only then are gays a herd of corralled, harnessed campaign cash cows available for milking.

    And only then are there lobbying and agitprop jobs for Leftovers like Tony.

  • John C. Randolph||

    the attempt to respect state sovereignty on medical marijuana

    Hold on there. He promised an end to DEA raids on marijuana patients and their providers, and delivered a one-week hiatus. Charlie Lynch is still a political prisoner, whom Obama could free with a stroke of his pen. Until and unless that happens, Obama deserves no credit at all for his pretense at changing drug war policy.

    -jcr

  • John C. Randolph||

    Tony, sorry to so trivially dispose of your snark, but the issue most Libertarians have with Obama is that he has not only continued, but worsened Bush's unconstitutional post-9/11 power grabs.

    Frankly, if you weren't such a goddamned hypocrite yourself, I would have expected you to renounce your support for Obama when he signed the PATRIOT act extension.

    -jcr

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    +1, jcr!

  • Bruce Majors||

    Tony you are a silly little retard. Obama has expanded all of Bush's failures, and added new ones of his own.

    What a shitty little twit you are.

  • ||

    ". . .came to office in a stolen election . . ."

    Oh joy, another person who hasn't actually read the Supreme Court's decision.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

  • JohnD||

    Classwarrior, you are an uninformed, opionated moron.
    There was nothing "illegal" about "his wars" since his action was pre approved by congress.
    It was prroved consisively by several independant newspapers that recounted the ballots.. that he WON the election. And as for huge deficets... what about your man Obama? He is destroying this country.

    You are a kool-aid drinking fool. rder

  • Mike||

    Correction, John. I happen to know for a fact that classwhiner drinks Lenin-ade.

  • Gary||

    you mean the surplus caused by low interest rates and tech bubbles? is this post a joke classwarrior? This is a good example of why the left should never be allowed to talk economics

  • Bingo||

    Racist? No. Confused republicans who shout about liberty while supporting authoritarian policies? Yes.

  • St. V||

    Thaaaaank yooooooou.

  • ||

    If that's what you think you are not paying attention to anything but the leftmedia, and you certainly haven't been to an event.

  • Bingo||

    Sheriff Joe was the keynote speaker at an event in Arizona. You can rationalize your cognitive dissonance all you like, I'm having none of it.

  • ||

    Sheriff Joe was the keynote speaker at an event in Arizona. You can rationalize your cognitive dissonance all you like, I'm having none of it.

    At least he has something to cognate with.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Oh? Did he finally steal some brains after beating them out of someone?

  • Sudden||

    Correction, he beat the shit out of them, then stole them and used them as brains. Heretofore known as Sheriff Shit for Brains.

  • Antony||

    Taking it rather hard that even that would still be more than you've got, eh, losers?

  • Coeus||

    The one I went to when Bush was still president was mostly libertarian. If they're getting Sheriff Joe there for any reason other than an ambush, I'm afraid that, at least in Arizona, the libertarians have lost control. I suspect that it's the same elsewhere, but not everywhere.

  • Antony||

    Lost control? As if you ever had control of anything!

  • jacob||

    Alan Keyes was the speaker at Freedom Rally in Dayton, Ohio.

    Yeah, a true non-statist that Keyes.

  • ||

    Who is sheriff Joe and why do I care?

    Hell Palin speaks at any TP even she can get into, that doesn't mean everyone agrees with her.

    I don't have any cognitive dissonance. I'm in the trenches helping to educate people who have a tropism to liberty to take a few more steps in that direction.

    Fiscal conservatism and strict Constitutionalism are what the TP is about and that makes them a very good audience for education.

    If you'd ever attended an even you might have a clue. But I don't really care for you to have a clue.

    I want you to think the TP isn't a credible threat to socialism/progressivism.

  • jacob||

    +1000000

  • Barrie O.||

    Dude, speak it to power!

    If these crackers don't watch out I will sanction their assinations or send them to Gitmo!

  • Bruce Majors||

    Did you mean assignations? Can you spell "corpsmen"?

  • Barrie O.||

    And I would have learned how to spell Assasination, except the man is keeping me down and the teachers aren't being paid enough!

  • St. V||

    Ass-ass-I-nation.

  • ||

    So they aren't any more racist than anyone else, they just have a lower opinion of humanity in general.

  • ||

    Au Contraire. Similar to libertarians they have great faith in the individual, hence they oppose the nanny state.

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    +15

  • ||

    +20

  • John C. Randolph||

    Hell, most racists will leave you alone if you leave them alone. That makes them less of a danger to me than nanny-staters as far as I'm concerned.

    -jcr

  • Bruce Majors||

    +1

  • ||

    I found the anti-tea-party respondents 72% level of "trust" in white people shocking, yet explicable.

    They would be the kind of people who believe what they are told they ought to.

  • Mark||

    Calling all affluent, white, bigoted, older, Christian males!

    Oh wait, you can't be that blatant... can you?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oh-yR1HWkbM

    (Hint: Listen carefully from around 2:00 on.)

  • ||

    I love the way he said Latinos.

  • Bruce Majors||

    I am a gay atheist tea partier, so you bitches who don't like the tea party movement can blow me, toss my salad, and do some shrimping while you are down there.

  • Seer||

    Haven't read the article, but it finally occurred to me the other day why the tea-party movement is being called so many names: because as a voluntary, informally organized movement there's no structure to respond to those attacks. Democrats are ripping on the tea-party because it lets them espouse their stereotyped demonizations of Republicans without being called out on their bull shit.

  • ||

    Part of it is tactics, but mainly it's to separate the various groups who are in favor of fiscal conservatism from coalescing. It's true that many (but not all by any means) teabaggers are strong social conservatives but that's not what the TP movement is about. It also has a lot of social liberals. The common theme is fiscal conservatism.

    If this truth gets out both major parties will have a big problem. That's the reason for the demonization.

