America and the Tea Party: The End of an Affair

The Washington Post reports that America has fallen out of love with the tricorne:

Almost half of Americans have an unfavorable view of the tea party movement, according to a new CNN poll, a 21 percent rise in that number from January 2010.

In the survey, 47 percent of Americans say they see the tea party in an unfavorable light while 32 percent regard the movement favorably.

That makes the tea party about as unpopular as the Democratic and Republican parties.

(The CNN numbers track closely with what the Post found in its most recent poll.)

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.

  • Restoras||

    I wonder how much Americans will loathe the bond market when it says "no more".

  • fish||

    I'm guessing 32 - 33%.

  • TheOtherSomeGuy||

    If it is 32-33%, then it's proof that the TEA Party is growing in popularity.

    And fast.

    According to CBS in April of 2010, only 18% of the population considered themselves to be TEA Party supporters.

    "CBS News and the New York Times surveyed 1,580 adults, including 881 self-identified Tea Party supporters, to get a snapshot of the Tea Party movement. There is a lot of information to unpack; let's begin with the demographics.

    Eighteen percent of Americans identify as Tea Party supporters."

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50.....03544.html

    18% support to 32% support in less than a year?

    Yeah, the TEA Party is sure dead and dying! :P

  • fish||

    I pulled a number out of my ass about what percentage of people would "loathe the bond market". It really had nothing to do with the Tea Party.

  • Devil Inchoate||

    Ewww.

  • TheOtherSomeGuy||

    And you don't think that the number of people who favor the TEA Party would have any bearing whatsoever on overall social feelings?

  • TKO||

    Coincidentally (or not), your ass-number matches CNN's poll.

  • Tom Blanton||

    There is a difference between supporting something and viewing something as favorable. I'm not sure one can infer that the Tea Party is gaining support from this latest poll.

  • ||

    Washington Post and CNN are two liberal shit stains that lie about the Tea Party and conservatives every chance they get.
    Only a schmuck what take any poll of theirs, but especially polls about conservatives, seriously.
    You have disgraced yourselves Reason.

  • ||

    what's ur data to discredit the poll results?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: OhioOrrin,

    what's ur data to discredit the poll results?


    You must be new around here...

  • ||

    yea silly me thinking there'd be actual data rather than....feelings, nothing more than feelings....

  • fish||

    Hey anal...get a new keyboard. You seem to be dropping letters like a teenage girl on her phone. That's not how you want to be now....is it?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: OhioOrrin,

    yea silly me thinking there'd be actual data rather than....feelings, nothing more than feelings....


    Not from the troll, OO. You're barking at the wrong tree.

  • ||

    feelings nothing more than feelings...

  • Old Mexican||

    Hey, stop playing with yourself, mister!

    Disgusting.

  • sevo||

    OhioOrrin|3.30.11 @ 3:13PM|#
    "yea silly me thinking there'd be actual data..."

    Sorry, those are reserved for the adults. It's a waste of time to provide them for the adolescents.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Hate to tell you, but you don't need your own data to question the sampling or methodology of someone else's statistics.

  • ||

    No, YOU don't understand!!

    This was a scientific poll. It was done SCIENTIFICALLY, probably by political SCIENTISTS!!!! Therefore, it's SCIENCE!!! The debate is OVER!!!!!

    The teabaggers are done!!!

    /SARC

  • DRINK||

    "...and I am totally never reading this disgrace of a magazine again, you fake libertarian traitors for actually reporting news"

  • ||

    Yeah Cosmotarians be sure to gloat over the media destroying the only grass roots small government movement to happen in this lifetime. But hey, non approved uncool people joined. So, clearly you should be happy that it has been slandered.

  • fish||

    Who said anything has been "destroyed"?

    They are smartly exiting the field of battle so as to let the other combatants kick the shit out of each other for a while.

  • ||

    When the shit does it the fan, the next "tea party" is going to be a lot different. It really will be violent. At some point this shit has to stop. And all the Tea Party was the ordinary people of this country asking nicely. The shit stain media called them racist and slandered them for their efforts. The next time they won't ask so nicely.

  • fish||

    Nahh! The Tea Party is comprised mostly of older white people.....not particularly prone to rioting. Defensive at best.....well initially....everyone will have to see how things play out.

  • benchwarmer||

    Hey! I'm in my 60's and own a zombie gun. It throws a lot of .223 lead down range.

    Don't tread on me lawn.

  • Jim||

    I think Rand Paul has been the only one seriously pushing the agenda, though. So many of the "tea party caucus" has voted along with the mainstream republican party, that they haven't really impressed me.

    I'll support them when they draw a line in the sand with republican leadership, and say, "Alright, we're going to cut 500 billion out of this beast, dismantle entire departments, and if you don't go along, you're just big gov't hypocrites in sheep's clothing." And I'm just not seeing that out of them (so far; I know it's only been a few months, and I'm willing to give them time).

  • ||

    ^^^^THIS, THIS, THIS, THIS and THIS!!!

  • ||

    ^^^BUT NOT THIS^^^

  • Old Mexican||

    But for OO, is this>>> 8======>,,,

  • Warty||

    Yeah. I love Rand Paul, but I don't see too many other TPers who are worth a shit.

  • ||

    Mike Lee of Utah is generally really good. Very similar to Rand Paul... but he's from Utah, so he probably doesn't cause as much of a ruckus.

  • Tony||

    If the tea party can't act like adults and realize that governing means compromise, then they're going to see their approval numbers go down even more. The American people will blame them for a government shutdown. If it lasts long enough, then the large portion of non-politician tea partiers on government assistance will start thinking it wasn't such a good idea either.

  • ||

    Wisconsin what?

  • ||

    yes, I really remember the Dems compromising when they had all the levers of power... oh wait. There was no reason too... but now it's all about moderation and compromise.

  • Tony||

    They compromised the hell out of everything. We got fucking Romneycare without a public option, remember?

    It is how governing works. Now Boehner is looking for conservadems to form a coalition with because the tea party freshman are so inflexible.

  • ||

    The Republicans under Bush compromised the hell out of everything. That's how we got No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, the bipartisan Energy Bills, the bipartisan Farm Bills, the bipartisan Transportation Bills, and everything else.

    I know you'd love for the GOP to be just like under Bush, but go take your Bush nostalgia elsewhere Tony. You have Obama, Bush's third term.

  • sevo||

    Tony|3.30.11 @ 4:06PM|#
    "They compromised the hell out of everything. We got fucking Romneycare without a public option, remember?"

    Translated from brain-dead ignoramus:
    "They couldn't push through a worse program, so we'll try to claim that was a compromise"

  • ||

    They compromised the hell out of everything. We got fucking Romneycare without a public option, remember?

    The Democrats were compromising with themselves. No Republican votes for it, remember? All that thrashing around was the Dems trying to squeeze a bare majority out of their supermajority.

    Fucking memory. How does it work?

  • Tony||

    The Democrats were compromising with themselves. No Republican votes for it, remember? All that thrashing around was the Dems trying to squeeze a bare majority out of their supermajority.

    Fucking memory. How does it work?

    You're right. Republicans haven't been able to act like adults ever since Obama got elected, it seems.

  • ||

    Right because when one party has all the power and the other party has no power, the reason the two sides couldn't get together was the party with no power.

  • ||

    ...Tony said as he masturbated violently.

  • sarcasmic||

    In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.


    --Any Rand

    Or as someone else said:

    If you dance with the devil, the devil don't change. The devil changes you.

    Sometimes refusing to compromise is the right thing to do.

  • Tony||

    Sometimes refusing to compromise is the right thing to do.

    So the right thing for Tea Party members of Congress is to rigidly demand everything and thereby get... policy decided by the other half of the GOP and some Democrats?

  • fish||

    Hey everybody look who's here....it's Cass Sunstein....looks like the administration let him out of the gimp box to deliver a message on tolerance and reasonableness.

  • Pip||

    Go suck a diseased cock, Asscunt.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    If the tea party can't act like adults and realize that governing means compromise[...]


    Take, for instance, ObamaCare...

    The American people will blame them for a government shutdown.


    Well, at least Chuck Shumer will... the caucus told him to blame them as many times as possible, as if it were true.

  • Tony||

    The GOP is clearly worried about getting the blame. Budgeting is, after all, the main job of Congress.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    The GOP is clearly worried about getting the blame.


    Are they?

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "The GOP is clearly worried about getting the blame. Budgeting is, after all, the main job of Congress."

    Tell it to the Dems who failed to produce one at all when they were in charge.

  • ||

    EXTREME!!!!!

    EXTREME, I SAY!!!!!!!!

  • ||

    So what you're saying here is that the Tea Partiers are too much like Rand Paul, and not enough like the Bush Republicans, who were extremely bipartisan in passing the Energy Bills, Transportation Bills, Farm Bills, Iraq War AUMF, No Child Left Behind, and everything else.

  • sevo||

    Tony|3.30.11 @ 3:32PM|#
    "If the tea party can't act like adults and realize that governing means compromise..."

    If Tony ever posted anything but lefty lies, and assertions, people might not laugh at him.

  • ||

    Republicans and democrats can comprimise yet:

    That makes the tea party about as unpopular as the Democratic and Republican parties.

    So if you do compromise you are hated and if you don't compromise you are hated.

    I fail to see why the tea party would see any disadvantage in not acting like adults when adults get punished equally.

    Anyway i am simply showing how your own argument defeats itself with its own logic.

    The reason the tea party has lost support is because the republicans are unpopular. After the 2010 election and the house was taken by republicans the tea party, at least with a large portion of americans, are now seen as simply republicans.

    This does not mean they cannot differentiate themselves in the future and regain their independent street cred and again attain good polling numbers.

    In fact if tea pirates do want to get the magic back all they really have to do is get republicans to say they are unreasonable....they obviously already have that from the dems...if they can get the two, very unpopular parties to hate them at the same time...well that virtually guarantees their re-ascendance.

  • ||

    In Tony's mind, when I would rather die than be anally raped, holding a gun to my head and settling for a blowjob is compromise.

  • Tony||

    All evidence suggests the tea party is nothing more than mainstream Republican voters pissed off that Barack Obama is the president. If they find that reason enough for revolution, when they clearly were otherwise occupied (napping?) during the worst presidency in history, then they will be living proof that the GOP and their ministries of truth in FOX News and talk radio have turned political discourse in this country into an unbridgeable chasm of stupid.

  • ||

    TEEM BLOO RAH RAH RAH!

    TEEM READ BAH BAH BAH!

  • Rock Action||

    As long as we're spelling "blue" that way, isn't Tony more like TEAM COCO?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOIiQO_Ed8s

  • Tman||

    Even for you, Tony, that was an especially obnoxious comment.

    Every time I've thought that you finally reached your limit for conceited condescending ad hominem attacks on people who were simply sick of watching the government piss away half their paycheck you continue to raise the bar.

    Well done.

  • Restoras||

    It's hard to fault him for not being able to think outside Team Bloo ideology, especially when so many other Bloos and Redds can't, but you think he'd try, or at least pretend.

  • Tony||

    If they want to be anarchists, why don't they move to cabins in the woods where those sorts of people belong? But they don't want all their precious government handouts to go away, they just want it to go away for black people. There is data to support this.

  • Restoras||

    No there isn't.

  • Tony||

    Oh?

  • Restoras||

    An academic study? Seriously? Yeah, noooo chance of bias in this.

  • Tony||

    An academic study? Seriously? Yeah, noooo chance of bias in this.

    Oh please.

  • Restoras||

    I see nothing in that study to suggest that your comment "But they don't want all their precious government handouts to go away, they just want it to go away for black people. There is data to support this" contains one grain of truth.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    they just want it to go away for black people. There is data to support this.

    Oh, I get it! The old "they're all racist if they don't agree with our socialist liberal utopia." And "there is [sic] data to report this!!"

    Drop dead, you ignorant fuck.

  • ||

    "they just want it to go away for black people. There is data to support this."

    Stunning. Mind-blowingly retarded. I've read a ton of your shit, Tony, but that is by far the dumbest fucking thing I've ever seen you vomit onto these pages.

    Holy.

    Fuck.

  • Tony||

    Sorry FMT but it's true. Which shouldn't be surprising to anyone. The entire premise of GOP domestic policy for decades has been that minorities get too many government handouts, but white people seem to get just about the right amount.

  • Tman||

    Wow. We should use Tony's bar as a space elevator. We could build fucking New York on the moon at this point.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    If they want to be anarchists, why don't they move to cabins in the woods where those sorts of people belong?


    "What do you mean, you people?"

    "What do you mean, 'what do you mean you people'?"

    "Huh!"

  • Tony||

    I'm sorry if you can't see how racist most Repubs, teabaggers in particular, are. Anyone who sits around watching Faux News all day is going to end up that way. Dem pols are infinitely more enlightened and intelligent. Maybe if you went to college like I did, you'd realize that.

  • Jim||

    I'd say a plurality of the people here seem like they went to college, just like you and I did, Tony. The smarmy self-assurance of us "educated" people is palpable even through the internet, and I'm including both you and myself here.

    Here's a shocker for you: I think you're right that a lot of them are closet racists, judging from the rallies I've been to. Oh, not Klan sheet-wearing sundown-town type of racist, but the kind of, "You know, I don't want to go to that part of town because blacks are all criminals" type of racist.

    Now here's the rub: the less gov't you have, the less people like that can influence / enact policies which reflect their bias. It is only the existence of gov't which allows official gov't racism to exist. Get rid of gov't, and you get rid of the levers of power that the people you hate use to manipulate the system.

    And don't give me any shit about electing the "right" people. There IS no "right" people. Damn near anyone who gets that much power becomes corrupted, and eventually someone you don't like will win an election, and then all that federal power you pushed for is going to get mighty uncomfortable for you.

  • Mensan||

    ...the kind of, "You know, I don't want to go to that part of town because blacks are all criminals" type of racist.

    So, if I avoid walking around a certain neighborhood at night as a precaution against being robbed, that makes me a racist? I always thought it was just common sense since the police reports show armed robberies in that neighborhood almost every night. I have no control over who lives in that neighborhood, but if it happens to be mostly people with a darker complexion, then I am racist because crime is more prevalent in their neighborhood?

    What about my black roommate? He wouldn't go to that neighborhood at night either. That means he's a racist too, right?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    I'm sorry if you can't see how racist most Repubs, teabaggers in particular, are.


    The evidence has been there all along!

    Dem pols are infinitely more enlightened and intelligent.


    Especially Sheila Lee Jackson. What an enlightened woman she is. Or Debbie Wasserman, another really enlightened person. Or Joe Biden. All veritable geniuses.

  • Tony||

    You're both responding to a spoofer.

    But I will take this opportunity to say that there is a real hindrance to public policy in the fact that so many upstart Republican politicians and their talking head comrades on the TV and radio are not college educated. Ignorance does not correspond with humility about one's ignorance in people with influence.

  • Jim||

    I'm sorry, but it should really tell you something about the state of your commentary that we weren't able to discern that you were being spoofed.

  • Old Mexican||

    No, ^^THIS^^ one has to be the spoof!

  • MWG||

    If only we were all english lit. majors, right Tony?

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "You're both responding to a spoofer."

    ALL the Tony posts on all threads are a spoof.

    There never was any "real" Tony.

  • alzabo||

    I think there is some evidence that the more homogeneous the society the more tolerant of social welfare programs it is. It is easier to accept having your wealth redistributed to people who are very much like you. Seems like one of the better things about multiculturalism to me.

    But this is not quite the same as your characteristically scurrilous assertion.

  • Restoras||

    Cue OhioOrrin seeking hard data...

  • OhioOrrin||

    u qut 4 ur pols & rucbu restolab

  • fish||

    Loosen the bag a little bit.

    (The whole auto-erotic asphyxiation thing is a little tired isn't it Anal?)

  • ||

    soon u beg to wash my underwear n socks

  • ||

    If this is anybody but Prince ur stealing my bit!

  • fish||

    ...unbridgeable chasm of stupid.

    Yes my thoughts exactly...every single time that you post your nonsense.

  • Restoras||

    I'm guessing that ol' Tony wasn't around in the 80's, when the libtard media and it's allies were encouraging civil discourse with President Reagan.

  • Tony||

    Poor poor Ronnie... he doesn't have every building named after him!

    Besides, it's unfair to beat up on presidents who illegally traffic in arms and cocaine if they have dementia.

  • Restoras||

    Still not listening, I see.

    On the one hand, you decry the level of political discourse and blame it on Fox News and talk radio.

    Someone points out that left-wing dominated news organizations accelerated the descent of political discourse in the 1980's and all you can do is say...buildings?

    Poor effort. D-

  • Tony||

    There has never been the left-wing equivalent of the current right-wing media operation.

  • ||

    Republicans hate bunnies! Democrats are for children! Choose, comrade.

  • ||

    That's true. The current right-wing media operation consists of one cable network, AM talk radio, and the Wall Street Journal. In contrast, the left-wing media operation consists of all the other cable networks, plus the Big Three, plus taxpayer-subsidized NPR, plus virtually every national and regional daily newspaper in the country.

    There has never been the left-wing equivalent of the current right-wing media operation because the media is institutionally left-wing, and the left has never been forced to develop an insurgent media operation to counter thoroughgoing domination of the political and cultural narrative by its ideological enemies.

  • Tony||

    The important difference between NPR and FOX News is that one is a legitimate news outfit and the other is Republican Party propaganda.

    One of FOX News's most insidious strategies is to claim that by countering real news, they are creating some sort of useful balance. Thus they invent the impression that real news is biased toward the left wing, when in reality the left wing simply happens to care about facts more than Republicans and their propaganda arm.

  • ||

    Do you really mean to tell me that at least MSNBC and HLN aren't the equivalent left-wing versions of Fox News?

    It's not Rupert Murdoch's fault people actually tune in to his network while the leftist versions go unwatched.

  • Devil's Advocate||

    That is the saddest part. The left gets pissed when people voluntarily tune in to Fox News, but they don't seem to have a problem with all of us taxpayers being forced by the government to invest in things like green energy. Free choice is anathema to people like Tony.

    The Tea Party may not have as many Ivy League deagrees as the left, but look at the clusterfuck that is Obama's first term - his administration is packed with Harvard a-holes. I would take a random selection of people from the phone book over Congress anyday.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    You don't think your characterisation of liberal news as 'real news' might have something to do with your own bias?

  • fish||

    Why would older republicans be upset with Obama at all? More war...more bank bailouts and easy money policies...more promises that can't be kept. It's like McCain if McCain was allowed to not wear sunscreen on the golf course.

  • yonemoto||

    "All evidence"

    Uh, so that tea party rally I went to before Obama elected... So, that was imaginary?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    All evidence suggests the tea party is nothing more than mainstream Republican voters pissed off that Barack Obama is the president.


    Not pissed off at the spending, I gather.... The "Great Literary Genius Of All Time" being an innocent by-stander in all of this...

  • ||

    All evidence suggests the tea party is nothing more than mainstream Republican voters pissed off that Barack Obama is the president.

    Except in the same breath the kind of guy who is least interested in compromising is Rand Paul, who certainly isn't a "mainstream Republican voters pissed off that Barack Obama is the president."

    I understand the commenters here who wish that more guys like Rand Paul existed.

    Tony, OTOH, is hilarious because he simultaneously takes no-compromises Rand Paul as a symbol of everything wrong with the Tea Party in a post up above, but then complains down here that "all evidence" suggests that the tea party is nothing like Rand Paul.

  • Tony||

    The problem with Tea Partiers in Congress is that they are likely to get nothing of what they want because they aren't willing to compromise. Meaning any legislation that makes it will be a compromise between non-TP Republicans and Democrats. Governing happens by coalition forming. True, given the fact that the GOP has few pragmatists left, what it really means is very little legislation. But for things that have to happen like budgets, the TP will have to learn coalition building or it will get nothing.

    People sympathetic to the Tea Party in the general population don't tend to be as well versed or consistent in libertarian ideology as politicians like Rand Paul. They're just normal Republicans.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    The problem with Tea Partiers in Congress is that they are likely to get nothing of what they want because they aren't willing to compromise.


    It's the other way around. The compromisers will not get what they want because the Tea Partiers will not compromise. Somehow you see "compromise" as good. A compromise between competing criminal enterprises is not precisely something that will open the gates of heaven to the participants.

  • Tony||

    Oh, as I don't think any good policy will ever come from any Republicans, even by accident, I don't think compromise is a good thing in this case. But it would be good for Republicans not to be responsible for cutting off everyone's SS checks.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Oh, as I don't think any good policy will ever come from any Republicans, even by accident


    Not by their historical record, no. A party that eschews small government policies the moment they're in charge are not serious about good policies.

    But it would be good for Republicans not to be responsible for cutting off everyone's SS checks.


    Economic law will take care of that in due course. Don't worry.

  • fish||

    WINNER!

  • Devil Inchoate||

    Tony thinks a shutdown means SS checks will not go out. Dumbass. Or liar, your choice.

  • sevo||

    Tony|3.30.11 @ 3:29PM|#
    "All evidence suggests the tea party is nothing more than mainstream Republican voters pissed off that Barack Obama is the president."

    Made up horseshit is what you do so well.

  • ||

    All evidence suggests the tea party is nothing more than mainstream Republican voters pissed off that Barack Obama is the president.

    All evidence except the fact that independents did a complete 180 from voting for obama and dems in 2008 to voting for republicans in 2010.

    You know...the actual and only evidence that incidentally completely contradicts your claim.

  • shorter Tony||

    RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • shorter Tony||

    *ahem*

    Racists.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    "...the next "tea party" is going to be a lot different. It really will be violent. At some point this shit has to stop."

    I wouldn't find this statement scary in the least if they were consistently pro-individual rights. Revolutionary language against an overgrown government is one thing, but when the "shit that has to stop" might just as likely refer to the gays, the immigrants, the drug users, the abortionists and the atheists without ever marching against things like medicare, medicaid, senior prescription benefits or social security, their inconsistency makes them seem like nothing more than another pressure group who wants special advantages. I hope that's not true because I have been nothing but excited about the tea party movement until recently when they started worrying more about the gay agenda than socialism(not that they were ever that worried about the socialistic prgrams they benefit from).

  • Gray Ghost||

    I recall that being one of the main points of Codevilla's essay, "The Ruling Class." I don't think he, or you, are that far off. Though I think it will take Warren's DOOM-DOOM-DOOM from the bond markets, and the concomitant slashing of Gov't entitlements, for a violent Tea Party to show up.

    But if things keep going like this, it will.

  • ||

    I can't speak for Cosmostarians, and I'm not gloating, but I'm also not particularly depressed because from what I've seen the movement evolved into something that was rarely grass-roots or small-movement any more. While I have my reservations about Rand Paul, I think if the movement had more folks like him and fewer folks like Bachmann and Palin it might get more play 'round these parts.

  • ||

    Make that "small-government," not "small-movement."

  • ||

    Or Joe Arpaio. Rabid anti immigration sentiment doesn't exactly entice me.

  • ||

    It doesn't?! You're not one of THEM, are you?

    Oh, you don't need to answer. Your papers will do just fine.

  • Jim||

    Oh hell, I forgot to even mention the immigration issue in the thread up above. But yeah, their support for the Brown Shirts is somewhat unsettling, also.

  • Sudden||

    Hell, I could even put up with some reasonably intelligent opposition to illegal immigration if its premised on the large costs incurred by illegal immigration and the inability of the public sector to continue paying such. And yes, it is undeniably true that substantial amounts of money are doled out to anchor babies because their parents don't have a verifiable income and thus they meet means-testing standards. The issue I have is when it turns into outright xenophobia and a failure to recognize the substantial benefit we receive from immigrants, as it all too often does.

    In this regard, I think Ron Paul circa 2008 had it right. He was all in favor of constructing the fence along the border, but he went to great pains to say that he doesn't have a problem with immigration per se, just the way the welfare state ends up doling out significant of the treasury to subsidize it. He was willing to make the devil's bargain and accept a bit of restrictionism on immigration as a temporary measure to save money until we could seriously reform the nanny state.

  • affenkopf||

    You realize that Cosmotarian ia a term coined by peleolibertarians who would consider you Cosmotarian for your views on foreign policy?

  • ||

    "Cosmotarian" has been morphed into applying a KULTUR WAR dichotomy to libertarians, which makes it even more obnoxious. Some people just cannot let go of their "you eat arugula and I drive a pickup truck" or "you're a redneck and I'm urban and drink lattes" bullshit.

  • ||

    Yeah, the whole "your local supermarket stocks a different type of produce and you've come to prefer it, you evil fuck" certainly gets the eyes rolling.

  • yonemoto||

    What if you eat arugula and drive a pickup truck?

  • ||

    Then you're confused, obviously. I mean, fuck, dude, which TEAM are you on?!?

  • ||

    What if you eat arugula because you're an Italian mobster, but you drive a pickup truck because that's what the Witness Protection Program gave you, like Steve Martin in My Blue Heaven?

  • ||

    Then you're just in a mediocre movie.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Seriously, they couldn't even contract with the fucking Padres to get some stock baseball footage.

  • ||

    But what if I just like the way that arugula compliments my roadkill hash?

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, seriously. I have a pcikup truck, guns, chainsaws, etc. and I like arugula and good coffee and smarty-pants artsy-fartsy bullshit. Where do I belong?

  • Restoras||

    right here.

  • ||

    Huzzah. A philosophy professor friend of mine was complaining that there was no such thing as a "hard-ass liberal" and I duly informed him about libertarianism...

  • Jim||

    Unfortunately Zeb, you do not exist.

  • Zeb||

    Shit! [disappears in a puff of logic]

  • mad libertarian guy||

    No pickup, but what about a 4 wheeler side-by-side with pre-installed gun tacks?

  • Mensan||

    "...a 4 wheeler side-by-side..."

    Isn't that called a golf cart?

  • Sudden||

    Or that self-righteous, snide, yuppie "Ew, I can't believe you actually eat Chicago-style deep-dish pizza. You are a troglodyte!!1!" attitude, right Epi?

  • ||

    Yuppie?!? I guess the New York vs Chicago aspect of that has escaped you. Or the me vs ProL aspect.

  • Sudden||

    Haha. I couldn't help myself. Sometimes, I just like picking a fight.

  • ||

    Pretty much a big city debate, I agree. Tampa doesn't have its own pizza, for instance. We have great ethnic food, but our pizza is all somebody else's.

  • ||

    "Doughnuts? I told you I don't like ethnic food!"

  • fish||

    Hi Monty.

  • ||

    Tampa's a damned good restaurant town, but we just lost my favorite Spanish restaurant. Grumble.

    And by Spanish, I mean Spain Spanish. When I lived in Minneapolis and asked about a Spanish restaurant, they told me to go to Casa Gallardo. Fucking ingrates.

  • ||

    The best new york style pizza i have ever had came from a pizza joint in Portland Oregon. The place is even called "Escape from New York Pizza".

    http://efnypizza.net/EFNYPIZZA.NET.html

    Not that i found new york style pizza in new york bad...only that the Portland shop did it better.

  • Mensan||

    Is Westshore NY style? I know they bill themselves as "The Taste of Philly," but I always thought that was referring to the cheesesteaks. Does Philadelphia have it's own style of pizza?

  • ||

    The media destroyed it? Uh-huh John sure. Why don't you ask trolls like 1980redux what the tea party is all about. Asshole social cons destroyed it. Period.

    But I don't think it's destroyed, not entirely. But if you want to alienate the young vote (even more) just let those assholes keep ranting and raving about Christian values and how Obama is a secret muslim socialist manchurian candidate.

  • Jim||

    The food item is correct; the conspiracy theories coming from a lot of them (not the ones in congress, I mean the rank n' file) don't help, either.

  • ||

    There are conspiracy theories from every group in politics. I've seen just as many conspiracy theories from liberals, leftists, moderates, conservatives, libertarians, hawks, doves, whatever. Conspiracy theories are an inevitable part of any mass movement, including people marching against war or on behalf of unions, and including people who are Sensible Centrists. There are conspiracy theories *about* the tea parties for that matter.

    I haven't noticed conspiracy theories in general hurting most political movements.

    Tightly controlled centrally managed movements sometimes manage to avoid making their conspiracy theorizing public.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    It's not the conspiracy theories, John, but the just-under-the-surface so-con nature of the TP.

    For the most part, under all of the "we want small government" fomenting is a movement that is A-OK with government spending so long as it directly either A) benefits them (SS and Medicare, for instance), or B) upholds a very specific, very conservative social agenda (WoD, anti-immigration, "family values" etc). DeMint (I think it was him anyways) said as much when he declared that one cannot be a fiscal conservative without being a social conservative. As soon as he let that cat out of the bag, it seems to me that much of the movement followed suit and started making their anti-freedom social agenda a means to get to their fiscal desires.

    Fuck. That.

    Rand Paul is about the only guy who has held firm in his conviction that spending is the problem. He may not be a libertarian, but that doesn't mean he isn't libertarianesque. The rest of the movement, as far as I can tell, wanted so badly to be something other than just another group of republicans, but are currently flailing.

  • ||

    Like the conspiracy theory among libertarians that the populace is secretly libertarian, that libertarian candidates would win democratic elections, and the only thing preventing otherwise greedy politicians who like winning elections from espousing these vote-gaining libertarian ideas and policies is... what, a conspiracy?

    We get the politicians we deserve. To believe otherwise is to believe in conspiracy theories.

  • Zeb||

    I don't know about that. An ordered outcome doesn't necessarily mean there was a plan before hand.

    And I am pretty convinced that I keep getting the politicians other people deserve. What gives?

  • Bradley||

    The Tea Party is a lost cause. They had the option of going the Ron Paul route, but instead they followed the siren song of that retarded seductress Sarah Palin. Now they've been almost entirely co-opted by mainstream right-wingers.

    Even the successful Tea Partiers who made it to Congress turned out to be unserious about cutting government. Rand Paul is the only, only exception. Anything that looks like an attack on traditional conservative hobby horses ("faith, family, and flag" as our erudite heroine once said) is DOA at this point.

    The Tea Partiers fit right in with the GOP that they were supposedly revolting against. It was promising for a little while, but now it's just another front in the culture war.

  • Robert||

    But Palin is not evil incarnate. She (along with "mainstream right wingers") is still better than the political avg., and even she would have a shot at beating Obama in 2012. If this is the worst credible result of being co-opted, that ain't too bad.

  • Bradley||

    How are they better? A Palin presidency is, foreign and domestic policy-wise, no different from another GWB presidency. What about the other leading lights in the GOP: are they willing to rip apart the military budget and take on entitlement spending?

    None of the small-government talk coming from her crowd is authentic. It's just language they use to define themselves as non-liberals. As someone on here brilliantly put it once, it's an exercise in "emotional sculpture", not ideas.

  • Zeb||

    John, I generally like most of what you have to say on here, even when I disagree. But what is with all of the "stupid cosmotarian" stuff? I'm not sure what a cosmotarian is (though I suspect I am one by some definitions), but it seems to me that to say that such people only think what they do because they want to get invited to the cool cocktail parties is just as stupid and insulting as saying that all libertarians really care about is big business or that we hate poor people.

  • SIV||

    I'm an anarchist of the right wing persuasion. Personally, I'm 100% in favor of John Sinclair's "Drugs and Guns and Fucking in the Streets". I don't think that is a winning political platform, particularly since many who once espoused it are now Democrat-voting grandparents..

    I'm willing to compromise with liberty-minded SoCons and not fuck in the streets within view of churches.

  • Zeb||

    Seems reasonable.

  • ||

    With the exception of Rand Paul, the Tea Party is nothing more than a new name for "conservative activists."

    I'm not in favor of knee-jerk hating on them. I just don't think they have a coherent program.

    When you try to figure out what, specifically, they'd like to cut...well, [radio silence.] It's not clear to me that they want to scale down defense spending and I don't here any TP-approved plan for entitlement reform.

    Short version: I think the TP is the "Don't cut my Medicare crowd."

    But I think there are libertarians mixed in there, trying to pull it over to our direction. I wish them good luck. But I'm afraid they'll need more than my good wishes.

  • ||

    Short version: I think the TP is the "Don't cut my Medicare crowd."

    The Entire Fucking American Electorate is the "Don't cut my [Medicare, or whatever] crowd." The TP may be marginally better than average, but you can't expect fucking miracles.

    If they were much more libertarian than the American people, they wouldn't be popular either.

    The myth of libertarian popularity is the conspiracy theory that won't die.

  • Jim||

    The Entire Fucking American Electorate is the "Don't cut my [Medicare, or whatever] crowd." The TP may be marginally better than average, but you can't expect fucking miracles.

    Then what, may I ask, is the point? We need a hell of a lot more than marginal to get out of this mess.

  • Robert||

    Compound "marginal" over a couple centuries and you've got paradise. When you take the long view, everything that succeeds is marginal.

  • ||

    What's the point of choosing the old lady driver over the lead foot driver as you're heading off the cliff? Time.

  • Were all doomed||

    Most supporters of the " small government" tea party that I have met are perfectly happy with the wars on drugs and terror, happy to have military bases all over the world, appear to be social conservatives and don't want their social security touched.

  • ||

    I wonder how many of the 47% consider themselves to be "social conservatives"?

  • Mike||

    Remember, folks, only minorities and liberal college students are allowed to have grass-roots movements.

  • ||

    "It looks like the rise in the movement's unfavorable rating has come mostly among people who make less than $50,000."

    I wonder if these people think government default and hyper inflation are going to be a good thing.

  • ||

    Looters and Parasites do not think about those things.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I really hope this comment doesn't mean what it appears to mean.

  • Mr Whipple®©™||

    Bullshit. I had amovement this morning, but it wasn't grass roots, it was cheap beer.

  • Rangefinder||

    Grassroots...do they sell those at Whole Foods?

  • January||

    Racist white gun nuts have to settle for Koch-fueled astroturf with snake-flags and stupid hats.

  • WTF||

    Oh noes!! KOCHTOPUS!!11!!!

  • Mr Whipple®©™||

    DRINK!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Warty||

  • Old Mexican||

    According to the Post's survey, the approval/disapproval has not really changed that much:

    -------------- Favorable -----------------------/-------------- Unfavorable------------------
    ________NET_Strongly___Somewhat___NET___Somewhat_Strongly_NO opinion
    3/13/11__36___18_______18________48______18______30______16
    1/16/11__35___16_______19________52______21______31______13
    09/2/10__38___18______19________45______24______21______18
    06/6/10__36___17______19________50______25______24______14
    03/26/10_41___21______21________39______16______23______20
    02/8/10__35___20______15________40______20______20______25

  • ||

    Motherfucker... I fell for the oldest trick in the book: giving an increase as a percentage of a percentage. If you describe it accurately: "Net approval is up 1% and net disapproval is up 8%" it paints a much more accurate picture of the trends.

  • ||

    I also apologize for the redundancy in that last sentence. I need to start proofreading before I click "submit."

  • ||

    why bother w the submit part?

  • ||

    I figure since I take the time to type out complete words I might as well post them.

  • Old Mexican||

    Why bother with OhioOrrin, the subnormal?

    Oh, sorry, OO! I didn't see you were there!

  • ||

    u r a retardd om y r u even hear lol

  • Old Mexican||

    u r a retardd om y r u even hear lol


    The grammatically-challenged jackass talking about ears...

  • sevo||

    OO|3.30.11 @ 4:19PM|#
    "oos hjho gfp a oom"

    Yep, that's our OO.

  • ||

    watevr dood y r u bustnig my chosp 4 nto cooll plz b nic

  • GSL||

    Aside from the stunning implication that 53% of population are violent racists, I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, a backlash against the Tea Party can't be good for anyone who's actually concerned about liberty. On the other hand, it's gotten hard to avoid the conclusion that the TP is just an anti-tax movement, not a pro-liberty or small-government movement.

  • ||

    a backlash against the Tea Party can't be good for anyone who's actually concerned about liberty.

    Huh?

    Well I am assuming that the polls only reflect a perception that the Tea party has been subsumed by the unpopular republican party. If they have been subsumed then and they lost polling numbers because of it then liberty has actually won....ie political movements live and die because poeple will hate you if move away from liberty.

    On the other hand if the Tea party has not actually been subsumed and it is only a perception that they have then again it is a good thing because poeple still have faith in liberty and they have only lost faith in the tea party as the tool for that liberty.

    So anyway these are two examples of how your statment is wrong and how a backlash against the tea party can be a good thing for liberty.

  • ||

    Didn't a Post poll also find that the Tea Party was made of racists? And wasn't there a poll that found that the Tea Party was generally stupid? It's like you can't turn around at the Post without tripping over a poll that sheds negative light on the Tea Party.

  • Law Student||

    Almost any poll of anything is going to find a majority of stupid people.

  • X||

    83% of people polled think that being an uncompensated party in a commercial transaction is stupid

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Dude, I don't think you understand.

    IT WAS A POLL. Totally scientific and junk.

    It's not like CNN called a majority of diehard Team Blues in their telephone poll of 1043 houses, or asked them loaded questions, or anything like that.

    Respect the science, bitches.

  • ||

    but again, I don't see Obama's popularity rising either.

    Barring CNN bias, I would point to a general frustration with politics in general. The TPers were swept into office and some people expected major changes. Of course the House can only do so much which leads us to the current budget stalemate.

    I'm just happy there is a brake to the Obama agenda. Of course he's finding ways around this through "administrative" laws by fiat.

  • Tim||

    If the Tea Party goes, the Libertarian agenda goes with it.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I will never get tired of people saying that the Tea Party/Rethuglicans are the only true path for the libertarian movement.

  • Zeb||

    Goes where?

  • ||

    Most of the Tea Partiers I encounter (who are mostly old) hold views on drugs, prostitution, gambling, immigration, gay rights, Social Security and other entitlement reforms, defense spending, and other issues that are really no different from the status quo. In fact, I would say that they are more statist/authoritarian on many of those issues than the average politician in either of the major political parties! Just saying you are for lower taxes hardly makes you a limited government movement. If they were truly for limited government, they would have opposed the Iraq war, opposed the Patriot Act (although I do give major credit to some of the Republican freshmen for taking a stand on this issue), opposed the expansion of government under Bush, etc. They pretend to be non-partisan, but they didn't rise up until a member of the D team with a foreign sounding name ascended to the White House.

    As a 30 something advocate of more libertarian policies in the areas I listed above, I just do not find the Tea party very appealing.

  • Restoras||

    "they didn't rise up until a member of the D team with a foreign sounding name ascended to the White House"

    Is that all it was? Or was it the ruinous fiscal policies of said furrener?

  • ||

    So you don't think the fiscal policies of Bush were ruinous? How much spending did he cut? How many departments did he eliminate? What did he do to get rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? The list can go on and on.

  • Restoras||

    I'm sorry, when did I defend the ruinous spending and other non-fiscal conservative traits of W?

    The deficit and debt trajectory has worsened significantly in the last couple of years - and W is not President. The skin color of the current (part-time) occupant of the Oval Office is irrelevant.

  • Tony||

    A large reason for this trajectory is the recession... something Obama didn't cause, and that Republicans are doing everything they can to prolong.

    What did happen under Obama are the highest corporate profits in history and a 50% gain on blue chip stocks. Any Republican president would be envious of those gains.

  • Restoras||

    1. Specifically, what Obama policy is responsible for these highest coporate profits in history?

    2. As a lifelong follower of the stock market, and other markets in general, I can state unequivocally that the 50% gain on blue (bloo??) chip stocks has little to do with Obama policies, and more to do with a dissipation of fear as the crisis of 07-08 passed.

    3. Obama didn't cause the recession - um, yeah, that's prtty obvious (yay Team Bloo!) but as far as the Republicans doing everything they can to prolong it, well where is your proof of that? The trillion dollar stimulus was sold to the public as being necessary to prevent unemploymnet from reaching - the levels it reached!

    There is lots of blame to go around my friend, plenty of it on Team Redd, but to suggest that it's only the Republicans espousing policies that will prolong the recession is just a little to rah rah.

    C-

  • Tony||

    It's disingenuous to proclaim the stimulus a failure because it didn't make everything 100% right. Economists who actually believe in stimulative spending to counter recessions think that it wasn't big enough. Yes the Obama people got unemployment predictions wrong that one time before he was even in office, and they have since admitted it: job losses were worse than predicted. But the recession did end, and unemployment has leveled off and crept downward slightly. Either their policies caused that or it happened in spite of them (job killing socialist policies, mind you).

    But Republicans don't believe in stimulus spending. They believe cutting taxes for rich people and defunding Planned Parenthood are the prescriptions for a weak economy, evidently. In other words, they don't have a solution at all, so they're sticking with their policy of blocking every policy coming from the other side for purely partisan political reasons, which is their prerogative I suppose.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    It's disingenuous to proclaim the stimulus a failure because it didn't make everything 100% right.


    It made everything worse. The disingenuity comes from another place...

    Economists who actually believe in stimulative spending to counter recessions think that it wasn't big enough.


    You mean Paul Krugman? He's no economist, he's a quack.

    But the recession did end, and unemployment has leveled off and crept downward slightly.


    We're right now in an inflationary recession, you genius.
    http://www.shadowstats.com/alt.....ion-charts

    But Republicans don't believe in stimulus spending.


    That's false. They voted for TARP.

  • Ray Pew||

    Economists who actually believe in stimulative spending to counter recessions think that it wasn't big enough.

    This is always their claim when it fails. It requires no proof.

  • Tony||

    This is always their claim when it fails. It requires no proof.

    What's failed? The not-enough spending has created not-enough economic growth. What really requires no proof is the superior counterfactual history you're putting up as an argument against current policies. We have to reject all mainstream opinion on the potential fallout from the financial crisis in order to claim that the policies had no positive effect. That's opinion that crossed party lines enough to turn Bush into a socialist "to save capitalism."

  • ||

    "It's disingenuous to proclaim the stimulus a failure because it didn't make everything 100% right."

    You can't be out of high school. You just can't.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    A large reason for this trajectory is the recession... something Obama didn't cause, and that Republicans are doing everything they can to prolong.


    If by "prolong" you mean keeping enabling the Federal Reserve, then you would be right but that would not make the Dems blameless.

    What did happen under Obama are the highest corporate profits in history and a 50% gain on blue chip stocks.


    Le Idiot here thinks corporate profits = bank profits.

  • ||

    The trajectory we are on has more to do with entitlements than anything else. Most of these entitlements pre-existed both Bush and Obama. For a number of years, Bush enjoyed a Repub congress and the rare chance to possibly improve this trajectory. He failed to improve the trajectory, and actually made things worse.

    As for Obama's skin color, I agree that the media has way overblown and distorted any role that racism plays in the Tea party. Most Tea partiest I have encountered care little at all about Obama's race. Anyone who does care about Obama's race is within a very fringe minority of the Tea Party.

    The reason I emphasize the foreigness of his name is the fact that so many Tea partiers I encounter, and there are a number that I'm very close to (let's just leave it at that), do like to put extra emphasis on his Muslim sounding middle name. They never bring up his race, but always want to talk about how they suspect that Obama does not share their Christian fundamentalist values. They don't mention Obama's skin color, but love to mention Obama's speeches in Europe and Cairo. So yes, while Tea Partiers generally do not care about Obama's race, they do care about his perceived foreigness.

    Newt Gingrich has obviously picked up on this same vibe from the Tea party. He does not mention Obama's skin color, but does go on about Islam in America; about Obama's supposed "Kenyan anti-colonial" orientation; and Gingrich suddenly wants to take every opportunity to present himself as a culture warrior of the religious right. He basically wants the Tea partiests to think that unlike Obama, he shares their fundamentalist Christian values.

  • ||

    views on drugs, prostitution, gambling, immigration, gay rights, Social Security and other entitlement reforms, defense spending that are really no different from the status quo

    THIS.

    I'm not going to cry about the demise of what has become grassroots authoritarian movement. In the beginning (2007-08) there was something good, but after the election the stupid party took hold and that was the end of that.

  • ||

    It did NOT start in 2007-2008.

    It began with Rick Santelli's rant (where he actually mentioned the idea of a "Tea Party" like the one in Boston) in early 2009.

    Go ahead. Google it.

  • ||

    Ron Paul for president is how I choose to define it. This is before the sloganeering anti-Obama authoritarian shit. I am entitled to this opinion, suck on it.

  • ||

    Most of the Tea Partiers I encounter (who are mostly old) hold views on drugs, prostitution, gambling, immigration, gay rights, Social Security and other entitlement reforms, defense spending, and other issues that are really no different from the status quo.

    Because the status quo is unfortunately very popular. That's a large part of why it survives as the status quo.

    Libertarianism is unpopular in the specific, even when popular in the abstract.

  • ||

    "Libertarianism is unpopular in the specific, even when popular in the abstract."

    Yes, I agree. Hence, the decades of limited government lip service from the Republicans.

    Anyway, the Tea Partiers sold themselves as some transformative movement, so the burden was on them to prove they offered something significantly different. Initially, they did attract my interest. At this point, though, I feel they have failed to meet that burden.

  • ||

    If they offered something profoundly and significantly different, they wouldn't be popular enough to win elections.

    You can't make fun of conspiracy theories without realizing that it's a conspiracy theory to claim that "American politics would be all libertarian if not for the CONSPIRACY among politicians not to be libertarian!"

    Maybe libertarian policies just don't sell well.

    Rand Paul, and a few others (Mike Lee is a good example) are better than most politicians. Politics occurs on the margins in a democracy, especially in the US. Expect radical changes and you'll always be disappointed. Sometimes you'll get tiny moves in a good direction, more often it will be mixed.

  • BradK||

    Libertarianism is unpopular in the specific, even when popular in the abstract.

    Which is just another way of expressing the old libertarian quote about freedom being a terrifying thing when exercised by others. This sentiment seems especially strong with the older generations as they grow to fear the young.

    The fear or resentment of the state in what may have been a more libertarian youth gives way to dependence upon that very same state.

  • SIV||

    Very few youth are libertarian. Most still think the world owes them a living for being ignorant dumbasses.

  • ||

    The Tea Party rose up when Bush rammed through TARP. The Tea Party were the ones burning up the congressional phone system with their pleas for their reps to vote no. The idea that only after Obama took office the people got mad is total bullshit.

  • Jim||

    It didn't have a name until early 2009 though, when that newscaster specifically called for a Boston-style Tea Party. It may have been largely the same people "burning up" the phone lines, but it wasn't an organized, coherent movement until after O took office.

  • SIV||

    As a 30 something advocate of more libertarian policies

  • SIV||

    lol

  • SIV||

    lol

  • Mensan||

    They pretend to be non-partisan, but they didn't rise up until a member of the D team with a foreign sounding name ascended to the White House.

    Unless their name is something like Hahkethomemah, Tatonga, or Ehawee, then all politicians have foreign sounding names.

  • Ska||

    That is one fruity ass picture.

  • ||

    Colonial-themed gay pr0n FTW!

  • ||

    Yeah, this would have been much more masculine. (Totally SFW, for the record.)

  • Tony||

    Michelle Bachmann's son or not, I'd break it off in that shit!

  • Kevin||

    I soured on the Tea Party awhile back. Once they were co-opted into the Republican Party, it was over for them and us.

    There are still many sincere people in that movement, but the movement has been bastardized by the Republican Party operatives who now call the shots.

    You need look no further than the so-called 100 billion dollars in cuts that magically became 60 billion. With the exception of Rand Paul, the so-called “Tea Party Caucus” is marginalized.

    I won’t even delve into the caucus members who are posers and never believed in this the government spends too much crap- their words, not mine.

    Finally, is there anyone who didn’t see this coming?

  • Corporate Drone||

    From CNN... The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey was conducted March 11-13, with 1,023 people questioned by telephone.

    Telemophone! How quaint!
    They polled 1,023 who like answering the phone. This is why I hate polls.

  • ||

    Is this the typical CNN poll that has 50% of its respondents as at least "leaning democrat"? No link to the actual polling data.

    Similar WaPo/ABC News poll 3/13 was 33% Dem, 24% Repub, 37% Ind. Where do they find numbers like that?

    How's the Communist Party doing, WaPo?

  • ONNTA||

    Ha ha, you mean all those Dems that were suppose to be in the tea party was total bullshit?

  • Mike M.||

    Personally, I've never understood why I should care about what "all Americans" think about anything. All Americans is a category that includes illiterates, schizophrenics, people who believe in ghosts, people who don't know who the Vice President is, and assholes like Tony and Ohio Orrin.

  • alan||

    And people who turned Madonna Ciccone into a superstar.

  • ||

    That happened? I thought it was just an extended SNL skit.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    I'd like to see exactly how this poll was done - and in particular, how the questions were worded.

  • ||

    1. Tea Party members (aka "Tea Baggers") have espoused racist ideas. Please rate your approval of racism: strongly approve, approve, disapprove, or strongly disapprove.

    2. Tea Party members (aka "Tea Baggers") have espoused anti-immigrant ideas. Please rate your approval of anti-immigrant ideas: strongly approve, approve, disapprove, or strongly disapprove.

    3. Tea Party members (aka "Tea Baggers") have been described as simple-minded. Please rate your approval of simple-mindedness: strongly approve, approve, disapprove, or strongly disapprove.

    4. Please rate your approval of the Tea Party (aka "Tea Baggers"): strongly approve, approve, disapprove, or strongly disapprove.

  • Mr Whipple®©™||

    I strongly approve of John Waters movies.

  • Resto Druid FTW||

    Don't forget those people who believe in some omnipotent Sky Daddy. (Thanks Epi--I stole your phrase).

  • Proto-Indo-Europeans||

    Can we get a HT?

  • Ol' Liberal||

    They told me if I voted for the Democrats, the Tea Party would fall apart, and the support for them would crumble... and they were right!

    --- I see why that super genius in Tennessee says that all the time now. It is pissily partisan and satisfying.

  • alan||

    After the tea party shot that congresswoman back in January, should this really be a surprise?

  • ||

    Yes, the media sure got that one right, didn't it? How proud they must be to have distorted the truth yet again. You know you're on the side of the angels when you have to spin, distort, and mutilate reality on a regular basis, huh?

  • ONNTA||

    Ahhhhhhhhhh, look who's butt hurt.

  • Old Mexican||

    Today's "Head In Sand" award goes to:

    TONY!!!!

    There has never been the left-wing equivalent of the current right-wing media operation.


    Yes, HE said it! Congratulations for your win. You deserved it.

  • Tony||

    You disappoint. One day you're peddling really stupid bullshit about how Bill Ayers wrote Dreams From My Father, the next you're playing this game where factual news = left-wing conspiracy. This is the grist of TEAM RED's most idiotic of useful idiots.

  • ||

    I will give you props, Tony. You have taken the old adage "It's not how many times you fall, it's how many times you get back up" to another level.

  • ||

    If this is getting back up I'll just stay on the ground next time I fall, thanks. Earnest is great, until you have a 5 year old who has just discovered the power of the word 'why'.

  • Tony||

    Thank you.

  • ||

    Yeah, they should have the stones to link to the data, especially when they're headlining the increase in unfavorable rating and not disclosing the change in favorable rating. I suspect that most people had never heard of the Tea Party in January 2010.

    Also, remember when Dems were saying back in early 2010 that the terrible poll numbers they were pulling was just a result of frustration that they weren't getting more of their liberal agenda done? It appears their interpretation techniques have changed.

  • ||

    That picture is creepier than Loughner's mug shot.

  • ||

    CNN poll from 2/17/2010:

    What is your view of the Tea Party — would you say you strongly support it, moderately support it, moderately oppose it, or strongly oppose it, or don’t you know enough about the Tea Party to say?

    * Strongly support 15%
    * Moderately support 20%
    * Moderately oppose 8%
    * Strongly oppose 11%
    * Don’t know enough to say 45%

    So assuming the new poll is reliable (release the data, CNN!) this means that the support has actually declined since last Feb.

  • ||

  • ||

    Our friends at Kos link to another poll about a government "shutdown":

    Suppose the federal government had to shut down for a few days because Congress did not pass a new spending bill. Would you consider that a good thing for the country or a bad thing for the country?

    Good thing: All Americans: 36% (Tea party supporters: 62%)
    Bad thing: All Americans: 59% (Tea party supporters: 34%)

    Now suppose the federal government had to shut down for a few weeks because Congress did not pass a new spending bill. Would you consider that a good thing for the country or a bad thing for the country?

    Good thing: All Americans: 24% (Tea party supporters: 52%)
    Bad thing: All Americans: 73% (Tea party supporters: 46%)

    Of course, this is something of a push-poll, since a federal "shut down" isn't really a shutdown as most people understand the term. It's not like the mother ship in Independence Day shutting down leaving all the little ships vulnerable to American jet fighters and Bushmen's poisoned spears. Yet 36% of Americans still think it's a good idea even with that abuse of language!

  • Robert||

    How do the numbers in an ostensibly hostile poll like that square with the supposed softness or wetness of Tea Partiers on spending? There's about a 25% difference across the board in favor of a tough stance against spending, which seems to be highly significant and more credible than the loose impressions some here have expressed of Tea Partiers.

  • ||

    Because the Tea Partiers are far from perfect, so even if they're better on average than most Americans they must still be hated.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    It has nothing to do with being perfect, but with 2 agendas being intertwined together. 1 if a plus for liberty, the other against.

    I won't cut off my nose to spite my face.

  • Sarah Palin||

    No more squirmishes for oil!

  • ||

    * Don’t know enough to say 45%

    A year's supply of fearmongering seems to have had its desired effect.

  • ||

    Telemophone! How quaint!
    They polled 1,023 who like answering the phone. This is why I hate polls.

    No kidding; "We asked the first five hundred people too stupid to hang up on us what they think about 'X'."

    After the break, we'll tell you what they thought.

  • SIV||

    This thread is full of cosmotarian kultur-warriors, Tony spoofers and Tony troll-bait eaters.

  • Zeb||

    How do you define cosmotarian? I am genuinely interested.

  • ||

    1 oz vodka
    1/2 oz triple sec
    1/2 oz Rose's® lime juice
    1/2 oz cranberry juice
    1/2 oz freshly felched man-juice

    Shake vodka, triple sec, lime, cranberry juice, and jizz vigorously in a shaker with ice. Strain into a martini glass, garnish with a lime wedge on the rim, and serve.

  • Boxbot||

    You put Rose's down twice.

  • SIV||

    "I know it when I see it"

    Here is a good example.
    Note how I set the "bait",providing an example of a social conservative raising a libertarian issue. (All "libertarian-leaners" in elected congressional seats are SoCons btw).
    The "cosmotarian" response is that basic libertarian positions on economic freedom, consumer choice, and property rights is TEAM RED KULTUR WAR ! because "that woman" raised the issue. Totally fucking knee-jerk reaction based on cultural affinities.

  • SIV||

    It continues downthread from the linked comment. The bait was set upthread.

  • SIV Motel||

    Cosmotarians check in; they don't check out.

  • Jim||

    (All "libertarian-leaners" in elected congressional seats are SoCons btw)

    You know, it's funny: I actually agree with you. But I draw a different conclusion than you do from it. I surmise from your posts, including the ones you linked to, that you'd rather do the "lesser of two evils" schtick, and tolerate socons in exchange for some small-scale libertarian-leaning concessions.

    I wouldn't. I won't tolerate bigotry or authoritarianism in any form, from anybody sent to that house of horrors in a phoney-baloney election. I would rather drown in blood and fire than sell out. And the beauty of it, is that it only takes a small core of people like me to get that ball rolling.

    Now I haven't had to draw any lines yet, because despite their talk, none of them has introduced any socon legislation yet. But the second, the fucking second, that one of them tries to bring up a gay-marriage amendment, increase funding for the DEA, or vote to authorize another war (I realize nobody asked them about Libya before it was already underway), then I'm through with them. I'm already sick that the so-called Tea Party Caucus fell into line like bed-wetting sheep over the Patriot Act renewal.

  • ||

    I would rather drown in blood and fire than sell out. And the beauty of it, is that it only takes a small core of people like me to get that ball rolling.

    Err, no. Pretty much by definition, if you won't do the lesser of two evils stick and you refuse to sell out, then your small core of people won't get any sort of ball rolling.

    Unless you mean that gets the ball rolling towards what you may consider the worse of the two evils.

    If you're truly neutral, then it doesn't really matter, and that's fine, but don't delude yourself into thinking that you'll accomplish anything or get any sort of ball rolling.

  • Jim||

    The idea of a small, well-armed group of people sparking a revolution is what I was referring to. I don't hold to the NAP. If this gov't gets too oppressive, I'll die shooting. I understand they can bring overwhelming firepower to bear, but look what one guy setting himself on fire in Tunisia accomplished.

  • SIV||

    I'm already sick that the so-called Tea Party Caucus fell into line like bed-wetting sheep over the Patriot Act renewal.

    How big is the Tea Party Caucus?

    IIRC, 24 or so GOP Congressman voted against it. Of course they won't send a gift to your gay wedding so fuck 'em.

  • Jim||

    26 GOP voted against the fast track provision, but most voted for renewal a couple of weeks after that. Of the actual Tea Party Caucus, 44 out of 52 voted to fast track it...that's 8 who stood up for principals. It was even worse in the senate. Stop pretending they are libertarians.

  • Jim||

    Actually I need to correct myself...the "fast track" opponents did not flip when the time came for regular renewal, they still voted against it. The GOP votes against it were vastly outnumbered by the dem votes against it, however, which should be shameful. It is also shameful that again, only 8 of 52 self-identified "tea partiers" voted against it. It's a travesty, and you're attempt to throw up some kind of gay wedding horseshit doesn't change anything. You're nothing but a fucking "GO TEAM RED!" apologist.

  • SIV||

    Actually I need to correct myself...the "fast track" opponents did not flip when the time came for regular renewal, they still voted against it.

    The facts didn't fit your narrative?

  • Jim||

    Not sure what you're talking about, since my narrative, and I quote, was:

    the so-called Tea Party Caucus fell into line like bed-wetting sheep over the Patriot Act renewal.

    I'd say that only 8 of 52 supposedly freedom-loving, small gov't representatives is a shameful confirmation of my narrative.

    On the other hand, I have no idea why you're crowing about a tiny fraction of the GOP standing up for themselves.

  • SIV||

    There are no libertarians in congress. Even Ron Paul fails miserably by your strict standards.

  • Jim||

    You are correct. There are no libertarians in congress. While right now I tacitly support Rand, it's only been 3 months, and that will probably change soon. Unlike you, I am not obsessed with keeping / reforming the current system. As I've tried to make clear elsewhere, I don't believe what we have now can be salvaged.

    Anarcho capitalism is the only solution which offers maximum liberty to the most people. The existence of any gov't with overriding power will eventually engulf it's people and corrupt it's leaders. It's inevitable. The only way to prevent it...is to not have said gov't.

  • Jim||

    And may I ask, if you're so sold on the "lesser of two evils", then shouldn't you just call a spade a spade and put an (R) after your name? Because if you're saying, "well I'm libertarian, but I vote republican because they're the lesser of two evils", then guess what...you're just a republican.

  • SIV||

    I don't vote Republican very often, mostly only in local and State legislative races.I didn't say Republicans were preferable as the "lesser evil". There are some elected representatives who are much more pro-liberty than others, the "socially conservative" Pauls for example, they run as Republicans.
    My political opinion is that pro-liberty candidates deserve support, if only in pointing out where they are pro-liberty.

  • Jim||

    For the third, and final time: I'm alright with them as long as they don't pass, or attempt to pass, any social legislation which is against liberty. So far, only 8 have passed that test; the other 44 failed immediately and miserably.

    It seems like you're perfectly OK with increasing state enforcement on one hand, as long as you get a tiny victory somewhere else. Are you really so petty as to be content with accepting "lightbulb choice" from one hand, and roving warrantless wiretaps from the other? A pro-liberty position on fucking lightbulbs justifies creeping fascism in other areas? Really? If you honestly think that way, you were born 200 years too late. You'd have made a great propoganda officer for the Confederates, playing up successes in tiny skirmishes while whistling away major defeats elsewhere.

  • ||

    politics is often the lesser of two evils - I mostly vote Repub because of this. The further we can pull the party to the Libertarian side, the more (mostly minor) victories we can have. Is it going to be perfect? Nope, but it's better than the alternative.

  • Jim||

    I disagree, because your entire premise is based on retaining the gov't we currently have, so the only choice left is to try and win minor victories.

    There are alternatives. The American Empire is too large, and it's governing institutions too irredeemably corrupt. It cannot be fixed; people talked about Reagan possibly leaning libertarian, but where did that get us? The next major appearance of the republican party was neocons! It actually got worse! We are NEVER going to nudge one team or the other enough in the right direction to matter. It's time to scrap the whole thing and start over.

  • Tony||

    Calling people cosmotarians isn't cultural wars at all!

  • SIV||

    I never said I was a cultural pacifist!

  • ||

    Here's some real reform. Sen. Lugar (whose first name can get my comment banned) has introduced a bill to eliminate the stupid US sugar program. Sen. Rand Paul is the first co-sponsor.

  • Jim||

    Sounds good. One more market-distorting piece of garbage hopefully on it's way out.

  • SIV||

    I would rather drown in blood and fire than sell out

    But...but..you're tolerating that SoCon Rand Paul! In exchange for some small-scale libertarian-leaning concessions.

    You sold out pretty quick !

  • Jim||

    He hasn't pressed any socon issues that I'm aware of legislatively, which is what I said is the standard.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement