Life Imitates The Daily Show: Tea Party Emails

In the inbox today, a statement from Wes Benedict, Executive Director of the Libertarian Party:

"Many Libertarians around America are planning to go to Tea Party rallies tomorrow. I also expect lots of Republican activists and politicians to be there. But frankly, I don't think those Republicans belong there.

The people participating in these rallies are saying 'There's too much government spending,' but Republicans, decade after decade, have supported massive increases in government spending. During the George W. Bush administration, Republicans in Congress supported spending trillions of dollars on foreign wars, a massive Medicare expansion, and banker bailouts. Republicans doubled the budget and doubled the federal debt. Why can't the Republican Party just admit that it loves big government?…

"Many Libertarians are enthusiastic about the Tea Parties, but many are not. Many Libertarians are concerned that participating causes us to get lumped in with conservatives and Republicans. In our online poll at LP.org, 28% so far say that 'The Tea Parties have become too Republican-flavored.'

On The Daily Show last night:

Clash of the Teatans
Daily Show Full Episodes

Related: David Weigel on suspicions that "Republican-run tea party group might be run by Republicans."

Comments

[sage]

Can't watch from work. Is it worth waiting until I get home, or can someone provide a summary?

[wylie]

Jon Stewrat: Obama is Great and his detractors are stupid.

Audience: Applause

Now you don't have to watch till Obama is outta office.

[Brian Sorgatz]

Stewart essentially says, "Don't invite Republicans to the tea parties, because that's when the crazy comes out." At least one of his jokes made me laugh, so I won't spoil them for you.

[creech]

Where,then, does Mr. Benedict expect the Libertarians to gather recruits?
99% of the population has harbored, or will harbor, unlibertarian thoughts about politics and legislation. So did all Libertarians before they became the "washed." Dammit, encourage widespread and visible Libertarian participation.

[CaptainSmartass]

Wes is a moron. I had some run-ins with him when he was the Texas LP Executive Director and I was trying to get things organized in Collin County. The guy cares more about getting his name published and building up his resume than actually building a party infrastructure. As long as idiots like him are running the LP they'll be perpetual also-rans.

[Danny S]

He seems to have done a really good job building up the Texas LP, especially in getting the finances in order. Poltiicos in Texas are actually noticing the party now! I have only heard good things about him from every other national Libertarian.

[KingTaco]

Creech:

Your mistake is assuming Libertarian pundits actually *want* support towards a limited-government movement. They don't. It's a lot more easy to bleat on the net and hit the talking circuit when you don't have to answer for anything concrete, politically speaking.

That's why most all Libertarian pundits rip the Tea-party stuff harder then liberals. If limited-government movements picked up steam Libertarian pundits may actually have to do some heavy lifting under real scrutiny,instead of eternally picking off low-hanging fruit in the fringes of debate.

[cynical]

Or, they're concerned that if the TP is hijacked by the GOP establishment, it will again sell limited government down the river, further discrediting and discouraging any attempts to diminish the influence of Washington in our lives.

[Gilbert Martin]

Somebody needs to remind these purist types about the old saying that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

The liberals are common enemy of libertarians and conservatives.

Furthermore, both groups pretty much see eye to eye on economic freedom issues. Conservatives weren't happy with the big spending that Bush was doing and plenty of them said so when he was in office.

Economic freedom issues - big government spending and big taxation are exactly the arena that the Obama administration is doing the most and biggest stomping on right now.

It is plain stupid for groups of people who oppose that to get into hissy fits with each other when they would be far better served by uniting to fight against it.

[John]

I agree. The one thing Obama has done is focus people's minds on the size of government. For once I think people are willing to put aside their sacred cows in the culture wars and come together and try to roll back his excesses. Why ruin it?

[J sub D]

The liberals are common enemy of libertarians and conservatives.

Borrowing from the inestimable Warren on the consertative and libertarian relationship

... is the dysfunctional marriage where alcoholic conservatives come home late and beat the shit out of their libertarian spouses. Then they loose their job and show up with flowers and jewelry, begging forgiveness.

I can't ever hope to top that.

Seriously, fuck the GOP.

[skr]

that's awesome. Good job Warren.

[Tony]

Conservatives, maybe, but surely you don't mean you're pragmatically working for Republicans to fight your common enemy? Republicans, who are bigger deficit spenders than Democrats, whose entire purpose in life is corporate welfare, and whose nonsense economic fantasies are mostly to blame for the crisis that's getting you guys all worked up?

And surely you wouldn't ally yourself with wacky racists and other assorted ignorant bigots just because you're afraid someone's taxes, but probably not yours, will go up. I mean I'm all for pragmatism and allying yourself with a viable political party, but you do understand that the GOP will use you then drop you like a dirty whore the minute they regain power, don't you?

[John Thacker]

Republicans, who are bigger deficit spenders than Democrats,

If what you're using for a comparison is the limited sample size that you must be, then what you're really arguing here is that the proper libertarian combination is a Republican Congress with a Democratic President.

[Tony]

I don't think there is a best situation for libertarians. The status quo--which is what you'd get from divided government these days--is certainly not great for freedom.

Maybe your choice is between welfare for the poor and welfare for the rich. To a libertarian, which is worse? If you stick with gridlock and the status quo, you've made your choice, and it's not the more morally laudable one.

[capitol l]

Maybe your choice is between welfare for the poor and welfare for the rich.

The choice between democrats and republicans is like the choice between being anally raped by; Ben Rothelisberger with a claw hammer, or by Steve Smith with a pineapple.

Reall, it's not a choice at all.

[OO=====D]

I'm gonna pick the hammer.

[JW]

Really? A concern troll now Tony? You care for the future libertarianism? Pull the other one now.

[Ice T] FUCK THE GOP[/Ice T]

[Tony]

I think the future of libertarianism is fairly secure: indefinite irrelevance.

My concern is calling libertarians out for being utopian idealists when it comes to dealing with Dems and pragmatic Machiavellians when dealing with the GOP.

[cynical]

You should be concerned with the fact that Democrats have convinced a lot of libertarianish moderates that they're the Greater Evil in way that might not be forgotten for a few election cycles.

[Tristan Band]

Welfare for the rich is worse. No contest.

[Kool]

It is plain stupid for groups of people who oppose that to get into hissy fits with each other when they would be far better served by uniting to fight against it.

Welcome to libertarianism.

[Hacha Cha]

except the enemy of my enemy is still my enemy. with few exceptions, republicans offer little benefit over their democratic opponents. unfortunately in practice its easier to try and take control of local, state, and possibly national republican elections than it is to win as a libertarian. my state libertarian party is totally ineffective and hasn't done much for any libertarian candidates.

[nj]

Conservatives pose just as big of a threat to liberty than any run of the mill liberal. Conservatives are not our friends.

[Turneky]

I was under the impression that conservatives are a common enemy of libertarians and democrats too.

[Scotch Hamilton]

The liberals are common enemy of libertarians and conservatives.

Of course, conservatives (who want to throw you in jail for drugs, spy on you, tax you for "defense", etc.) are the common enemy of liberals and libertarians.

[Episiarch]

SHUT UP DANNY DEVITO

[ChicagoTom]

Why shut up? Conservatives aren't any more liberty loving than liberals are.

He is absolutely right.

Conservatives and republicans aren't your allies. Libertarians are merely "useful idiots" to the GOP and to many conservatives.

I would say that both liberals and conservatives are enemies of libertarians. It isn't about purity, it's about fundamental differences that are rather hard to reconcile.

Seriously, if people like John are who you think are your "allies" or can make common cause with, libertarianism is fucked.

[J sub D]

Conservatives and republicans aren't your allies. Libertarians are merely "useful idiots" to the GOP and to many conservatives.

I would say that both liberals and conservatives are enemies of libertarians. It isn't about purity, it's about fundamental differences that are rather hard to reconcile.

QFMFT.

[Episiarch]

It's a running gag, Tom, that comes from this. Scotch is a D-grade sockpuppet troll, not a serious commenter.

[ChicagoTom]

OK that was a fucking funny clip

[Tulpa]

Danny Devito isn't in that clip.

[Episiarch]

Did you watch the whole thing? Of course DeVito isn't in it.

[John Thacker]

Libertarianism is currently fucked because it doesn't really command enough support among the people.

Given the circumstances, I would think that divided government would be better for most libertarians.

[Tony]

Of course social cons are also useful idiots for the GOP.

[JB]

Bullshit.

Guess what, dipshit? If I have money, I can buy drugs, hookers, and more and pay to get away with it.

Economic freedom is far more important than social freedoms because you can BUY social freedoms with money.

[John]

Yes because all of Bush's domestic spying programs ended in 2009, right? And so did the drug war for that matter. Right?

[Scotch Hamilton]

We replaced a moderate Conservative with a moderate liberal, and government has shifted moderately to the left...just as you'd expect.

[Pol Pot]

Unlike a staunch liberal such as myself.

[R C Dean]

Do not feed the troll.

Thank you.

[&]

Seconded. Not that it will do any good.

[mccleary]

And Republican and Democrat *politicians* are the common enemies of conservatives, liberals, libertarians, and independents.

[Scotch Hamilton]

All owned by the corporations that you guys worship and fund the Reason Foundation...the Libertarian Catch-22 again...

[Groovus Maximus]

KOCHTOPUS!

[Clich? Bandit]

DRINK!

[heller]

I think I'll try to communicate with the creature this time.

How do libertarians worship corporations, Scotch?

[heller]

Remember, worshiping something does not mean leaving it alone.

[wayne]

SH, you might have a valid point if the Dems did not do the exact same things, and on top of that they call you a racist if you think college admissions ought to be based on measurable, merit-based parameters.

What the country really needs is a third-party that has not had time to be corrupted by influence and power. The only real solution is to vote against every incumbent, and whenever you have a choice on the ballot to never choose an R or a D.

[MJ]

Liberals are for drug prohibition and are in fact expanding the substances that are considered contraband, don't have much respect for the privacy of citizens, and want to tax you so as to control your personal decisions.

[JW]

I couldn't make it past the 1:25 mark. My smarm tank hit its carrying capacity.

[Episiarch]

What about your sperm tank?

[JW]

That one's brimming too.

[tkwelge]

Yeah, john stewart is a pile of dogshit. Did he have any sort of "point" in that entire monologue. I could have portrayed liberal anti-war protesters as just as ridiculous, but I am for anybody speaking out, regardless of how and why. Then again, I am too lazy to attend any protest.

[?]

Of course, conservatives (who want to throw you in jail for drugs, spy on you, tax you for "defense", etc.) are the common enemy of liberals and libertarians.

Except no.

Conservative-branded expansions of state power give liberals something to dishonestly campaign against, support with votes and appropriations while in office, and keep in place forever (to dishonestly campaign against, forever) ? like the drug war (which is Progressive, not conservative, but hey), spying on you, taxing you for "defense," etc.

Libertarians are suckers for that, not in common cause with it.

[Zeb]

Remember that conservatism depends on context much more than progressivism or libertarianism. At this point I would say that the drugwar has been around long enough that support for it is often a conservative impulse, even though it began as a progressive project.

[Warty]

I kept waiting for it to be funny.

[Xeones]

I kept waiting for it to be funny.

Yikes, dude. You'd almost have been better off waiting for Scotch to pull his head out of his ass, or for Tony to learn how to read.

[The Gobbler]

Tony can read. He just has trouble with the meaning of words.

[wylie]

Reading comprehension is an integral part of Literacy.

[capitol l]

Could we please make a distinction between liberal/conservative philosophy, and the politicians espousing said philosophies.

My politics, as a libertarian, draw on both schools of thought, but would I ever vote for a pol running on either platform; no. The pols talk a good game but when they get the keys to daddy's mustang they inevitably drive it into a wall.

The social/economic freedoms promised by liberals and conservatives, respectively, have not been forthcoming. Call me marginalized, or what have you, but it's not enough for me to help these blood-suckers ruin this country any more than they have already.

And for all of you hoping for gridlock, there seems to be two areas where dems and reps agree heartily; expanding the national security apparatus and the chipping away of constitutional rights via the drug war and expanded police powers.

[Warty]

So this is the real Scotch again, right? The fake one was more fun.

[Episiarch]

How will you know?

[JW]

Oh, you'll tell us....you'll tell us.

[John]

Imagine if during the Bush administraton, The Daily Show had devoted 90% of its time to bashing the out of power political party and a cable network affiliated with them.

[Tony]

It really just bashes stupidity regardless of party. If the GOP happens to have that market cornered, well what do you want, affirmative action for Dem criticism?

[Enough About Palin]

"It really just bashes stupidity regardless of party"

So they lampoon you on a regular basis?

[R C Dean]

It really just bashes stupidity regardless of party.

For outright stupidity, I think it would be hard to beat the Dems accidentally kicking themselves out of the federal employee health plan.

Really, other than that unfortunate incident with the pretzel, did Bush ever do anything that stupid?

[heller]

Right, Jon Stewart is blind to party politics. He isn't biased against either. Right.

[Zeb]

Conservatives try to return to a past than never existed. Liberals try to create a future which is impossible.

[Tristan Band]

QFMFT

[KingTaco]

Then Libertarians truly have the best of both worlds. They pine for a ideological purity that has never been, and look to the future by sitting on the sidelines.

[R C Dean]

Ouch. That's gonna leave a mark.

[tkwelge]

Obama uses the whole, "returning america to how great it used to be" talk, also. He wants to go back to the days of massive unionization and economic controls, though.

[sunny black]

...more offended by Jon Liebowitz telling me what the Tea Party movement is all about... Fuck you, Liebowitz.