  • Gene Berkman||

    "The common theme is fiscal conservatism."

    FreedomWorks is heavily promoting that theme, and strongly urging that social issues be kept out of Tea Party rallies.

  • ||

    What we have, and with luck will continue to have, is people who agree that the emergent problem is the spending. We may, and do, disagree on social issues but those aren't going to be very important if the fiscal crisis isn't addressed.

    Also, as the movement is greatly aligned on strict constitutional adherence there is a largely agreed upon gestalt that social issues are properly the domain of the individual states, and not the federal government.

    Pushing social issues to the federal level is part of the problem. It creates needless division and as such helps promote further federal expansion.

  • Bruce Majors||

    +1

  • JohnD||

    Everytime a liberal politician or MSM idiot disses the tea party, said idiots cost the Demcratic party more votes

  • Bruce Majors||

    So you are saying we should murder the Demwits in their sleep? I'm down with that. Harry Reid and Franklin Raines both live across the street from me, if anyone needs me to point out their balconies.

  • ¢||

    Walsh gleefully points out that in the Times/CBS poll, 12 percent of Tea Party sympathizers had an annual income over $250,000—forgetting to mention that so did 11 percent of all Americans.

    Only 6% of Americans who claim any income at all report $100,000 or more. Not even 2% of those claim $250,000. Including non-"income" income and black-market dealings, as non-accountants often do (but not in tax season), won't inflate those numbers five- or tenfold. It doesn't even double them.

    That 12 might make sense. Once-bitten media-haters probably think lying to pollsters is good policy. I don't know what that 11's excuse is.

  • ||

    Only 6% of Americans who claim any income at all report $100,000 or more.

    I strongly doubt only 6 percent claim more than 100K. Admittedly, I'm in San Diego where salaries a bit higher than average (as is cost of living). Do you have a link?

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    In yesterdays NY Times, it was stated that 1/3 of all San Francisco public employees make over $100K per year.

    Just saying...

  • Bruce Majors||

    Tea parties are more likely to be married than non-tea partiers. They are also slightly more likely to be in their 40s and 50s. The exact same person (or the exact same demographic group) is statistically likely to be wealthier when married or when in the "prime" of their career.

  • Gomer||

    Don't believe the hype! Don't believe the hype! The teaparty IS a real movement. It's not a bunch of old white people who are out of touch with the modern world. It really matters. Don't believe the hype!

  • ||

    And I would have learned how to spell Assasination, except the man is keeping me down and the teachers aren't being paid enough!

    Strike two!

  • ||

    Thoughtful people should resist the inclination to equate a survey result with racism.

    There are a disproportionate number of black people in this country who are on welfare and are, objectively speaking, not very hardworking. To make that observation does not make me a racist, though of course it is not politically correct.

    Yet there are a great many black people who are hardworking and there is no reason to believe that a person's skin color is directly related to one's work ethic. To jump to the conclusion of racism based on a survey result does not reflect careful thinking.

  • ||

    +10

  • Antony||

  • Bruce Majors||

    Is it racist to observe that a hugely disproportionate number of native Americans are alcoholics and that fetal alcohol syndrome is an epidemic among them?

    Because the federal government through the Bureau of Indians Affairs spends a lot of time doing that.

  • ||

    I attended a tea party thing just to see what I could see.
    Mostly white? Yes.
    Entirely white? No.
    Mostly old? No, as many under 40 as over.
    Lots of shouting? No.
    Racist actions or signs of any kind? No.
    Sincere concern and anger of what is perceived as the continuing loss of their country? By the bucketful.

    The true racists are those who just won't stop playing the race card.

  • ||

    I attended a tea party thing just to see what I could see.

    Obviously a staged event...astroturfy and all that. /s

  • ||

    Astro - proof?

  • Mike||

    JD- I was about to ask you why you picked 40 as old and blast you for it, but then I read the last two lines of your post. It's disappointing to see this important point raised repeatedly, and not given the scrutiny it deserves.

    The parasites abusing the racist card do far more damage to everyone's civil rights than any skinhead could ever perpetrate in their wettest dreams. It is a frenzy of pedantic, foot-stomping, soulless, opportunistic groupthinkers patronizing their own illogical PC institution...and not caring about the collateral damage they do with their irresponsible rhetoric.

    I know it wasn't exactly your point, but props for bringing it up!

    *Ahem* thank you, readers, for indulging my rant and the digression. We now join your regularly scheduled blog.

  • Bruce Majors||

    The mendacious cries of wolf with regard to the alleged racism of the tea parties is going to make actual racism more acceptable, minorities less popular, and addressing real racial prejudice a low priority.

    The fact that the Leftovers are willing to devalue the currency of racial equality to smear a movement for limited Constitutional government, freedom, and fiscal sanity, shows that racial equality was never really their goal.

  • ||

    Why does someone always have to come along and make a big ole Black Thang out of it?

    Lou
    www.anon-vpn.se.tc

  • Jimmy 'Crack' Corn||

    Thats how Jesse and Al make their money and how Barry et al get elected.

  • Enyap||

    Between this and his comment on the cousin marriage post, Anon bots been on the ball today.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Many people like a big ole black thing. Supposedly once you have had one....

  • ||

    That the fake n-word was reported as fact makes me wonder how much of history is total bullshit. Twenty years ago that would have made it into textbooks to describe the Tea Party movement.

  • CJ||

    I've finally resigned myself to the thought that I may very well "know" nothing about anything that happened before I was 15 or so.

  • Coeus||

    Same here. It's a sobering thought. I'm gonna keep pretending that I "know" shit though, as it's just easier to talk without constant caveats. Also, ironically, people tend not to trust those who don't display a false sense of certainty.

  • ||

    Hopefully now days the only trusted bit of certainty is that you can't trust anything.

  • ||

    When asked by a journalist if he would be willing to die for his beliefs Bertrand Russell replied, "No, I might be wrong."

