Politics

24-Hour Party People

Scenes from a tax day tea party protest

|

Yesterday I waded into a mass of tea party protesters gathered at the front of Colorado's Capitol and completely forgot to brace myself for a "small-scale mimicry of Kristallnacht" (as New York Times columnist Frank Rich once characterized these events).

As it turns out, earlier I happened to peruse a new CBS/New York Times poll detailing the attitudes of tea party activists, who, it turns out, are more educated than the average American, more reflective of mainstream anxieties than any populist movement in memory, and more closely aligned philosophically with the wider electorate than any big-city newsroom in America.

What seemed to be the biggest news derived from the poll nationally? A plurality of tea party activists do not deem Sarah Palin qualified for the presidency—proving, I suppose, that some people have the ability to be exceptionally fond of a political celebrity without elevating her to sainthood.

More significantly, the polling showed that most tea party activists believe the taxes they pay are "fair." The largest number of them want their movement to work to reduce the size of government rather than focus on cutting budget deficits or lowering taxes. Whether you concur or not with this viewpoint, it exhibits more economic sophistication than we often hear from pandering senatorial candidates.

It was news that tea party activists—unlike our president or most senators—send their children to public schools. (With a public monopoly in place, where else are they expected to send their children?) The majority of them also deem Social Security and Medicare worthy taxpayer burdens, putting a crimp in the left-wing mythology that the anarchist mob is about to explode.

And though tea party supporters are more conservative than the average voter on social issues, as well—particularly abortion, according to a separate Gallup Poll—The New York Times reports that 8 in 10 tea party activists believe the movement should focus on economic issues rather than cultural ones.

How long have we been hearing from moderate, sensible, worldly Republican types that if only—if only—the right found God on economic issues and lost God on the social ones, there would be an expansion of appeal and support? Apparently, they were right.

Now, I won't allege to have observed any sweeping displays of multiculturalism at the tea party shindig I attended (though without question, it featured more diversity than my own cloistered rock-ribbed lefty neighborhood). According to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, tea party "supporters skew right politically; but demographically, they are generally representative of the public at large."

More specifically, the economic strata in which the tea party movement resides will bear the brunt of Washington's economic reorganization, namely the middle class. The majority of Americans are middle-class, and their concerns (the economy, job creation, etc.) more closely mirror the tea party than Washington's progressive agenda (the environment, entitlements, etc.).

Naturally, the hyperventilating and demonization of these crackpots who carry around copies of the Constitution and babble about the 10th Amendment will continue unabated. It is, perhaps, as much a matter of a cultural divergence as it is an ideological disagreement. Yet, once again, the evidence demonstrates that by the very definition of the word, the tea party is less "radical" than are the elected officials busy transforming the nation.

Or, as one sign succinctly put it: "There are no crazies here. They are all in Washington, D.C."

Now, I wouldn't go so far as to say there were "no crazies" there, but I can tell you every word on the sign was spelled correctly.

David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Denver Post and the author of Nanny State. Visit his Web site at www.DavidHarsanyi.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 THE DENVER POST
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

NEXT: Consensus Liberalism Was the Root Cause of Daryl Gates

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.

  1. “Naturally, the hyperventilating and demonization of these crackpots who carry around copies of the Constitution and babble about the 10th Amendment will continue unabated”

    What’s wrong with wanting a limited consitutional government again?

    1. Oh and first, FINALLY !

    2. Kroneborge, he was poking at the Tea Partiers’ critics.

    3. Your “first” is a clear indication that your literary internet sarcasm detector is either of an inferior brand our your shit ain’t workin.

      It’s okay though, mine doesn’t work either.

  2. EPA HQ Contaminated With Toxic Lead:

    Agency HQ recorded lead levels 92,500% above federal limit, let mentally disabled janitors work in most heavily contaminated area.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/#ixzz0lIAZG199

    1. The DC and Falls Church governmental water authority also let kids and everyone else drink water with a high lead level until 2004. They even threatened to fire the scientist working for them when she started to tell the EPA. I am not providing a link because you can google the news stories from 2004 unless you have been drinking tap water.

  3. ” Frank Rich once characterized the tea party protests as a “small-scale mimicry of Kristallnacht.””

    Jesus Christ that is some hyperbole!

    What gets me about liberals who think the sky is falling re the Tea Party is this: liberals like to say that health care reform is radical, profound change. Well of course such change would provoke resistance. You don’t need to posit racism or hate or anything. If it’s a big change then it’s going rile people up; if it didn’t it would not be a big deal.

    1. I’ll make it easy for those keeping score –

      Everybody protesting the War in Iraq was a left wing commie pinko islamofascist sympathizer.

      All the tea party protesters are right wing racist homophobic anarchists.

      1. Fuck! I’m feeling so bipolar right now.

      2. Can you imagine the angst? I’m a leftwing/rightwing racist/commie islamofascist/homophobic anarchist/sympathizer! 500 mg of Thorazine, please…

        1. Thorazine sucks. Try Valium instead.

          1. I was going for therapy rather than recreation, but whatever. 15 mg Diazepam/7.5 mg MSO4 IV, STAT!

          2. Oh, and a large pitcher of iced tea, and a 2-3 hour long reel of Bus Bunny cartoons.

          3. *muttering* fuck….. Bus=Bugs

            1. I like this prescription. Just add some hydrocodone and we’re there. Maybe add some Three Stooges, too.

              1. After all the money I got from Big Pharma, I can’t be letting you use any of the generic stuff anymore.

      3. I like bringing up the war protests when people start going on about the nasty racist teabaggers. My response to liberal friends who say such things is to say that while I certainly disagreed with most of the politics of most of the war protestors, I still agreed with the general thrust of the protests and think that they were good things. And I feel the same way about the Tea parties. There are racist crazies there, but you can’t let them shut down the debate for the majority who have legitimate complaints.

        1. But that would send their world where there are only 2 possible political opinions where one side is always right and the other always wrong crumbling down. Why create such a fuss?

      4. My God I did some of both. But I am a sex addict who was just looking to get laid both times

        1. Yeah sorry about your addiction.

    2. I agree that an anti-reform movement was inevitable. My question is why the tea parties are so sparsely attended.

      In terms of numbers, protests against Bush’s wars outmatched tea parties by tenfold. And they didn’t have a media machine working on their behalf.

      1. This doesn’t look sparsely attended to me. And maybe it’s because a lot of us have actual jobs and can’t just massage our genitals in our mom’s basement all day like you do, troll.

        1. Neither does this.

          Actually, it looks a whole fucking lot bigger. Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that they were protesting something that was real?

          Anyway, I’m not a troll for not fellating FOX News and tea parties, I’m just a person who disagrees with you and has facts on his side.

          1. Facts….

            *snicker*

          2. No Tony you are a silly whore. And apparently a fugly one since you spend all day on here posting your flatulent inanities.

            Take out the dentures. See if that helps biz. Or try bathing

            1. Anyway, I’m not a troll for not fellating FOX News and tea parties, I’m a troll for fellating MediaMatters.

              1. The world would be a lot better if there were no facts, wouldn’t it? Wonder who’d win a fact tally, FOX or MediaMatters.

                1. Neither, because both are slanted to an extreme political ideology.

                  1. FIFY you are not in the center between two extremes, you are on one of the extremes, I hate to break it to you.

                    Making false equivalences might not be as taxing as real thinking but it is still fallacious.

                    1. I don’t think any libertarians are under the impression we’re in the center. Rather we’re towards the “pro-liberty” end. The Red and Blue teams are towards the “pro-state” end. They may have different pet projects, but both rely upon the state.

                    2. Tony, I’m not a far-rightist, but then you would think pretty much anyone right of center IS a far-rightist, so it’s a moot argument.

                      However, you have no room to talk, as you are not in the center either.

                      What I have that you don’t, however, is a virtual level of loathing for both Republicans AND Democrats. In a perfect world, 99% of both parties’ elected-level population would be tossed in that neat new Icelandic volcano.

                      Top that, Sparky.

                2. Come on Tony. If you are going to troll, make your comments somewhat plausible.

                  You just bleat off the top of your head, and it doesn’t make your comments interesting.

                  Can’t you be good at something, even if it’s trolling?

                3. Fox, hands down. No need to even waste time thinkin’ about it.

          3. What facts buddy? Thats one out of a 1,000’s of them. I have seen aerial photos of masses of people, I have seen counts in the 100’s of thousands. The wool your trying to pull over people’s eyes are really weak my friend. I am not a huge fan of the tea parties since most of them seem to be pro war but to sit there and tell me everyone of them is like this one example you pointed out is ludicrous.

      2. Where I live, I’ve never seen an anti-war protest. The biggest protests I’ve seen were the pro-immigration rallies, when a lot of kids skipped schools to march down the streets with Mexican flags. The second biggest were the Ron Paul campaign rallies, which were almost totally unreported.

        The third biggest were the tea party rallies, which do seem to get a disproportionate share of media coverage. When Ron Paul supporters dressed in colonial garb, they were called kooks. When tea partiers do it, they’re called media savvy.

      3. Hehe, yep. That’s what I keep telling folks. The left has nothing to worry about these teabaggers and their wacko ideas about Constitutional government. I wouldn’t devote anymore time infiltrating, provacateuring, and smearing. The GOP is the real enemy of statism!

    3. Wow, MNG… you, turning down a chance to rip into the right-of-center. Who’da thunk it.

    4. I am an unbelievable douche. The hugest one in history, pretty much.

      Someone just needs to punch me. I deserve it.

    5. Well, at least we know he doesn’t actually believe it — if we learned anything from the Danish Mohammad pictures situation, it’s that your typical newspaper won’t actually risk antagonizing real violent extremists.

  4. Meanwhile, real political violence brought to you by non-tea-partiers:

    Brutal attack on Republican fundraiser and her boyfriend appears politically motivated

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/04…..z0lID8pePJ

    1. No way. We progressives are pacifists.

    2. Serves them right.

      1. Fuck you, if you really believe it’s okay just because of political affiliation.

        1. Steff,

          Don’t feed the troll.

          1. You guys is gullible…

            1. Fuck you and your dead mother too.

          2. Sorry. I hadn’t had nearly enough coffee yet.

      2. Hey, Butters. I’d like a word with whoever got you wet and fed you after midnight.

        1. I am so gay lol

          1. If only it were true. [tear]

      3. Scotch Hamilton’s got it right!

        1. Shoulda killed ’em instead.

      4. Don’t you have someone to suck off or felch? Maybe you could at least chew off those Waxman nose hairs.

      5. Scott Hamilton is a sorry POS. In a just world, he would have his sorry ass kicked.

    3. I think that it was politically motivated may turn out to be a stretch.

      From what i have read there is no direct evidence that it was.

      I have seen and heard about way to many instance of random fights at night near bars that seem to happen for no reason other then a person wanted to attack another person to simply jump to the conclusion beyond that until other evidence is shown.

      1. Are you denying that 90% of rapists and muggers vote Democratic?

  5. No way. We progressives are all pacifists.

    1. We will bury you!

      1. I was for violence, before I was against it.

        1. +1

    2. Now or when your political forbears got the US into World War one causing the chain reaction that led to the rise of Hitler or the belief in Eugenics that some people were fit to be killed because they weren’t “racially” or genetically perfect, or letting a bunch of European bankers take over our banking system or the expanding the surveillance state on our shores? Are you that kind of progressive? Do you want to make the world “safe for democracy”?

  6. We progressives are all pacifists.

    Irony? That’s a draftin’.

      1. A reference to a Simpsons episode. Jasper takes over the class, and is slowly smacking his hand with a spanking paddle.

        Jasper: “Talkin’ in class? That’s a paddlin’. Chewing gum? That’s a paddlin’. Paddlin’ the school canoe? Oh, you better believe that’s a paddlin’.

  7. What? No second page for me to click on?

  8. “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

    – Gandhi

  9. I think the idea that the Tea Party represents centrists values is an important observation that hasn’t really sunk yet.

    There were some loud mouths who rallied ’round the banner of torture in the wake of the Abu Ghraib photos, but they didn’t represent the American center. There are loud mouths who are rallying around the banner of nationalized healthcare, but I don’t think they represent the American center either.

    “More significantly, the polling showed that most tea party activists believe the taxes they pay are “fair.” The largest number of them want their movement to work to reduce the size of government rather than focus on cutting budget deficits or lowering taxes.”

    I wish they were more radical on those points myself, but it is what it is.

    Both parties have failed the American center for too long, taken ’em for granted and abused their good will, and you can’t do that to the center for too long without something like this happening.

    In my comparative politics class way back when, we used to talk about “center fleeing” and “center seeking” electorates. This coming election would seem to mark the inflection point in that cycle–and the President better figure it out where the center is quick if he wants to be reelected.

    1. “I think the idea that the Tea Party represents centrists values”

      You probably don’t know any Tea Party supporters, or at least the ones in Ohio.

      The Tea Party in Ohio has fervently denounced former senator (now running for Ohio’s AG) Mike Dewine as being too centrist, too much of a RINO, blah blah blah. Mainly, they are upset that he compromised on illegal immigration and is against assault rifles.

      1. Stopping illegal immigration and not having dumb ass gun laws are about as “centrist” as it gets. Both of those issues are supported by large majorities of Americans.

        1. Right. It’s the centrists that are calling for the heads of RINO’s.

          Thanks for the update.

          1. No it is centrist to object to illegal immigration and gun control. If Dewine disagreed with that, he was anything but a centrist.

            1. I would argue that removing bans on assault rifles is not centrist at all. Most folks I know are not NRA members and probably don’t have strong feelings one way or the other about assault rifles.

              I am 100% in agreement with you about the illegal immigration issue. however, I have come across many folks who are not radical lefties who really don’t mind if people come here illegally and work. In fact, I know a very staunch Republican who owns a roofing business in Ohio that actually employs illegal immigrants.

              I think this article gives great insight into the Tea party, but it sounds as though it was based on Harsanyi’s experience at one event. All I’m saying is that my experience from interaction with Tea Party supporters is different.

              1. I’m from Ohio. There is a HUGE difference in opinion between business owners and work-a-day laborers regarding illegal immigration. Overall, on the right, illegal immigration is viewed as bad by everyone who doesn’t employ them.

                In the US as a whole, illegal immigration doesn’t fall neatly into the category of a left/right issue. People from both sides of the aisle can be strongly for it or strongly against it (albeit for probably very different reasons).

                1. “People from both sides of the aisle can be strongly for it or strongly against it”

                  Nope. I can confidently say I’ve never met a Democrat or read anything by a Democrat/leftie that is in favor of cracking down on illegal immigration. I do think that some Dems may look down on illegals, but just like they view other minorities, they don’t really publicize this unless they’re joking about it.

                  Contrary to your belief, I think it’s safe to say that tough crackdown on illegal immigration is most definitely a right-wing idea. The Tea Party folks here are against amnesty, and that’s one of their gripes about Dewine.

                  personally, I agree with tough crackdown on illegal immigration. I have zero respect for the Tea party folks. They tried (rather unsuccessfully) to unseat Ron Paul. One would assume he embodies all of their ‘platforms,’ with the exception of invading countries that never attacked us.

                  1. “Nope. I can confidently say I’ve never met a Democrat or read anything by a Democrat/leftie that is in favor of cracking down on illegal immigration.”

                    That probably says more about your social group than it does about politics. Are any of your friends the sort of Democrats who would have to worry about losing their jobs to an illegal immigrant?

                    1. No, don’t think so

                  2. Contrary to your belief, I think it’s safe to say that tough crackdown on illegal immigration is most definitely a right-wing idea.

                    You’re either an idiot or an ideologue.

                    It is well documented that illegal immigrant labor killed the middle class black custodians in LA in the 90s. Black people makeing $15-$20 / hr were replaced with illegals making $8/hr.

                    And it’s not only in LA. Who, exactly do you think is competing against II labor other than the poor, low skilled and marginalized workers, aka the democrat base.

                    Personally I hope Obama pushes Immigration reform next. It’s exactly the issue that can tear the demonrat party apart.

                    1. You’re either an idiot or an ideologue.

                      I hardly think that pointing out that illegal immigration is predominantly a right-wing issue makes me an ideologue. If you actually read my post, you’d notice that I agree with a tough stance on illegal immigration – do you think I’d support Ron Paul if I wanted open borders?

                      Your attempt to paint anti-illegal immigration as a ‘centrist’ position is woefully lacking.

                      Black people makeing $15-$20 / hr were replaced with illegals making $8/hr.
                      Yes, no shit. But the blacks didn’t blame the illegals – they went after the whites who were hiring them.

                    2. “Black people makeing $15-$20 / hr were replaced with illegals making $8/hr.”

                      When a group is paid more than a job is worth…they will be replaced.

                  3. I am a liberal and a Democrat. I loathe illegal immigration and feel that we should boot them out immediately, and force them to the very BACK of the line. We should also immediately amend the Constitution so that people are not considered American citizens automatically if they are born here.

                    Legal immigration good. Illegal immigration bad.

                    It is really simple, eh?

                    1. Well, I am in agreement with you. There are exceptions to every rule, but an example is not proof.

              2. I doubt that you have any idea of what an assault rifle is. What the left wingers call an assault rifle is NOT a real “assualt” rifle. They think any semi automatic rifle with a magazine is an assault rifle.

                1. I doubt that you have any idea of what an assault rifle is.

                  I know exactly what an assault rifle is, and why my sig sauer is not one. Please don’t pretend you’re smarter than everyone else you sanctimonious dipshit.

                  1. Jacob: “I would argue that removing bans on assault rifles is not centrist at all.”

                    No one removed any bans at all. They were let die a natural death, as was specified in the original legislation – known as the “sunset provision”. This is one (of the few) areas in which I can say that the Republicans actually expanded our freedom.

                    Now if you are a centrist rifle-owning sort of person, I would have expected you to know that – that you didn’t suggests either ignorance (which is certainly aided by the misinformation put forth by various “news” organizations, and as such is forgiveable and correctable), or it suggests mendacity.

          2. RINOs arent centrists. They are radicals in their own idiotic way.

            1. I think the beef Republicans have with RINO’s is that they are not far enough to the right on the political spectrum. If you want to label a Republican with moderate views “radical,” that would be a rather different take on what is center and what is “right.”

            2. Agreed. RINOs are populists.

              1. ABSOLUTELY WRONG

                Rinos are elitists.

                They represent DC to “their constituents” instead of representing their constiuents in DC.

            3. “RINOs arent centrists.”

              RINO stands for Republican In Name Only. The only criteria I’ve seen that makes any sense is that they do not support the Republican Party Platform 100 percent. But a huge minority (if not a majority) don’t do that. Otherwise, it’s a completely ridiculous term since the Republican Party is merely a vehicle for *relatively* like-minded people to express themselves politically. There is no requirement to vote (if you are an elected official) or even agree with the majority of the party all the time. (This applies equally to those Democrats that take the same position vis a vis the Democratic Party.)

              1. This is exactly the problem…RINOS vote with the party even when their constituents yell and scream telling them not to…pretty damn simple why people are pissed off and fed up.

            4. This.

              A lot of you seem confused about how RINO gets deployed… It’s basically a whore. Like Arlen Specter. He was a RINO because he’d hike up his skirt for any legislation that sailed into port if it got him on TV.

              When someone gets called a RINO, it usually isn’t because their stance is particularly liberal (look at the huge support for Brown): it’s because their liberal-ish stance is craven and pandering.

              1. A couple of other things make for a RINO, I think.

                (1) It’s not just being liberal; it’s being unnecessarily liberal. Scott Brown is no arch-conservative, but he does what he has to do because he’s from Massachusetts. But Specter? His state elected Rick Santorum.

                (2) Liberalism on ALL issues. Scott Brown is anti-Obamacare. He’s got some more liberal positions, but he’s a conservative on at least one important issue. Specter? Not so much.

                (3) It’s not just voting on issues; it’s being a dick to your party, calling it out, happy to join in and call it unreasonable or extremist. It’s a very David Brooksian approach.

      2. I’m against DeWine for his gun-control views. My immigration views are somewhat more complex, but are libertarian leaning — I’m for open borders, but not until entitlements are brought under control.

        1. “I’m for open borders”

          See, this is what I’d consider a centrist position. My point is that the Tea Party is labelling folks with that ideology “RINOs.”

          1. Many of them have never concepted of a libertarian before. XD It’s kind of a shame, if you ask me.

            1. They are usually amenable to our views. I even convinced a 70 some year old navy vet of the wisdom of a non-interventionist foreign policy in a 10 minute argument. If you want to spread your message, I’d become more active in your local tea party.

              We’re all on the same team at the end of the day.

          2. Er… not so much the Tea Party people, as most Republicans attached to the Tea Party.

            Blah. Jesus. I need more fucking caffeine.

          3. NO. NO. NO. A RINO is a person that runs on conservitive values, but votes with the libs.

            1. IIRC, this is correct. A RINO is basically a liberal in a conservative’s suit. Though, it seems that it’s now come to include many center-right Republicans, too, who never claimed to be hard-right.

              1. No it’s more complicated than that. A “moderate” in Washington is not someone that simply has conservative values on some issues and liberal on another. It’s an opportunist. They will take whichever position is most politically expedient at the moment. They have NO values other than their own political career.

                My problem with them is they are always trying to cultivate a reputation of being the dealmakers in DC. They are the “heroes” that are featured in the newspapers as the one’s that “reach across the aisle”.

                Of course, you all are intelligent enough to know that when things get done in Washington, America loses.

                Bottom line is that they have NO principles. It’s all about personal glory for them.

          4. My point is that the Tea Party is labelling folks with that ideology “RINOs.”

            You are conflating the “Tea Party” as a group with individual members.

            1. Well, this thread started when I argued against someone that was trying to claim the Tea Party is centrist. You’re saying that the Tea Party is centrist in nature?

              1. Well we’ve established that anti-illegal immigration is a majority position of left and the right. (labor union members don’t like it though of course the apparatchiks do)

                So you’re thinking a pro Second Amendment position is the radical right now?

                (by the way, Dr. Paul’s problem with the Tea Parties is entirely the vocal anti-isreal faction in his supporters)

      3. Someone should change the Tea Party label to the “Centrist Party”.

        This might be worth quite a few votes.

    2. Very good post. They are mostly average people who have generally been disinterested in political activism. That is why the media doesn’t know how to deal with them. They have never seen normal people be politically active before.

      1. What the fuck is a normal person John?

        Tea partiers demographics are a dead-on match with the demographics of the Republican party. They are Republicans (or independents too ashamed to call themselves Republicans anymore) mad that they lost an election, period.

        They are older, whiter, wealthier, have more college degrees, and have more rightwing views than America as a whole. How are they “normal” again?

        1. Hint Tony, whatever a normal person is, it is not you.

          1. And for once I completely and unequivocally agree with John.

            1. Gay-bashing! Tony’s gonna come over and redecorate your house for that!

              1. Tony is really dumb for a queer. I cancel his membership

                1. Hey! You don’t have power to revoke memberships!

        2. And the anti-war protests are completely white. And so is the membership in Daily Kos. When are you going to face up to that same? Does it bother you to be part of an all white movement? Is it like being in one of those country clubs that only let white people in?

          1. Since the antiwar movement was global in scope you’re just a big fat liar by saying it was all white. As for Daily Kos, I don’t belong to them, but what you’re getting at is that politically active people in this country tend to be whiter than the country as a whole, which is something that is probably true. They are probably wealthier as well. The difference is that tea partiers are spending their time heaping scorn on all those other nonwhite, nonwealthy people while liberals are working for their increased equality.

            1. The difference is that tea partiers are spending their time heaping scorn on all those other nonwhite, nonwealthy people while liberals are heaping scorn on old, rich, white people who are probably all racist wife-beating child molesters.

            2. “The difference is that tea partiers are spending their time heaping scorn on all those other nonwhite, nonwealthy people while liberals are busy treating them like infants and inferiors who can’t succeed without liberal help.”

              1. Steff I truly feel that you actually believe that.

                But we are so far away from an egalitarian system that they damn well do need liberal help. Liberals appreciate that the odds are stacked against them, and not just because of their station in life, but also because they have been stacked by powerful interests.

                You can’t keep people in a regressive place and then lecture them about bootstraps. The wealthy and powerful have been far, far greater welfare beneficiaries than minorities and the poor.

                So this really really tired rhetoric about how the poor and minorities are the privileged, the white and the rich are the oppressed–it was absurd when it was dreamed up and it’s even more absurd in the 2010 economy.

                1. Telling poor people they can’t make it, then punishing them if they DO make it, seems to be more cruel than anything I can think of.

                  1. Steff believes it because it’s the truth.

                2. “But we are so far away from an egalitarian system that they damn well do need liberal help. Liberals appreciate that the odds are stacked against them, and not just because of their station in life, but also because they have been stacked by powerful interests.”

                  A lot of people come here with jack shit and work their into the middle class within a couple of generations or less.

                  You can’t treat an entire class of people like children and expect it to somehow turn them into equals. There’s a reason that “white man’s burden” carries a negative connotation, and it’s a lesson that the left has not learned, and will not learn until it resolves the inherent contradiction between paternalism and egalitarianism. Paternalism doesn’t bridge the gap to equality, it is the gap.

                  1. Hey it’s not the white man’s burden.

                    It’s the Liberal’s burden.

                  2. I’m not in favor of giving racial minorities special handouts. I’m in favor of more economic equality across the board–doing the best job we can making opportunities to succeed more equally available. The way things have been going is the opposite direction. Wages for everyone but the rich haven’t been stagnant for 30 years because of a rash of laziness.

                    1. And we take the position that handouts need to be cut for everyone, “across the board” as you put it – not just minorities.

                      Why work when you can get a check, an EBT card, and public housing?

                    2. Actually, “why try to achieve” would be better than “why work”, FIFY.

                      If/when Obama and his ilk get their way, the desire to achieve will be widely codified as a selfish, anti-humane goal… and will be taxed to the point where anyone who DOES make it big, will simply find it not worth the effort.

                    3. “I’m not in favor of giving racial minorities special handouts. I’m in favor of more economic equality across the board–doing the best job we can making opportunities to succeed more equally available”
                      A)by taking from them once they succeed
                      B)by taking from they’re boss till he fires them
                      C)by making every ones life suck
                      D)by making all the children to play nicely:)

                3. I believe it, Tony, because I lived in the inner city for eight years, while I was broke and eating rice and hamburger and my husband so I could barely make the bills. I lived every day around people who were absolutely cut off at the knees by the very systems that you promote.

                  I got to see first hand, in intimate detail, what liberal ‘compassion’ has done to the black community.

                  And unlike you, having lived in the heart of one of the highest crime-ridden cities in the nation, I gained an infinite amount of respect for those blacks who managed to succeed despite that ‘compassion’.

                  1. Well, I didn’t eat my husband. He’d be too thin and gamey. Type-fail!

                    But regardless, the rest of the statement, sans cannibalism, does stand. I got to see liberalism at work, real up close and personal.

                    1. Okay how often have liberals been in charge in this country? You didn’t demonstrate any causal relationship between liberal social policies and these people’s plight, you just assumed it.

                    2. And you haven’t proven that liberal policies (affirmative action, welfare, medicaid) have worked. If they were so great, why has the inner city become what it is? If these programs were meant to empower minorities to get out of poverty, why haven’t they?

                    3. And why, oh why, did Walter Williams write such an excellent book as The State Against the Blacks explicitly detailing why those policies have created the current situation.

                      I often wonder why no one seems to wake up and realize that we’ve been pursuing an ever-expanding variety of “liberal” (welfare/statist) policies in America and not once has it made the situation for people better and in fact has done quite the opposite repeatedly… Bizarre that few people get that.

                    4. Dude. DUDE. How many conservatives are there in the city councils and mayor’s offices of big cities? Liberals run all that shit.

            3. “just a big fat liar”

              Yeah, take that. Liar, liar, pants on fire…!

              We liberals are all white, but we honestly hate ourselves, while those f’n Tea Party Nazis dont!

            4. Right. Democrats are for equality of outcome, which is essentially using government force to create an elite class of bureaucrats, which are tasked with making everyone equally miserable. Apply Bastiat’s law of progression to the policies of the Democratic party and you have yourself a very small sanctimonious upper class and a large number of serfs.

              Libertarians are for equality of opportunity, which leads to a net increase in freedom and enforcement of crucial negative liberties. Applying the law of progression to this would see a society wherein everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, and unrestrained by government force except when you violate the freedom of another.

              If you wonder why you are ridiculed on these boards, its because your pinko brainwashing prevents you from understanding even basic libertarian concepts. If you can argue them with some understanding, fine, but to say the democratic party is for “equality for all” without any modification, is asking for trouble on a board as well educated as this one.

              1. I understand your minimalist, utopian first principles perfectly. How can you not? They’re so simplistic.

                Liberal Democrats do not believe in equality of outcome. They believe in equality of opportunity–knowing full well that it will never be perfectly achieved, but also knowing that things like “equality in the eyes of the law” don’t come about by magic. Society itself, without talking about government, can create impediments to equality of opportunity. The unrestrained market, it should go without saying, leads to inevitable abuses that also decrease equality of opportunity.

                The state of nature is not one of equal opportunity. It’s cruel darwinian unfairness. I don’t see how moving society toward that state makes people more equal.

                1. Let’s see if this helps you understand. How do massive wealth redistribution programs guarantee equality of opportunity? Or are they instead creating equality of outcome?

                2. Also, if government is this mythical white knight protecting people from inequities brought about society, how do you explain segregation and slavery, both enforced by government policy?

                  1. And both were ended by government policy, including the huge government program known as the Civil War. Besides, you have to blame capitalism at least as much for slavery, and social convention for segregation. These institutions were not forced on the unwilling.

                    Government can do good and bad things. I think we should focus on making sure it does good things instead of pining for a fantasy world in which it doesn’t exist.

                    1. Ahh… See, you failed a little bit there Tony – government *did* bad things, and then it sort of half-way undid them. It didn’t do anything “good”, it just stopped doing what was bad.

            5. The difference is that tea partiers are spending their time heaping scorn on all those other nonwhite, nonwealthy people while liberals are working for their increased equality.

              Patently false. I would ask for a citation but I know that’s pointless.

              Interesting you calling someone else a ‘big fat liar’ when you spew utter bullshit like this.

          2. So is MSNBC.

            When we encircled the Capitol on March 20th, I was between a Vietnamese family and a Hispanic mom and her daughters.

            I think over 5% (but less than 10%) of the people there were non-white, pretty evenly distributed between Asians, Latinos and African Americans.

        3. “How are they “normal” again?”

          They’re not plugged into any political machine.

          If you’re someone who thinks Fox News isn’t necessarily balanced and someone who doesn’t think Barak Obama is the solution to your problems?

          Then I think that makes you pretty much “normal”.

        4. They are older, whiter, wealthier, have more college degrees,

          I guess democrats are not normal either…

          1. I guess democrats are not normal either…

            But we already knew that. 🙂

        5. They are older, whiter, wealthier, have more college degrees

          I guess this is an improvement on the “they’re all poor ignorant hicks” meme.

          Damn those Rightists! Always either too ignorant or too educated, too poor or too rich. Why can’t they be just right.

          1. Anyone who drives or flies to DC to go to a rally is either young, poorer, and underemployed or in school or self-employed, a business owner, or able to afford a bus ticket and a motel. By definition slightly wealthier than someone raising kids barely able to pay the rent.

        6. If you’re right that Republicans have more college degrees than most of America (I say “if” only because I haven’t heard any such thing; I realize you of all people have little incentive to suggest that Republicans are well-educated), that’s pretty depressing since then I’d have to start viewing colleges as breeding grounds for both of the biggest problems in the country.

          1. Well, it’s true, but only because Republicans are a much more homogeneous group than Democrats or, it goes without saying, the country as a whole. They are better educated and wealthier on average. But those things do tend to go together.

            1. So, you admit Democrats are less intelligent, and thus poorer?

              Finally!

              1. On average they have fewer college degrees and less wealth. But since the Dems include all minorities, that’s to be expected in a country where minorities tend to be lower on both these metrics.

                1. Yep! No minorities in any other party than the Democrats! And all Democrats have to scrounge for couch change when they want to restock on ramen noodles!

                  1. I’m poor as fuck.

                    1. My old man didn’t have THAT much money!

                    2. Do you know how much booze I had to run, and how many kneecaps I had to break with my bare hands and a crowbar, to keep my kids in long pants and hotcakes every morning?

                    3. For the love of God, will someone kill me.

                  2. There are so many ways you could have spent the time you took to type that stupid, empty strawman bullshit.

                    1. That was to FIFY

                    2. I don’t type bullshit, Tony. If I did, I’d be a Democrat.

                      Or a Republican.

                  3. We po’ as fuck up in here!

                    Unless we’re in public office…

                  4. +1 per post, FIFY!

                    1. Thanks, but apparently that fifteen seconds I spent on my allegedly bullshit-laden post was too much for Mister Efficiency Expert.

                2. Tony Democrats are more likely to have advanced degrees. All the Democrats I know in NW DC, especially those active in campaigns, have law degrees, are lobbyists, or have inherited millions of dollars.

                  1. IMO, there should be a twenty-year moratorium on lawyers being elected to public office.

                    In an ideal world, that is…

                3. On average they have fewer college degrees and less wealth. But since the Dems include all minorities, that’s to be expected

                  RACIST

                4. I was poor before I was rich…

              2. So, you admit Democrats are less intelligent, and thus poorer?

                You misunderstand. Of course Democrats as a whole are less intelligent and poorer. These are the oppressed and downtrodden (and they are expected to stay there). It’s the Democratic annointed that are highly intelligent and educated and know more than everyone else put together. These are the people who are born to tell the rest of us unfortunate plebes what we should think and do.

          2. Great post, CJ.

        7. “What the fuck is a normal person John?”

          A normal person is someone who is not offended when they are referred to as normal.

          1. Bingo.

        8. Apparently, being white, “wealthy”, or having a college degree, is not normal. Thanks for clearing that up, Tony.

          1. Tony is and has always been a shit stain, incapable of doing anything more than regurgitating Newsweek.

            1. Not Newsweek… more like this:

              http://www.socialistappeal.org/

              1. Freedom is slavery!

        9. Turning you nose up at college education? That sounds very illiberal to me…

    3. To further my argument that the Tea Party in Ohio is not centrist, I would submit that the keynote speaker at the Dayton Tea Party’s Freedom Rally last week was the famed “centrist” Alan Keyes.

      http://www.daytondailynews.com…..ayton.html

  10. We represent the center that’s why there are millions of us showing up at these rallies. Millions!

    1. I think the people who show up to rallies are just the tip of the iceberg.

      You’re looking at a movement that doesn’t really have any guiding force from within any government institutions. Just speaking for myself, I haven’t been to any rallies.

      Regardless, I don’t think ignoring the swing vote will win anybody an election this November.

      1. No, you’re right. I grew up amongst conservatives, and the vast majority of them are highly supportive of the tea parties, but do not participate.

    2. Regardless, I don’t think ignoring the swing vote will win anybody an election this November.

      But go ahead, keep calling them names like “tea bagger”.

      If ignoring the swing vote doesn’t make it go away, do you think calling them gay slurs will change their minds?

      If that’s all the left has to offer the center? They’re in more trouble than I thought.

      1. Ahem…heterosexuals can tea bag…it only takes one scrotum to tango

        1. Are you suggesting that because the slur in question could just be directed at the women at these rallies, that calling them this name is actually beneficial to the left’s cause?

          Surely you get the point of what I was saying.

        2. It’s not so much that they can as why would they want to?

  11. Who are you going to believe, me or your lyin’ eyes?

    1. I thought that term was ‘lionize’, not lyin’ eyes.

  12. Why is this character still writing for Reason? He is the proof Reason hates libertarians.

  13. One of the signs I saw in a photo from the protest in Denver says it all, for me: “I don’t belong to the party of No. I belong to the party of Hell, No.” heh.

  14. No there people are not crazy – they just want Sarah Palin to be President! Hahahahahaha

    Can we get Paris Hilton to be Veep? Oh wait – she is smarter than sarah and would make her look bad.

    Nothing like dumb old people who just woke up the the America they think was theirs is something that even Ted Turner could not bring back. Game over, time to retire.

    1. Nice reading comprehension you got there. They don’t want Palin to be president. That was pretty clear in the article.

      1. Liberal trolls add so much to the conversation.

      2. Hey, no going against the conventional wisdom just because it is wrong.

      3. The article stated a plurality didn’t think she was qualified. It did not say the majority. That’s some nice reading comprehension you’ve got there.

        1. The article stated a plurality didn’t think she was qualified. It did not say the majority. That’s some nice reading comprehension you’ve got there.

          I don’t see where he claimed it was a majority.

          1. The quote I was responding to was “They don’t want Palin to be president.” The plurality said she wasn’t qualified – we can take that to mean the majority either did want her to be president or were undecided, as BakedPenguin tried.

            You can’t use the claim that they article stated the Tea Party doesn’t want Palin to be president.

        2. 47% she’d not make an effective president
          40% she would make an effective president
          13% don’t know/won’t answer

          Interestingly, of people named she is the second most admired political figure after Newt Gingrich. (Most people said other)

          1. I’d like to see you shoot a tard out of your ass.

    2. That is some really deep and thoughtful cometary there. I am constantly amazed at how deep and thoughtful liberals are.

      1. Thanks, John. Are you a “head” man or a “tail” guy?

    3. Poor little bitch. Did you know there was a poll of tea partiers about whether they thought Palin should be president?

      I don’t know what is more embarrassing, your post or that stuff running down your face. I don’t think it’s hair gel.

      1. I think Atilla was trying to spell Attila. As in the Hun. That shoulda been the first hint.

    4. Is “Atilla” one of Tony’s troll names?

    5. Well considering the current (‘spread the walth around’) president and the previous (‘i’ve abandoned free enterprise principle to save the free enterprise system’) one the bar has been lowered enough to make Palin seem to be a pretty stellar choice.

  15. I am kind of disappointed that the tea party crowd are more worried about spending then they are about taxes.

    Taxes are a far more affront to personal liberty then any amount of over spending.

    Still i think worry about over spending VS taxes does support the centrist meme. Hell even here on this libertarian blog you sheeple* think spending is a bigger issue.

    *Sheeple is a registered trade mark of the progressive moment and has been used here against their wishes.

    1. I am kind of disappointed that the tea party crowd are more worried about spending then they are about taxes.

      Taxes are a far more affront to personal liberty then any amount of over spending.

      No, worrying about overspending shows great sophistication on economics on their part.

      Spending is much more inefficient. Spending directs money towards things that the market would not spend it on.

      Spending is a greater affront to personal liberty. So is regulation, which doesn’t show up on budgets as needing to be paid for. Taxes are more honest.

      Tax cuts without spending cuts is just agreeing to be taxed later.

      1. So wait being a libertarian is about being most efficient?

        Regulation can easily be more of an affront to liberty then taxes. I never made that argument that it couldn’t.

        But spending and printing money or not printing money have only indirect influence over an individuals liberty. Plus its effects are easy to avoid. The taxman with an army of police, agents and prison guards backing him up is not so easily avoided.

        1. Nikita Khrushchev|4.16.10 @ 5:01PM|#

          crap….this is me joshua corning =P

        2. But spending and printing money or not printing money have only indirect influence over an individuals liberty. Plus its effects are easy to avoid. The taxman with an army of police, agents and prison guards backing him up is not so easily avoided.

          Spending directly requires taxes, sooner or later. Cutting taxes without cutting spending is simply passing the tax burden on to future selves. That’s not “easy to avoid.” It’s not less of an affront to liberty to pass the buck to someone else.

          That army of policy, agents, and prison guards are paid for by spending.

          The effects of spending are not easy to avoid. The effects of spending include affecting the price of corn, what corn is used for, the price of sugar, what jobs are available, where roads are built, etc.

          1. Spending directly requires taxes, sooner or later.

            That is incorrect since FDR at least we have been paying of debt through inflation. Your contention is dependent on our community right as citizens to a sound central bank. this is not an individual right. I agree it is good policy to avoid monetary inflation but it has very little to do with individual liberty.
            An individual by making the right choices can avoid inflation.

            The effects of spending are not easy to avoid. The effects of spending include affecting the price of corn, what corn is used for, the price of sugar, what jobs are available, where roads are built, etc.

            These are community rights. If say you are corn farmer and i move next door and start growing corn. This lowers the price in the market for your corn. Did my action violate your individual liberty? Why are the actions of our government in regards to monetary policy which in turn effect the value of dollars in the market have a different effect to your individual liberty?

            1. That is incorrect since FDR at least we have been paying of debt through inflation.

              Seigniorage and inflation are only a tiny part of how we pay for the debt. We primarily pay for it through taxes.

              These are community rights. If say you are corn farmer and i move next door and start growing corn. This lowers the price in the market for your corn. Did my action violate your individual liberty?

              No, but spending on coercive government actions to affect the corn market does.

              1. No, but spending on coercive government actions to affect the corn market does.

                Why? Why are the actions of the government in buying corn or not buying corn or growing corn or not growing corn different then an individual doing the same thing?

                coercive in what way? you mean by taxing? then yes i agree taxing corn would be an affront to ones liberty.

                Buying corn or selling corn or paying people to grow more corn does have an effect on the market. But is a perfect free market untouched by dirty government hands an individual right?

                If anything i think such a right would be considered a community right not an individual right.

                1. First, when the government acts in the marketplace, you have a marketplace actor who is the only one allowed to use the force of law (regulation, etc) to further his ends. Second, in order for the Federal government to do anything, the Constitution must authorize it, since the people delegated power to it rather than the Federal government possessing inherent power or authority. Third, rights only inhere in individuals, not in groups or communities or other fictional entities. Fourth and finally, government action is the same as individual action except they get to use force, because there isn’t in fact any “government” only a bunch of folks who get to use the power of the government.

            2. An individual by making the right choices can avoid inflation.

              How exactly do you do that slick?

              By your own personal gold standard? Or all are your transactions done with sacks of rice as a medium of exchange?

              An individual by making the right choices can avoid inflation.

              This has got to be the stupidest comment I’ve ever seen in the intertubes

        3. But spending and printing money or not printing money have only indirect influence over an individuals liberty.

          Military spending has only indirect influence on liberty? Spending on the Drug War has only indirect influence on liberty?

          1. Military spending has only indirect influence on liberty? Spending on the Drug War has only indirect influence on liberty?

            The Military has an influence and drug war has an influence. The act of spending and what they spend it on are two different things. Again i agree regulation can and often is more of an affront to individual liberty then taxes. That is not my argument so please stop tying to say that it is.

            1. The act of spending and what they spend it on are two different things.

              I understand your argument now, but it’s just bizarre and I can’t accept it.

              Correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re somehow attempting to distinguish between the sum total of how much we spend and what we spend it on. I agree that nearly all “what we spend it on” are injurious to individual liberty, so there’s no sense in separating the two. No matter what we spend it on, it will be injurious to liberty.

              Furthermore, you’re pretending that if the government decides to spend $Y instead of $X, that the different is mostly reflecting in inflation and seigniorage rather than in future taxes. Again, this is contrary to all experience. In fact, the correlation between deficits and interest rates has been fairly desultory, and in any case it is not primarily how we pay for spending.

              1. No matter what we spend it on, it will be injurious to liberty.

                throwing a murderer in jail is injurious to your liberty? defending against foreign invaders is injurious to your liberty? recording a deed to property you own and archiving it is injurious to your liberty?

                Again, this is contrary to all experience. In fact, the correlation between deficits and interest rates has been fairly desultory, and in any case it is not primarily how we pay for spending.

                In my life time (born 1971) i can think of only a few months at the end of the Clinton administration when the federal government had a balanced budget. Also our debt has grown astronomically in that time yet also from 1971 to today interest rates have dropped at a steady pace and remain low today despite historical debt and historical deficits. From what I can see we are not paying off deficit spending in the least.

                1. In my life time (born 1971) i can think of only a few months at the end of the Clinton administration when the federal government had a balanced budget. Also our debt has grown astronomically in that time yet also from 1971 to today interest rates have dropped at a steady pace and remain low today despite historical debt and historical deficits.

                  But we’ve paid higher taxes. Some of that historic deficit is the interest paid on the debt, so you must view it as though we’re paying for those earlier deficits now.

                  From what I can see we are not paying off deficit spending in the least.

                  The debt and deficits don’t matter that much until they suddenly do. Generally, the political system is forced to finally make tough choices. Simply because we haven’t paid the butcher’s bill yet doesn’t mean that we never will.

                  1. But we’ve paid higher taxes.

                    Taxes have dropped as a percentage of individual income since 1971 and even before that.

                    1. The debt and deficits don’t matter that much until they suddenly do.

                      Assuming you are right despite the lack of evidence to back it up will they matter on a market or community bases or do they matter on an individual liberty bases?

                      If the result is a tax then you can say overspending directly effects one liberty. But that is not the only possible out come of over spending, and the result recently thus far is high oil prices, a drop in our currency rate, and looming inflation.

                      Taxes directly effect ones individual liberty today now this very second. Spending posses a possible indirect threat in the future that does not seem more likely then our current community loss in value of the dollar.

                      Taxes today are more of an affront to individual liberty then hypothetical increases in taxes in the future.

                    2. If the result is a tax then you can say overspending indirectly effects one liberty.

                      Fixed

    2. Spending is taxing.

      borrowing and inflation are both drains on the private sector like taxes.

    3. I am kind of disappointed that the tea party crowd are more worried about spending then they are about taxes.

      Been there, done that. Reducing taxes doesn’t help since it just gets borrowed and therefore the taxation postponed to the next generation. I still like to think most people are moral, honest, and fair-minded enough to want to avoid this. Reduce spending, and you either have a corresponding reduction in taxation or a huge excess in revenue, which would lead in turn to reduced taxes as politicians use it to buy off constituencies.

    4. Nope, the problem isn’t their confusion, it’s yours. Borrowing and monetizing are at least as bad as taxing, and definitely worse for the working person most of whose assets are directly tied to the dollar.

  16. 25 arrested at SEIU protest. I will leave it to you all to imagine the media reaction if so much as one tea party protester were ever arrested.

    http://www.dispatch.com/live/c…..mp;sid=101

    1. Well, since you brough it up….

      http://www.daytondailynews.com…..57049.html

      1. What a typical liberal spin / stretch…compare an alleged domestic violence charge to an organized political protest, by known violent thugs…yeah, no intellectual dishonesty or malpractice there, nosiree!

  17. I think the people who show up to rallies are just the tip of the iceberg.

    Ditto. Like Groucho Marx, I refuse to join any organization that would have me as a member.

    However, I spoke out against the Iraq Adventure, not because I’m a lefty peacenik, but because I thought it was bad policy. I am against any use of the military other than absolutely FUBAR’ing anyone who threatens U.S. security, then going home after planting a sign that says, “and don’t make us come back.

    Likewise, while you won’t see me waving a placard with a teapot on it, I sympathize with their positions, and say “it’s about time you all woke up”.

  18. Tea partiers demographics are a dead-on match with the demographics of the Republican party. They are Republicans (or independents too ashamed to call themselves Republicans anymore) mad that they lost an election, period.

    Any claim that the “Tea Party” is in any way a coherent or monolithic group is prima facie evidence that the person speaking doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about, and should shut the fuck up.

    1. So the tea party is defined by its ability to avoid being defined?

      Is the tea party movement magic?

      1. No the tea party is not magic.

        Personally avoiding inflation is.

        The tea party members are eclectic.

        They include all sorts that don’t trust gubmint. From rotarians to biker meth dealers and everyone in between.

  19. I am detecting a great quantity of butthurt in this comments sector, captain.

    1. Oh, that was just… the blue chick I… discussed… interstellar relations with… last night.

      Yeah…

      1. So, she pegged ya good, did she? Aye, laddie, that’s the ticket!

  20. Washinton Monument evening rally

    http://www.facebook.com/majors.bruce?ref=profile#!/album.php?aid=13308&id=1721944137

  21. Freedom Plaza DC noon rally

    http://www.facebook.com/photos.php?id=1721944137#!/album.php?aid=13285&id=1721944137

  22. what really makes me sick about the news the tea partiers get is the crazy claim that ‘they’re all white and well off’…as if that has anything to do with the issue. It wouldn’t matter if they were blue and total trillionaires…the point is that the people are finally waking up to the fact that government and corporatism are bloated beyond belief.

    1. It’s the “finally” part that rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Most of the things they should be protesting happened under the previous administration. The crucial question is whether there’d be a Tea Party if we’d elected president McCain.

      1. I’d wager there would’ve been some version of it, though the roots of the TP – the Rick Santelli rant on CNBC – are largely forgotten… alas.

        I’d be more certain there would’ve been a TP without regard to which Democrat became the replacement thug for the previous thug, GW Bush.

        But this “why wasn’t there any protest during the Bush years” meme is getting tired, as it leaves out the people who WEREN’T happy with Bush. But hey, keep playin’ that fiddle, eventually you’ll be as good as Henny Youngman.

        1. No, what really rubs liberals the wrong way is this:

          1. People aren’t bending over every time Obama speaks. Not in sufficient (read: 100%) numbers.

          2. It’s okay when Democrats spend non-existent money on foolish shit (keeping people on the welfare rolls is no more admirable than invading Iraq).

          3. When Hillary said we have a right to disagree with any administration, she left out the “…unless it’s OUR administration”, wisely keeping that in inner-voice reserve.

          4. Bush and his gang abused power, but it’s okay when Democrats gain and abuse that same power. Read the memos.

          1. Kids these days don’t know who I was.

      2. The crucial question is whether there’d be a Tea Party if we’d elected president McCain.

        The crucial question is whether there’d be a Tea Party if we’d elected president McCain.

        Should we care? Why is it crucial?

        It is not as if you and the left were protesting Bush for bail outs and over spending in 2007. And if you were then why are you not on the lines with the tea party now?

        1. But high taxes and lotsa government ALWAYS fixes things, josh! Just ask most Democrats… they’ll tell you that, and how there was exactly zero regulation during the Bush years.

          What is really telling, though, is the notion that Republicans/big-government “conservatives”* hate government. THAT is a laugh riot, right there.

          * Real conservatives are not big-government oriented.

          1. Real conservatives are an endangered species.

            If we can stop pretending for a minute that government is going to shrink appreciably any time soon, we can focus on the question of what it’s doing and whether it’s good.

            “Zero regulation during Bush” is a straw man. The Republicans naturally relaxed regulation in many areas, it’s what they do. If by some miracle your head unwedged itself from your ass you’d see that those policies were across-the-board disastrous.

            1. I’m not the kind that uses phrases like “there was no regulation of business in the Bush administration”, because I am not employed by MSNBC.

              But that is the kind of shit one can hear on that network, even if it isn’t true – because, to the left, any loosening of regulations = none whatsoever.

              But, hey, if you want to believe that lots and lots of regulations (and higher taxes) will win out in the end, then it is not I who needs to remove my head from my ass.

              1. We’re not headed in a good direction, Tony… nor were we under Bush. He took us to war in Iraq, and Obama is taking us into a sinkhole of massive debt, more dependency on the state, and a demonization of individualism and dissent – not that Bush and his gang were fond of dissent, or of individualism, really not much better in that regard.

                But if we don’t do something to at least slow down the growth of government, being in Iraq will be the least of our problems.

                1. Obama has been in office for over 15 months now. There are far more US soldier at war now than there has been anytime since Viet Nam.

                  Quit blaming the Republicans and Bush only for being at war. Obviously, Obama and the Dems are the militarists.

            2. Tony when you can produce, or as is your wont, parrot, an economic theory that takes into account all the phenomena involved, including state control of the money supply and interest rates, people here will have a reason to engage you as if you were something more than a pathetic little piece of shit.

              As it is you are simply a monkey aping some moronic faggoty Newsweek editor who appeared on “Morning Joe” with White House scripts calling for more power for Obama.

        2. I wasn’t against the bailout–I would have done it differently though–and I certainly am in favor of the Obama recovery act. Because they saved the economy from depression. Remember that? I don’t have anger at government spending per se. And I’m not old, fat, straight, and possessing of a flag-emblazoned wardrobe, so I’d never have cause to go to a tea party.

          1. You are a moron. You don’t even read the articles here at Reason. Most of what you parrot was refuted by Veronique de Rugy’s pieces among others.

            Those old fat badly dressed people you imagine can lose weight, get botox and buy a new wardrobe. But you will still be a silly dumb little bitch.

        3. “The crucial question is whether there’d be a Tea Party if we’d elected president McCain”.

          Yes, except the tea partiers would be protesting his amnesty policy. And more of ’em would be armed.

        4. The tea party people were protesting McCain on immigration — Feinstein and other Democrat and RINO leaders were calling for censoring talk radio to suppress them years ago. And others were protesting Bush at Ron Paul rallies.

          Critics of the tea party are whores whore parrot lies felched out of porkpie Gibbs’ rectum. That’s why Tony’s breath smells like that. It’s not gas.

          1. The tea parties were also protesting Ron Paul in Texas during the primaries.

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

      3. Most of the things they should be protesting happened under the previous administration.

        First they protested by getting Trent Lott kicked out and then not voting for Republicans in 2006.

        And then they protested by not voting for Republicans in 2008.

        Tony, you claim that “They are Republicans (or independents too ashamed to call themselves Republicans anymore) mad that they lost an election, period.”

        Well, the Republicans won in 2002 and 2004. They didn’t win in 2006 and 2008. Presumably that’s in some part because people who voted Republican in 2002 and 2004 didn’t in 2006 and 2008. One would assume that “independents too ashamed to call themselves Republicans anymore” would be some of the people not voting Republican in 2006 and 2008.

        There are plenty of people out there who, however foolishly IMO, thought that Obama would govern in some way similar to Clinton post-1994, and that Democrats taking over in 2006 and then in 2008 would result in spending being restrained.

        Doesn’t it make sense for at least some people, especially independents, to first try “letting the other side have a turn/giving Republicans a timeout,” and then only turn to protests when Democrats turn out to be just as bad and worse?

        1. Fuck Bill Clinton. He was too right-wing for My tastes.

          1. Being fucked BY Bill Clinton is much better. Trust me.

            1. Bill… stop lying.

          2. Isn’t fucking the rest of the country enough Barry? Just because those rodent teeth the First Bitch sports would put you off blow jobs, must you fuck Bill the way you are fucking all the taxpayers and the way you fucked Hillary?

        2. Where the middle of the country goes is the politically important question, but I’m talking about tea partiers, who are the Republican base.

          Independents may well join them and win elections, who knows. They are fickle and frankly not as politically aware–they tend to vote on the state of the economy as it affects them.

          All I was referring to by the “ashamed” comment was the toxicity of the Republican brand. Whatever they call themselves, tea partiers are die-hard Republican voters.

          1. You really should find a better truck stop. The jism you’ve been supping has given you mad cow disease.

          2. Have you had your head up your ass the entire movement or are you somehow even more politically ignorant than the average liberal? The whole fucking POINT of the tea party movement is they’re tired of all of the goddamn politics of our government (make fun of me all you want for that, but if you’re even a little smarter than I think you are, you should be able to wrap your head around that).

            I’ve never voted Republican in a presidential election and I’m a die-hard libertarian. The main reason I have lost respect for liberals as a whole is they don’t take a second to consider cognition and realize that YOU CAN’T DIVIDE POLITICS INTO DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN. Jesus fucking Christ, I’m an ‘independent’ because my thoughts are, not because it says that on a fucking soapbox.

            Also, I have never met someone who has taken a basic economics course and not become at least fiscally conservative. Education tends to help rid you of those idiotic ‘philanthropic’ socialist thoughts. Go jack off to Castro; this forum may hurt your poor little self-esteem and thanks to Mr. Obamacare, I will have to pay for your fucking treatment.

            1. Kate,

              I used to be an independent. Then I realized I couldn’t vote in a primary. So what’s the point? You’re gonna be ruled by one of the two parties, you might as well accept it. Our system makes it inevitable. Reality may not be left and right, but our government is.

              People who learn a little bit about economics probably do become conservative. But with economics more than most other subjects, a little education can be worse than none at all. Hell, even the most powerful economists and economic policymakers in the country were devastatingly wrong. This includes Republicans and Democrats.

              1. Hell, even the most powerful economists and economic policymakers in the country were devastatingly wrong.

                And still are devastatingly wrong, and are advising the administration and are guiding the current policy.

                Things are going to get much worse.

      4. The crucial question is whether there’d be a Tea Party if we’d elected president McCain.

        This prog meme is so clueless.

        Why, jackass, do you think Bush went from the first president in 20 years to win a majority of the vote for a 2nd term to a 25% approval rating at the end of the 2nd term?

        Since you are obviously inumerate, I will attempt to splain it.

        More than half of the people that voted for Bush in 04 turned against him by 08. That’s hardly a bunch of racists being ok with Bush wasteful spending but being outraged by when the “brother” does the same.

        1. I really, really don’t think “spending” is the overwhelming concern of most Americans. In fact, Tea Partiers are complete hypocrites on the issue, and they’re supposed to be the spending watchdogs.

          On Social Security:

          “That’s a conundrum, isn’t it?” asked Jodine White, 62, of Rocklin, Calif. “I don’t know what to say. Maybe I don’t want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security.” She added, “I didn’t look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I’ve changed my mind.”

          Bush’s unpopularity organically followed from his numerous massive failures. But the only people who said anything about his spending at the time were the left. Off-the-books spending on wars and tax cuts that weren’t paid for devastated the budget and it’s completely unfair and disingenuous to expect it to be fixed already even if there hadn’t been a major economic crisis, which you guys have never had a real solution for.

          1. But the only people who said anything about his spending at the time were the left

            And the left don’t care about overspending when they are the ones doing it.

          2. But the only people who said anything about his spending at the time were the left

            It is silly to claim Rush Limbaugh is on the left. He complained about the lack of funding for the Medicare drug entitlement, the expansion of federal intrusion into education with No Child Left Behind, and the amount of pork that was coming out of the republican congress, among other big government things during the Bush years.

          3. “But the only people who said anything about his spending at the time were the left.”

            As much time as you spend on these threads, you should spend a little more time reading the articles. Reason was criticizing Bush for the massive amount of spending he was doing well before even the 2004 election.

            I personally was doing the same since about 2002, and I’m certainly not a Democrat. (I’ve never been part of either major party.)

            Whenever I criticize Obama for his massive amounts of unpaid for spending, people always say “Bush did too.” Since I didn’t vote for him either time and criticized him for it all through his time in office, it’s strange people think I should keep quiet because “Bush did it, too.”

            I can’t speak for the Tea Party movement and why they started only after Obama took office. What worries me is that two consecutive administrations of different parties are increasing spending at an alarming rate. Many people in the center feel there is really no party to look to.

            1. “Spending” while a legitimate concern is mostly the obsession of Perot people. We are not in a vacuum where all spending is equal. It happened to be the case that massive spending was necessary to prevent even bigger losses because of a major economic downturn. I know you probably don’t agree with that, but I would argue that it’s been pretty successful. The pricetag is cheap compared to what would have been.

              This can’t be all about spending. Spending, taken by itself as an evil without regard to the situation of the country, is a weak spot for Obama, so it’s sort of become a catchall excuse for his opponents. If it were just about spending, then that’s a pretty boring policy difference, not an existential crisis.

              1. “This can’t be all about spending.”

                I’m not exactly sure what “this” refers to. But, excessive spending is one of many things I dislike about Bush and Obama, so my objection to their performance isn’t just their spending. I can agree with that.

                But, really, I don’t know how to respond to what you’ve said, since you seem to be saying that both his excessive spending is justified and not a big deal, and that I have an ulterior motive for objecting to it. Do you think I had ulterior motive for not liking Bush’s spending?

                I don’t think it’s a sure thing that Obama’s spending will lead to a crisis, but I’m not convinced it won’t, either. I’ve heard a lot of people who aren’t beholden to either party suggest this spending is serious, and can’t just be paid for with a few tax increases.

                Countries have certainly experienced financial ruin far worse than what we have experienced because of excessive spending. And, it’s true, I don’t think his spending had much effect, not do I believe for certain the bailouts were necessary (that was Bush by the way). Regardless, there seems to be no end to the amount of spending, and a good deal of it isn’t temporary, either.

                And for the record, I doubt McCain would have been much better (if not a lot worse) about spending, and I certainly would have criticized him for it. Perhaps tea partiers would have cut him slack, I certainly wouldn’t have.

          4. Tony, most teabaggers are against Social Security going forward. It’s economically unsound and a colossal waste of resources. The problem is how to phase it out with minimal hardship.

            They aren’t hypocrites, they just are too sophisticated to assert these programs need to be cut off cold turkey.

      5. The crucial question is whether there’d be a Tea Party if we’d elected president McCain.

        There might be some version, but not to the same degree simply by virtue of having a divided government. The same degree of overspending we have now would not have been possible. However, it might still have been enough to provoke a reaction.

      6. As a libertarian I really don’t care that they should have awoken before. The good news is they are awake and are receptive to liberty. (and receptive to people like me pointing out that Bush was anti-liberty as well)

        Their adherence to the Constitution makes them susceptible to pointing out people they thought they liked before they woke up really were also part of the problem.

        Whenever they point out something Obamalosi does is unconstitutional that carries the seed of liberty. By moving the debate to the Constitution they are forced to consider things like the Patriot act in that same context.

  23. http://www.facebook.com/bonita…..331788418#!/album.php?aid=51447&id=1556700063&ref=mf

    Colorado

  24. I don’t understand why anyone would expect there to be a ton of minorities attending the tea parties. When 90+ percent of blacks voted for President Obama, it really doesn’t leave many left that are willing to attend.

    1. Mike, didn’t you know that tea partiers post bouncers at their doors, ready to turn the fire hoses and hounds loose on any minority that dares pass beneath the transom?

      Just ask Frank Rich… he’ll set you straight.

    2. It’s not safe for blacks to go to tea partiers because Obama regime whores like this NBC bimbo annoy them with racist prattle:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Eib2di9bq4

      1. My husband is black, he would have attended, BUT HE WAS WORKING!!!

  25. jacob|4.16.10 @ 6:38PM|#

    The quote I was responding to was “They don’t want Palin to be president.” The plurality said she wasn’t qualified – we can take that to mean the majority either did want her to be president or were undecided, as BakedPenguin tried.

    You can’t use the claim that they article stated the Tea Party doesn’t want Palin to be president.

    Dishonesty is such a gamed word.
    Your CYA is so untrue.
    Like a closeted man’s beard.

    1. Don’t even know how to respond to this one….

  26. More significantly, the polling showed that most tea party activists believe the taxes they pay are “fair.” The largest number of them want their movement to work to reduce the size of government rather than focus on cutting budget deficits or lowering taxes. Whether you concur or not with this viewpoint, it exhibits more economic sophistication than we often hear from pandering senatorial candidates.

    I’m not sure I would claim that holding an erroneous viewpoint, especially when evidence to the contrary is all around you, “sophisticated.”

  27. Ya’ll need to give these progressive orientated retards a break. This is their time and they are using it to shine. Don’t take the straw and rubberband away from the retard. That’s just cruel.

  28. I think there are people in both extremist wings, that want the protests to get so bad, we wind up being controlled under martial law.

    And those in power out of the above segments of the far-left and far-right, do what they do to push the populace to the point where enough people will snap, thus giving them an excuse to put the boots to everyone “for their own good”.

    So far, it’s working, but not quickly enough for the total-control minded.

    1. Agreed. The far-right hopes for widespread violence from the anti-war and global-warming movements, and the far-left hopes for widespread violence at tax-day protests and anti-abortion rallies.

      Just so they can feel justified in pulling the police-state lever, and put an end to this inconvenient “dissent” function.

  29. From the poll results, tea partiers sound an awful lot like Perot voters. I’m surprised they weren’t asked….

    1. From the poll results, tea partiers sound an awful lot like Perot voters. I’m surprised they weren’t asked….

      That’s one of the first things I thought of when I first heard of the Tea Party. I voted for Perot and even worked some in his campaign. They sound an awful lot like Perot voters. The idea this whole thing was all so sudden is a joke. It’s been building over decades.

      1. Except Perot was a moron. So many of these seem to be half smart.

  30. earlier I happened to peruse a new CBS/New York Times poll detailing the attitudes of tea party activists, who, it turns out, are more educated than the average American, more reflective of mainstream anxieties than any populist movement in memory

    I read that poll, too. Convenient confirmation that the Tea Party is no more interested in reducing deficits than anyone else. They want “smaller government” except for anything that they get personal benefit from.

    I wanted to go to a Tea Party and ask everyone in attendance whether they wanted to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits, then tell anyone who replied ‘no’ to shove their signs up their lying asses.

    1. I’m not at all going to disagree with you. I’d actually say that you’d be hard-pressed to find a large group of people who do look at politics on a large-scale versus the size of their piggybank and porkbarrel. But I think the concept of the movement is extremely important and whether or not they’re WILLING to give up entitlements to do it, the government needs to shrink, INCLUDING the selfish spending that no one seems to want to let go of. Really, I don’t know how anyone could say they want smaller government in their lives, but more of it in their back pocket.

      1. But I think the concept of the movement is extremely important and whether or not they’re WILLING to give up entitlements to do it, the government needs to shrink

        I’d rather talk ton someone who is honest about their statism vs someone who is either a pathological liar or delusional about it.

        What’s the point of a “movement” that not only doesn’t have the will to push for what they “believe”, but who doesn’t actually believe it in any real sense? I might as well say “I want communism, except with an open representative democracy and a free-market economy.”

  31. The results of the NY Times/CBS poll never rang true to me, something about the percentages didn’t seem correct.

    So today I found the actual poll. There were 1580 people polled: 881 Tea Party “Supporters” and 699 Others.

    I just looked at the poll questions and results. They separate them into two categories, Tea Party “Supporters” and All Respondents.

    This question (asked only to the Tea Party “Supporters”) and their responses makes this poll bogus:

    Question – Have you supported the Tea Party Movement By:

    Donated Money – 2%

    Attended Rally or Meeting – 13%

    Both – 5%

    Neither – 78%

    Don’t know or no answer – 2%

    So, only 18% were actual Tea Party members, the other 82% were NOT Tea Party members but just Supporters, if they actually were supporters.

    So how can the MSM tout this bogus Poll that the Tea Party is mostly men, mostly well-off, etc., if they only polled 18% of the actual Tea Party members.

    Breaking it down further, out of the 881 Tea Party Supporters only 158 were actually Tea Party members.

    And the total for all respondents was only 158 out of 1422 were actual Tea Party members.

    David, they did NOT poll as you wrote Tea Party activists, they polled Tea Party SUPPORTERS.

    I’m disappointed that with the myriad of columns written by the liberal MSM’s referring to this bogus poll, no one took the time to ascertain if they actually polled Tea Party members.

  32. Crackpots??? I’ll tell my 80 year old mother and my 11 year old daughter who was with me at the rally in Colorado on Thursday that they are crackpots. Thanks for letting us know what we are.. MORON

  33. Did anyone notice April 15th was payday for the community. Given the fact that 1/2 of the population now fits into this category according to the IRS, is it any wonder the other half that pays all the bills is protesting these days?

    1. Teabaggers are perfectly willing to pay any amount in taxes to bomb or imprison brown people, but none to educate, house, or provide healthcare for them.

      Government handouts for me, not for thee. What an inspiring message! Viva la revolucion!

      1. You’re a douchebag.

  34. RE: “Naturally, the hyperventilating and demonization of these crackpots who carry around copies of the Constitution and babble about the 10th Amendment will continue unabated.”

    Yeah, good job on the demonization, Harsanyi. Have you even READ the 10th Amendment?

    Dismissal from the leftwing main stream media comes in the form of “racist, violent” and “wacky mavericks” pejoratives.
    The ruling Dem regime is out of control. They’ve rammed through bad, oppressive legislation. They shit on the Constitution. They have taken over banks, private undustry, and our health care, by force. They have severely damaged free market enterprise and collapsed the economy through depraved indifference and malpractice. When they’re through ‘spreading the wealth’, it will be non-existant.
    President Punchdrunk is a socialist half-wit, with sophomoric domestic and foreign policy skills. As a result, our national security, and our position as a standard bearer for democracy and safeguard against the world’s malefactors, has been disgraced.
    Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, and Obama mouth off at the American public for our anger over their malfeasance; validating they are unfit for office.
    And they wonder why we’re angry.

    1. You’re angry because you listen to too many cable TV morons who make millions by making you that way.

  35. the evidence demonstrates that by the very definition of the word, the tea party is less “radical” than are the elected officials busy transforming the nation.

  36. Eh bien, je suis un bon poste watcher vous pouvez dire et je ne donne pas une seule raison de critiquer ou de donner une bonne critique ? un poste. Je lis des blogs de 5 derni?res ann?es et ce blog est vraiment bon cet ?crivain a les capacit?s pour faire avancer les choses i aimerais voir nouveau poste par vous Merci
    ?????
    ????? ???

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.