  • Bruce Majors||

    I was in high school in the late 1970s and I would never have known that the Holocaust had happened back then had I not been reading Hayek, Rand, Arendt, "Reason," "National Review," etc at the time.

    It wasn't taught.

    My parents and cousins live near the parts of middle Tennessee where all the Japanese auto parts plants (Calasonic) etc are. Their close friends all run public school systems that often have Japanese children as students for the 2 or 3 years their parents are rotated to the U.S. as managers. At least once a small Japanese child has hid under a desk screaming because our version of WWII history (Chinese rape camps etc) is something they do not hear about in Japan, and being suddenly exposed to our version is unsettling to them.

  • nekoxgirl||

    Funny you say that. That thought occurred to me recently but I kind of pushed it away thinking that it couldn't be possible that my entire understanding of race and US history could be that wrong.

  • John C. Randolph||

    That the fake n-word was reported as fact makes me wonder how much of history is total bullshit.

    Well, if you go and read The Real Lincoln, you might be in for a shock.

    -jcr

  • Hacha Cha||

    the questions that were asked for the poll can only have racist answers. they are collectivist questions that exclude judgment based on individual characteristics.

  • Tom||

    Exactly. If I were asked those questions, I would have refused to answer. It's not just that I'd be neutral on them, but rather that the questions themselves rely on false assumptions. They might as well have asked them "Who do you hate more, blacks or jews?"

  • ||

    +10

  • ||

    Fuck "racism" and the vapid "teabagger" movement.

    I came here to look for a nice article on the topic de jour - Goldman and Fin Reg.

    Murdoch the Little (Koch) has really sullied the good writers here.

  • ||

    Here's the story: your boys at Goldman paid off your boys in the Democratic congress, so this is nothing but theater. But why do I bother?

  • JohnD||

    Shrike, are you too stupid to find the info you are looking for? No one forced you to read Cathy's article or to post your bullshit

  • Bruce Majors||

    The thing speaks for itself.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Oh, boy! The return of shrike, in all his dubious glory! We are unworthy!

  • ||

    Righto - so the Dems open an investigation on their own supporters?

    Yeah - you shouldn't bother. I don't buy bullshit.

  • ||

    You know damned well what's going on here, so don't even try it.

  • ||

    Don't you know they are laughing at you, between shots.

  • ||

    What? I'm long Goldman.

    Levin threw a fight for a while but he was it.

    McCain vegged out and Ensign offered to blow them for graft money for his mistress.

    Same old shit.

  • Oh no not this again||

    God, this post was a waste of internet space. Beyond slogans and fiscal responsibility, they don't really elaborate much. Maybe because every other word is either Commie, black man, Muslim, terrorist, socialist, Hussein, yeah come to think about it, I'm not surprised people consider them racist thugs.

  • ||

    Citation needed.

  • Oh no not this again||

    WHAT?!?!?!

    You mean you haven't been to a tea party rally? Then you really must go.

  • ||

    ONNTA - Yes, and saw nothing racist about it -I live in PA - maybe you live next to a KKK enclave or something.....

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Maybe he's projecting, David...

  • ||

    How about that "no blood for oil" nuance?

    Beyond ranting about imperialism, Capitalism, Bushitler, globalization, The System, occupation, those anti-war progressives don't really elaborate much.

    Speaking of elaboration, you have been reading this site, right?
    You can come here to get the details, instead of expecting random people at a protest rally to explain it all to you.

  • Alice Bowie||

    At the end of the day, I think Libertarian support of the 'Tea Party' is shameful.

    Yea, they do share your fiscal views...but almost NONE of the libertarian social/justice views.

    I believe Libertarians will have to choose between the Bong/High Taxes and the Billy Club/Low Taxes

  • ||

    Most of the writers here understand that but the posters do not.

    The conservatives here slave to a 1% tax cut and dispense with individual/women's liberty in exchange for it.

  • Oh no not this again||

    @ ALice,

    I've long realized the writers here would sell our freedoms out in a second for lower taxes on the wealthy and employer entitlement. It's a damn shame. That's why they like the tea baggers so much, they argue their fiscal points and provide cover for the corporate/employer abuses in our system. No man should be enslaved by another, but you look at the current relationship between employer/employee and it's horrifying. They want constant pressure and instability on workers, and that's pretty much what we have.

  • jack||

    > "At the end of the day, I think Libertarian support of the 'Tea Party' is shameful."

    It was libertarian (mostly) movement at first, now the statists are, shamelessly, taking it over...

  • Oh no not this again||

    excuses excuses, what are you some kind of deadbeat?

  • ||

    ONNTA - I agree with Jack - an oppurtunity was spotted to make political points, and was exploited by corperatists -

    "No man should be enslaved by another, but you look at the current relationship between employer/employee and it's horrifying" - corporatism - hence tea party being exploited for political gain - how is this the fault of the original tea parties whithout which we might not even be a nation today?

  • ||

    Yeah, because the libertarians basically turned up their noses and left rather than try to influence the conservatives.

    Purity. Sweet, sweet ideological purity. Gets you nowhere.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    "Purity. Sweet, sweet ideological purity. Gets you nowhere."

    But it goes down smooth, and has no aftertaste!

  • Tom||

    Better than being a worthless moderate fuck that never gets anywhere.

  • nekoxgirl||

    I think that dichotomy is purposeful. Most Americans would probably choose Bong/Low Taxes if given the option, but then we'd actually be free and the people in power can't have that. The Big Government/Corporate system doesn't want to lose all its serfs.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Polls of actual tea partiers show more support Ron Paul than Sarah Palin, and most are very new to politics.

    So your remarks seem offensive and ignorant Alice.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Alice seems to be a Tedium Tatters bot. She tells us the choice is her (master's) fascism or her (master's) rival's fascism. Freedom is not an option.

    Plus it is clear she either isn't familiar with people in the tea party movement or she just wants to smear them with her lies.

  • Alice Bowie||


    In other words, the Tea Party movement is mainly conservative—which is hardly the stuff of headlines. That does not make it a haven for racists.

    Conservatives like

    - George Wallace ... and his "I don't
    want niggers going to my university"

    - Jesse Helms ... and his "I don't even know where to start"

    - Strong Thurman ... and his KKK Membership

    - And pretty much the VAST MAJORITY of WHITE Conservatives TODAY would be perfectly ok with having Niggers sit in the back of the bus...unless they can pass for white.

    So, being mainly conservative to me is the same as being mainly racist.

    I work with and have met many conservative people that deny being racist against people of colour...But the truth is obvious.

    ***My MOST IMPORTANT POINTS***

    1. Stop calling people that dislike non-whites Bad names. It's their right to dislike and disenfranchise non-whites. It's a right that can't be taken away...everyone has a right to their own feelings...irregardless of Civil Rights Laws.

    2. The country has been polarized to the extent that we should CONSIDER DIVORCING the Liberals from the Conservatives/Libertarians by enacting STATE RIGHTS. That is, STATE LAW should trump FEDERAL LAW.

    STOP CALLING THE TEA-PARTIERS names. This is silly and futile.

  • jack||

    > Strong Thurman ... and his KKK Membership

    Which he shared with one Robert C. Byrd...

  • Jeffersonian||

    No, Strong Thurman is the gal what killed David Carradine with that heart punch thing and plucked out Daryl Hannah's eye.

  • π||

    Uma

  • Surfin' Bird||

    mao-mao!

  • Zenmaster||

    Yes I have heard.. about the word.

  • EMp||

    HA-Haaa!! Classic!....

  • Enyap||

    So conservatives are obviously racist, yet you can't name one whose still alive.

  • MNG||

    If a person were a racist, what party do you think he would feel most comofortable in? It would be hard for him to feel comfortabe in the Democratic Party. They tend to believe in things like affirmative action (even in their own party make-up), more immigration, more stringent enforcment of civil rigthss laws etc., that you are just not going to be able to stand. Can the same be said about the GOP or, while we are at it, the LP?

  • MNG||

    I don't think a racist would be that uncofmortable with the LP. Since blacks disproportionately benefit from many government programs he could happily call for their being axed. He'd surely like the libertarian line on getting rid of those civil rights acts impinging on "associational liberty."

    There would be some hard roads for him in the LP like immigration. But he could just take Paul's view on that and he'd be ok.

    As long as he did not want the state to enforce his racism, something hardly needed to advance racism (he'd just love it that he could fire or turn away whoever he wanted and so could his friends), he'd be quite happy I would think....

    I'm not saying Libertopia would be heaven to a racist. But it would be a step forward from the current state from where he wants to go.

  • ||

    Poor black people will certainly do wonderfully when our national debt forces us to devalue our currency, thus increasing the cost of living faster than their wages increase. Then when the caring government increases the minimum wage, expect the workers on the bottom of the totem pole to be cut while the remaining have to work harder for a continually devalued wage. But who needs jobs anyway? God forbid some poor people might want to start an inexpensive small business, like a taco truck or a home hair salon but are prevented for doing so by arbitrary regulations, complicated tax codes and expensive vocational licensing. It would also be nice to have a society where cops would actually defend black peoples' rights instead of killing them for eating snickers bars or throwing them in jail for years for recreational drug use. And the public school teachers and Democratic Party demonstrate their endless compassion for the poor by keeping them trapped in public school monopolies funded by district property taxes which are proportionately lower in poorer areas. Never mind the fact that true libertarians would put corporate executives in jail and take every penny away from them if need be for committing fraud and violating private property and individual rights - as we do not believe in the government-invented artificial corporate entity - and they would not get handouts, subsidies and loopholes from their elected buddies.

    We'd also put any racist (or anyone) who violates the rights of other people in jail and encourage minorities to defend themselves to the hilt. But you're right.

  • ||

    +5

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Shit, I think you get the "honorary" Destroyer award today Hobo.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    MNG, we here in Missouri thwarted two attempts by white supremacists to run under our party banner - unsolicited, unwanted attempts, to be more precise.

    So, no, we don't put up with racists in our midst. But do tell us there is no such thing as a racist Democrat. Not even one out of millions. Go on, we'll wait.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Which government programs are those that are helping the blacks MNG? The city pipes delivering lead tainted water? The occupational licensure bureaus keeping hair braiders and others from working? The state schools producing drop outs and illiterates? The eminent domain stealing black peoples' homes and stores in order to build office buildings and conventions centers for upper middle class lobbyists and politicians? The police throwing black kids who graduated illiterate from state warehouse "schools" in jail for selling pot? Black men who die too early to receive Social Security benefits looted from their pay checks, which they can also not leave to their kids since it isn't a private account one can leave to someone?

    Where are all those black people doing so well because of the trillions government has sucked out of the economy?

  • NMNG||

    If a person were a racist, what party do you think he would feel most comofortable in?

    Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, "Reverend" Wright, and Tim Wise are all flaming racists and bigots; and they're all quite comfortable being in your Democrat Party, you bigot!

  • John C. Randolph||

    After all it's the Democrats who still advocate systematic racial discrimination, whether it's in college admissions or federal government contracts...

    -jcr

  • John C. Randolph||

    If a person were a racist, what party do you think he would feel most comofortable in?

    The Democrats, obviously. That's why Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Hillary Clinton are there.

    -jcr

  • Bruce Majors||

    Thomas Sowell? Bobby Jindal? Walter Williams? Angela McGowan? Michelle Malkin? Star Parker? Angel Robinson (admittedly, a libertarian anarchist, not a conservative)? Michael Steele? Clarence Thomas? Janice Rogers Brown?

    Maybe she can name the racist conservatives for us.

  • Bruce Majors||

    What a silly little bitch.

    Smears in place of thought.

    Claiming that racist New Deal Democrats like George Wallace are fiscal conservatives.

    Take you head out of your cunt you stupid whore. The air supply in there is toxic.

  • Chad||

    11% of all Americans make over $250,000? What America does the author live in? Last I checked with Census stats, less than 1% of all Americans make over $250,000... that's a difference of 31,000,000 out of about 34,000,000 people.... HUGE difference!

  • Alice Bowie||

    What do u expect ?

  • Chad||

    Not that blatant of a lie to get a point across... that's ridiculous.

    Here are my stats from a 2009 Census sample http://www.census.gov/hhes/www.....1_000.htm:

    -------------Total Sample---------$250000+---------%
    Male---------- 116,720-------------1,329---------1.14%
    Female-------- 123,424-------------227-----------0.18%
    Total--------- 240,144-------------1,556---------0.65%

  • ||

    Your link is busted, but I suspect they are talking about household income, not individual income.

  • Barack Obama||

    I made over five million last year. But I shouldn't have to pay more in taxes, because I'm... well, Me.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    But you still want to jack up the tax rates on that 1%, don't you, you wily little wealth-hater!

  • Fat Steve||

    It is a shame that people are unable to print the unvarnished accurate truth about people who attend Tea Party rallies.
    They are a bunch of cunts and the mainstream media is unable or unwilling to identify them as cunts. We will only be living in a truly free country when we are free to call a cunt a cunt. But no, if I was to call Cathy Young a stupid cunt, there are people who would be offended by that characterization. Unbelievable.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Go wash yourself with a rag on a stick, Steve.

  • Fat Steve||

    Cunt.

  • Thin Steve||

    It is a shame that people are unable to print the unvarnished accurate truth about people who vote for 0bama's shit.
    They are a bunch of prison bitches and the mainstream media is unable or unwilling to identify them as prison bitches. We will only be living in a truly free country when we are free to call a prison bitch a prison bitch. But no, if I was to call Fat Steve a stupid loose-ass prison bitch, Bawny Fwank would be offended by that characterization. Unbelievable.

  • Fat Steve||

    Sorry for the late response, I was just ass raping Jamie Kelly with a broom handle, well, I say rape, but he loved it, and the broom handle seemed pretty happy as well.

    Anyway...

    Cunt.

  • ||

    I'm always amazed by the intellect, wit, sophistication, and erudition of progressives.

  • Jaime Kelly||

    If some cunt-splasher from a fucking public university came up to me and asked me how hard-working or not I think black people are, I'd fucking kill that fuck. Then I'd rape his mother and fucking kill the fucking whore. Because she gave birth to the fuck.

  • MNG||

    No irrational angry rhetoric here!

  • Fat Steve||

    No, just the frustrations of a would be rapist.

    Jamie Kelly is a cunt. I've always said this. As does anyone who has met him. Jamie Kelly licks horse balls and fucks donkeys.

  • Thin Steve||

    No, just the frustrations of a would be prison bitch.

    Fat Steve is a loose-ass prison bitch. I've always said this. As does anyone who has met him. Fat Steve sucks big black tea bags and is regularly windmilled by donkey dongs.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Would David Letterman, or Sandra Bernhard, or her "big blacks," help you with the rape, or do you not practice the usual Demwit sport of gang rape?

  • Some Guy||

    Ever since the "Tea Parties" gained national attention, the debate has raged on whether they are a grass-roots protest movement in the proud tradition of American dissent, or a hysterical mob driven by fear, intolerance, and selfishness.

    I think they are a hysterical mob driven by fear, intolerance, and selfishness in the proud tradition of American dissent.

  • MNG||

    They seem to me to be engaged in civically healthy and responsible political engagement to me. Liberals should stop smearing them and answer their arguments.

  • Some Guy||

    They seem to me to be engaged in civically healthy and responsible political engagement to me.

    I wouldn't mind them so much if they didn't pretend to be libertarians. When morons who love spending and authoritarianism pretend to be libertarians, it annoys the fuck out of me.

    Liberals should stop smearing them and answer their arguments.

    What are their arguments in your mind?

  • Bruce Majors||

    Your blinders and obliviousness only discredit you.

  • Some Guy||

    I dare someone to do a scientific poll of Tea Partiers and ask them if they support social security, medicare and defense spending cuts.

    Because if they don't then their claims about caring about the deficit are total bullshit. I think you know how that poll would turn out.

  • Tony||

    Don't usually complain about what's chosen as content, but I fail to see how yet another apologia for tea party racism is relevant to what's going on in the world today. I think everyone should stop talking so much about tea partiers. They're fun to look at, but we ought to give other protest groups equal time, say relative to number of attendees. There's at least a 10 year backlog of massively larger organized leftist protests nobody ever noticed. I think I went to a gay pride parade in oklahoma that was bigger than an average tea party.

  • ||

    And you what? Marched, watched or just got a warm feeling??

  • Tony||

    I got drunk and had sex alot, among other things. Maybe that's why they're better attended than tea parties.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Thank god your sterile. The world doesn't need any more gimps.

  • ||

    I noticed both the anti-war and anti-globalization movements.

    Both involved a lot of hate, irrational rhetoric, and borderline sedition.

    But, ya know, when an anarchist smashes up a McDonalds, his cute little heart is in the right place. When a libertarian does it, its Krystallnaught.

  • Violent Liberal Anarchists||

    It's okay when WE do it, Hazel.

  • Tony||

    Except the "borderline sedition" in those days was actually in response to something.

    The hate coming from the right started the moment Obama was sworn in and still hasn't focused itself on any particular issue.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Bullshit. If Hillary had won, the level of "hate" would be the same.

    How many McCain voters, who STILL believe in his bullshit, would you expect to find in the tea-party movement, Tony? I'd say very few... maybe more than *actual* racists, but that's a small number in and of itself.

  • Tony||

    TLG,

    There would be no tea party with McCain, as it is a GOP front group.

    I've always been curious what the national mood would be with Pres. Hillary. Even though I supported her, now I don't think she'd have been as successful as Obama, so she could be worse off given the dire nature of the country's circumstances.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    The bogus charges of rampant racism are almost as bogus as the bogus charges of sedition.

    Bogusly, I might add.

  • Bruce Majors||

    When did a libertarian or even a tea partier smash something up?

  • Antony||

    Oh, we've got more records of your perverse shenanigans than you ever want to see revealed, believe me! Here, for example, is an incredibly NSFW link about a rally for cocksuckers. (Judging by the pictures, I don't think they'll mind my calling them that.)

    And here's a telling--but by no means comprehensive--gallery of other loving and peaceful protest rallies you Communazi pacifascists have had over the last 8 years or so. (Swastikas galore!)

  • Bruce Majors||

    Hey Anthony thanks for that. I have never been too the Fulsom Street Fair, or even Burning Man or the heterosexual equivalents. As a tea partying tea bagging fudge packing cock sucker I enjoyed the link. Although except for the pervy exhibitionist in the window I think those guys are older and fatter (and whiter) than most of the clothed people I see at the Tea Parties.

    You know the only time (excluding you) I have ever had anyone provide me with images from the Fulsom Street Fair is in cyber groups where homophobes were using them to show us that all gay people everywhere are perverts, because lookie lookie what they do in San Francisco. Since I enjoy these photos I otherwise might not see, I believe this is why God invented homophobes.

  • John C. Randolph||

    apologia for tea party racism

    What gave you the impression that anyone's apologizing for the fantasies you share with Janeane Garofalo?

    I think I went to a gay pride parade in oklahoma that was bigger than an average tea party.

    How are they liking Obama these days, since he betrayed them on that "don't ask, don't tell" issue?

    Anyhow, the significant thing about the Tea Parties' attendance is that they're able to get surprisingly large turnouts in so many places, on such short notice. That's how I know they're not under the control of the Republicans; the GOP wishes they could muster that kind of support.

    -jcr

  • Tony||

    The difference between tea parties and gay pride parades, other than that the latter are bigger, is that the parades have specific complaints and specific goals. Protest movements should be focused on an issue. If it's just against a nebulous conception of big government--to the point of just being antigovernment in general, but only when your party isn't in power--then there's a problem. Nobody has ever explained what are specific goals of the tea party, other than electing Republicans back to power.

    Obama wants to get rid of DADT. He hasn't betrayed anyone. Again, that's a law that Congress has to undo. Frankly I'm willing to wait for gay rights issues if it means we can use the political capital on climate change or other more pressing matters.

  • Bruce Majors||

    You are a shitty liar.

  • People Power Hour||

    salon.what?

  • wayne||

    salon.huh?

  • People Power Hour||

    salon.what?

  • wayne||

    salon.huh?

  • People Power Hour||

    salon.what?

  • ||

    Libertarians are missing a great opportunity to proselytize. TP members, for the most part, have no political theory, just a gut sense that the gov't is getting too big and too expensive too fast. I have found they are quite open to libertarian ideas on freedom, small gov't, and coercion. But the window is closing. Organizers looking for bigger turn outs are going for big name conservative speakers which will drive out the more libertarian crowd. I did not attend the Atlanta April 15 event because Ralph Reed, of all people, was a prime time speaker. Go to the smaller events and preach the good word!

  • ||

    Most intelligent suggestion I have seen on this thread yet - +20

  • ||

    I agree. I've been telling people this since the movement started.

    The fact that they are disorganized and incoherent is not a problem. It's an opportunity to provide them with a coherent set of ideas.

    The easiest way to change someon'es mind isn't to bombard him with "facts" that contradict his beliefs. It's to show how a new idea is consistent with something he already believes.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Objectivists have noticed this too. And you are exactly correct.

  • ||

    I have been Kate. And I continue to try to get more libertarians on board.

    What we have is a coherent political philosophy that largely aligns with TP positions, and imo the only one that might actually accomplish TP goals of reducing the size of government.

    Please guys, if you have any ability to subtly persuade get involved.

    This opportunity will not last and if the TP does get co-opted by the progressive right we're just gonna get another Bush.

  • ||

    So you just now figured out that polls aren't credible?

    News Flash: you can manipultate bible quotes too.

  • ||

    Wonder if you could teach a orangatang to say "Racist." Uh-oh.

  • Antony||

    It's been done.

    Observe our resident troll Tony here, for example...

  • James||

    2 things:

    1) Instead of trying to get into people's heads, why don't we let their actions speak for themselves? IE: the Plethora of racist signs at Tea Party rallies, such as the Witch Doctor signs and other (all posted on numerous youtube videos...which Breitbart wouldn't pay a dime for) speak volumes.

    2) The biggest problem with the Tea Party is the hypocrisy. They claim to be freedom lovin' salt of the earth middle class, neutral Americans who are sick of government spending by EITHER party (see Beck, Glenn). But where were these folks when Bush raised our national spending 5 fold?

  • Bruce Majors||

    Tens of thousands of them were at Ron Paul rallies protesting Bush's spending LONG BEFORE OBAMA HAD BEEN NOMINATED. I am putting that in bold so even a gimp like you can read it.

    Then Obama came along and tripled Bush's bailouts. Making it even more obvious that protests were needed.

    The fact that you are so moronic/intellectually dishonest is why you and your fascist masters must be tried by citizen's tribunals and then sent to the guillotine.

  • PicassoIII||

    I'm glad this was brought up.

    While we can look at Obama-Pelosi-Reid (Democratic leadership) or the former Bush-Cheney-Rove camps as near monolithic entities representing a thought process we vehemently disagree with, the Tea Parties are far more diverse.
    Yes it bothers me that the Chicago TP invited MN Rep Bachman to a meeting. I find that on many issues i disagree with most, BUT on the PRIMARY concerns being voiced at the protests it's right .. 'up my alley'.
    As for racism i find none of it on display here.
    http://teapartychicago.netboots.net/
    Some mixed messages, sure, but no racism.

  • jacob||

    You are a fucking idiot.

    You're making a mistake by confusing Ron Paul supporters with the majority of Tea Party supporters post-April 2009. The Tea Party has actually tried to unseat Ron Paul from Congress. Were these Tea Party folks the same ones at rallies you mentioned???

    http://washingtonindependent.c.....r-ron-paul

    The Tea Party movement we're seing on TV and the ones chanting for Sarah Palin to be president ARE NOT Ron Paul supporters.

    Oh, and can you provide a link about the TENS OF THOUSANDS OF OF PROTESTERS at the Ron Paul rallies?

  • Bruce Majors||

    I don't respect you enough to provide you with links. You are an obvious troll. Google them yourself asswipe doofus.

    Recent polls cited in "liberal" state controlled media showed that at least as many Tea Partiers identified with Ron Paul as with Sarah Palin. Which should be rather obvious since everytime there is a conservative confab he out straw-polls her.

  • jacob||

    Google them yourself asswipe doofus.

    Translation: Such bullshit does not exist, so I'll act like I'm so fucking cool because I claimed it and won't back it up!

    Recent polls cited in "liberal" state controlled media showed that at least as many Tea Partiers identified with Ron Paul as with Sarah Palin.

    Really? And these Tea Partiers who identify with Dr. Paul, are they the same ones who tried to kick him out of Congress??

    It makes no sense to try and group Ron Paul supporters with the Tea Party, not withstanding the obvious fact that the Tea Partiers in his home state of Texas are apparently aligned against him. Philosophically, Paul is a true liberterian with respect to foreign policy compared to the Sarah Palin followers. I believe they think it was God's will that we invade Iraq or some other nonsense. You might know this if you've ever heard him speak or read any of his writings. Somehow I think you've not tried either.


    Perhaps if you didn't suck so much dick, you'd be able to think clearer.

  • Bruce Majors||

    You seem to be the one who has sucked some bad dick and gotten madcow disease from poisoned proteins.

    You aren't worth conversing with, monkey turd, because you are not capable of basic logic. When it is pointed out to you that many so called "liberal" news outlets published polls in the past week or two showing that more self identified tea partiers associate themselves with Ron Paul's than Sarah Palin's political vision, you reply that SOME people calling themselves tea partiers opposed Ron Paul's re-election.

    When you demonstrate that you can identify your logical error above, intelligent people can consider the charitable work of discussing your little opinions with you. You silly wipe.

  • Some Guy||

    Beat me to it...

  • Bruce Majors||

    Yes you lazy ass shit headed monkey. But you could have googled the link yourself if you would put down that bottle of Ripple and cash your welfare check so you could afford DSL.

    In September 2008, before Obama was Liar in Chief, Ron Paul was speaking before rallies of thousands who now participate in tea parties. From one of your own Obama felching media whore sites:

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI.....index.html

  • Mike||

    You mean the same three idiots in a plethora of pics and vids? Do we have to count the guy wearing the Bob Marley shirt, waving his cardboard sign, saying it was the "...brownest thing on the block"? He was obviously confused. So that leaves two. Overreact much? Why don't you go away and look for the video of the spitting and racial epithetsl gay-bashing directed those poor congressmen. It's gotta be somewhere, right?

  • Joel||

    I just wonder why people keep taking these "when did you stop beating your wife" polls. If I got handed one of these and read the questions first, I think I'd fold it into all sharp corners and invite the pollster to shove it where the moon don't shine.

  • jk||

    Cries of racism only show that those criticizing the Tea Party people are unable to compete in the marketplace of ideas, so they must resort to personal attacks.

  • Tony||

    Because teabaggers would never engage in personal attacks or call people names!

    Jesus, the whining...

  • Durp-Durp||

    Yeah, when will those TEABAGGERS realize that name-calling is bad!

  • "it's toasted"||

    Good eye.
    I wont say there are no racists in this movement; My libertarian sentiments were shocked and offended by some of the things I heard about immigration and terrorism at a local rally...but there wasn't much more of it than i hear in my day to day life from all corners of Ideology.
    But i will say this: WE CANNOT UNDERESTIMATE the power that Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and others of similar ilk, have on this movement...Whatever libertarian motives sparked this uprising have been met, matched and overrun, by Nationalism, Protectionism and Big government (read: Military/police state funded far, far beyond what is needed to maintain the 'baddest-mah-fuckah-on-the-block' status we enjoy today. Ask an avid Tea-Party-Patriot how they feel about increasing the National Security budget and suddenly the small-government tune they had been singing is silenced by the ringing boom of artillery.

  • Bruce Majors||

    That's an outright lie moldy toast. Tea Partiers consist of libertarians who favor military spending reductions, many, many independents and conservatives who are listening to their argument about that, and some Republicans who oppose it.

    I am in one of the main tea party chat groups where I have easily gotten wary conservative Republicans initially afraid of Ron Paul radicalism to agree with me that many bases need to be closed, that gays should be able to adopt kids rather than see them be aborted, etc etc.

  • Tony||

    But I'm not WHINING that somebody hurt my wittle feewings for daring to call me a name. Teabaggers dish it out all day long but the moment you say something critical of them they start crying like the babies they are.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Another Tony lie. Perhaps your masters will let you swallow an extra load tonight.

    Tea Partiers don't whine that the masters you whore for hurt their feelings; the simply objectively observe that the fascist Obama regime and its state controlled media whores are a multi-billion dollar machine aimed at smearing them. Their criticisms of turds like you, on the other hand, are not imperial state projects funded by stolen tax loot.

  • ||

    Actually claiming racism is just the best lie you can come up with. The fact you can't argue the real issues openly is a wonderful sign.

  • Tony||

    That comment wasn't about race. I generally try to avoid the topic because it causes so much panties-wetting.

    You guys tend to flip out at the merest suggestion that anyone could possibly be a racist who's not black or mexican.

  • ||

    Actually the accusations have kept the TP from potential moral hazard of turning a blind eye to those prone to racism from the beginning. We're not in the position of having to accept a little bit of it or lose a constituency.

  • Bruce Majors||

    We call you names, you silly turd, because you provide nothing in the way of argument.

    As a subhuman monkey Obama zombie, turd is not a "name" you are being called, it is simply an objective description. Suck it up -- as you know you do.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Would that it were meaningful name-calling, Tony.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Buy Arizonan! http://www.facebook.com/group......028528700#!/group.php?gid=115028028528700&ref=mf

  • ||

    They contain elements of both. Like most groups, they're diverse.

  • jacob||

    I don't believe the Tea Party is racist any more than I believe that the moon is made of cheese.

    Interestingly, one of the Tea Party candidate for the US House, out of Dayton Ohio, wants the Civil rights act of 1964 repealed and also thinks government should not stop businesses from refusing to serve or hire blacks.

    http://www.daytondailynews.com.....70739.html

    Perhaps stuff like this is why the racism label keeps getting applied?

  • Gary||

    I think it would be fairly easy to destroy Tony in any sort of debate, he speaks in hyperbole, generalizes and provides no sources. So I wonder if he'd be willing to put some his money where his mouth is...does he have paypal? I'd be interested in putting my econ degree to use if he was to accept.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Tony is some poor paid OFA or SEIU staffer whose job consist of "disinformation," pace Cass Sunstein, on the internet, in between swallowing his bosses's loads.

  • Tony||

    Sorry, I'm white collar. I don't have the thuggish mafia-esque levels of power that janitors and nurses do.

  • Bruce Majors||

    OFA has no blue collar employees and SEIU staffers are parasites who live off coerced dues from blue collar workers. So your evasive moronic answer did not deny that you are paid by something like OFA or SEIU to troll the internet pace Cass Sunstein's nudgy, "soft" censorship agenda.

    You just denied you were a blue collar worker, not a paid disinformation agent. No one accused you of being a honest laborer.

  • Bruce Majors||

    You also didn't deny that you swallow your bosses loads. Are you hoping to get you own blog like "Fire Dog Lake" too?

  • ||

    I think it's safe to say that the ultra-right wing and conservative advocates have meddled in the affairs of the Tea Parties (a movement that was libertarian from it's inception).

    Any type of protesting movement that comes to be is inevitably going to be trivialized by nitpickers and/or idiots that don't understand the cause.

    It happened in the leftist movements against the War and against the IMF too... you could pick, almost at random, any number of people that weren't sure what they were protesting. .. and even if there seems to be some solid point or reason that everybody comes together... there's going to be a plethora of subgroups that want to be heard about their bullshit too.

    How did the anti-war movement turn into lipservice about feminism and gays and drinking laws? Bunch of rubbish.

    Don't be surprised if you see republicans and rednecks at Tea Parties spouting about God, abortion, and how Obama is a muslim.

  • jacob||

    +1000

  • Some Guy||

    But at what point do rednecks at Tea Parties spouting about God, abortion, and how Obama is a muslim become "The Tea Party"?

    I would say 4/16/09, at the very latest.

  • MrFlibble||

    I looked at the data in the links and found no data on the attitudes of non-white persons towards whites. It seems to me that if they were honestly trying to find out if white Tea Partiers (or even whites in general) hold abnormally negative attitudes towards those of another race that it would be pertinent to measure those same attitudes in non-whites as well, so we have data to compare across all demographics. It could be that a certain percent of every race will tend to have negative attitudes towards those who are different, and while it's not something we should celebrate, we also should not use that to single out one specific group (in this case, white Tea Partiers) and try to paint them as racist when those attitudes may (or may not) be shared amongst those of ALL races pretty consistently.

    But, of course, that wouldn't fit the narrative on the left so I guess it's probably asking too much for some kind of consistency or objectivity.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Like this:

    http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v8/n6/abs/nn1465.html

  • Tnkitten||

    Now this is sad. Delete well-reasoned critiques from the RCP comments, change the title, and repost on a site where you can get more agreement. What journalistic courage, avoiding/ignoring honest disagreement!

    I'm sure this will be deleted just like the RCP comments. Pathetic.

  • Jon||

    Well, we can sit here and debate whether Obama has been more pro-big government and has harmed the country more than Bush, but, frankly, that is unimportant.

    There is NO DOUBT that Bush greatly expanded the executive branch and completely failed to exercise restraint on government spending. All this time, the "tea party" remained silent and mostly visibly content. Now that a liberal black president comes in, it could be an ugly coincidence that the complaining starts, but they certainly come off as disingenuous and uninformed, at the very least.

  • ||

    Don't believe the hype! Don't believe the hype! The teaparty IS a real movement. It's not a bunch of old white people who are out of touch with the modern world. It really matters.
    Fat People

  • vietnam tours||

    I looked at the data in the links and found no data on the attitudes of non-white persons towards whites. It seems to me that if they were honestly trying to find out if white Tea Partiers (or even whites in general) hold abnormally negative attitudes towards those of another race that it would be pertinent to measure those same attitudes in non-whites as well, so we have data to compare across all demographics. It could be that a certain percent of every race will tend to have negative attitudes towards those who are different, and while it's not something we should celebrate, we also should not use that to single out one specific group (in this case, white Tea Partiers) and try to paint them as racist when those attitudes may (or may not) be shared amongst those of ALL races pretty consistently.

    But, of course, that wouldn't fit the narrative on the left so I guess it's probably asking too much for some kind of consistency or objectivity.

  • Scarpe Nike||

    is good

  • sd||

    sd

  • alsq3||

    tank you post

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement