There She Goes Again: Moe Tucker Confirms Obama Hatred

|

So it's now confirmed: That women interviewed at a Georgia Tea Party protest was indeed former Velvet Underground drummer and ur-riot girl Moe Tucker. Tracked down by the St. Louis alt-weekly Riverfront Times, Tucker unloads on the Obama administration and government waste, while complaining that there has been no cost of living increase for Social Security recipients. But Tucker argues that she isn't "against food stamps, welfare or Medicaid, if only they would oversee these programs properly!"

Some excerpts:

No country can provide all things for all citizens. There comes a point where it just isn't possible, and it's proven to be a failure everywhere it's been tried. I am not oblivious to the plight of the poor, but I don't see any reason/sense to the idea that everyone has to have everything, especially when the economy is so bad. I see that philosophy as merely a ploy to control…

My family was damn poor when I was growing up on Long Island. There were no food stamps, no Medicaid, no welfare. If you were poor, you were poor. You didn't have a TV, you didn't have five pairs of shoes, you didn't have Levi's, you didn't have a phone; you ate Spam, hot dogs and spaghetti. We all survived! I am not against food stamps, welfare or Medicaid, if only they would oversee these programs properly!"…

I am also against the government taking over the student loan program, car companies, bailouts and the White House taking control of the census (what the hell is that all about?); [about] any First Lady telling (I know, I know, "suggesting to") us what to eat, the mayor of New York City declaring "no salt" (screw you, pal!), the mayor/city commissioners of Anytown, U.S.A. declaring you can't fly a flag, can't say the Pledge of Allegiance and can't sing the National Anthem….

As a lead-in to the next part of your question: Today it was announced that there would be no cost of living increase for Social Security recipients because "there's no inflation." I'd love to know what makes them think that! Where the hell do they shop? Prices have been rising for over a year. Inflation is a natural happening, I know. But why is it that suddenly food prices don't go up two or three or five cents, but instead they're going up 40, 50, 60 cents at a clip? No inflation my ass!

My anger stems from the unbelievable (criminal!) waste of money on pork and earmarks. It drives me nuts to see that X millions are being allocated to build a turtle tunnel, a donkey museum, a salamander crossing, etc, etc, etc

An interesting interview, almost ruined by a clueless interviewer. For example:

How did you get involved with the local Tea Party movement?

I'm not "involved" with the local movement. I went to the first Tea Party in June or July of 2009 because it was within striking distance and I wanted to be counted.

Are you still involved in Tea Party activities?

Thanks for listening to the previous answer! And when Tucker clarifies that she's an angry independent, not a conservative ("Anyone who thinks I'm crazy about Sarah Palin, Bush, etc. has made quite the presumption"), the Riverfront Times follows up by asking if she knows are "other closet conservatives in the music/art world?" 

Update: I should note, in fairness to the interviewer, that the interview was conducted via email.

NEXT: There Ain't No Such Thing as a Free Checking Account

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. I am not against food stamps, welfare or Medicaid, if only they would oversee these programs properly!

    She is perfect for the Tea Party!

    1. you just need the right people in charge!

    2. No. She is saying she doesn’t have a problem with helping out the less fortunate but doesn’t want that to be an excuse to loot the country. We could easily provide for the poor without going bankrupt.

      There is a difference between what we have and someone who says “maybe we should help the truly unfortunate”. Denying that just plays into people like Tony and Steve Smith’s hands when they claim libertarians just care about themselves.

      1. OK John, so being against forcing people to pay “charity” means you are against charity. Got it.

  2. Shiiiiit. Who was the interviewer, Tony?

  3. They could have picked someone better to do the interview. That’s for sure.

    1. When it comes to alt-weeklys nationwide, “quality” is typically not the first thing one thinks of when reading these publications. When they actually do manage to hire a talented journalist, it’s by accident more often than not.

  4. There are many poor people who claim that they never received or are not receiving any assistance. My guess is that 100% of my poor friends/acquaintances/relatives have been on the dole.

  5. The federal government is “taking over” the census? My word !!!

    1. STEVE SMITH VOLUNTEER GO RAPE DOOR TO DOOR FOR CENSUS, BUT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REFUSE! STEVE HATE FEDS!

      1. no this is a legit thing… the white house took it over from the commerce department. The admin very early on took it and ran it dirrectly from the white house. This was one of the reasons why Judd Gregg declined the secretary position in protest to that. The theory being that with it being operated out of the wh, the wh could potentially manipulate it for purposes of resdistricting and make the process politized.

        1. STEVE SMITH OFFER TO RAPE FOR WHITE HOUSE AS WELL, BUT THEY SAY STEVE TOO CANADIAN AND TAKEN RAPE JOBS AWAY FROM AMERICANS! ARRRGHHHH

        2. No they didn’t.

          Check the link. “We are part of the US Commerce Department.” Which is and always has been overseen by the White House, yet another reason why the idea that they “took it over” is BS.

          1. Who are these shadow organizations that are overseeing the “US Commerce Department”? We’d like to know, but they keep us in the dark… oh wait, what’s that? Oh it’s not that Commerce Department?

            Er, well, as I was saying, let me be clear: The US Commerce Department is very capable of handling the 2010 U.S. Census, and any other future census where a Democrat is in the White House. It’s up to you to vote to keep it that way. Otherwise, the Republicans are just going to take back control of the census-truck and drive it right back into the ditch, because they’re too busy drinking their Slurpees and changing the radio to the “oldies.”

  6. “Are you still involved in Tea Party activities?” is the new “Do you still beat your wife?”

    Excellent!

  7. “But why is it that suddenly food prices don’t go up two or three or five cents, but instead they’re going up 40, 50, 60 cents at a clip? No inflation my ass!”

    Both food and energy costs are omitted from the CPI due to price volatility.

    1. Which makes the CPI a virtually useless statistic.

      1. It’s still usedful – for government economists. You know, those that cowardly jump ship when even their massaged metrics do not meet the promised goals . . .

      2. no its not. Its ommitted from the Core CPI. The Topline CPI which is used for benifits includes it. The reason why there has been no adjustment is because there was a huge COLA in 2009, and then the CPI went negative after that. However, benifits cant decline. So we are making up for the decline now.

        1. If you have the intellect, you can start here and read these:

          http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=hedonics+cpi

          When you’re done with a dozen or so, come back to us to discuss if Consumer Price INDEX (and no, the I does not stand for inflation) renders usefulness.

          Also, benefits gets spelled with two e’s and not two i’s.

      3. Also don’t forget substitution effects: Well sure steak cost more, but we noticed people are buying more chicken and cat food as a result, so we’ll just use chicken and cat food prices in that slot instead.

        Also “Hedonic Adjustment”: Computers are twice as fast and have twice as much memory as they did 2 years ago. So even if they all cost the same, we actually have had 50% deflation in that part of the basket.

        Given these completely arbitray adjustements, plus the decision to exclude stuff for being volatile, the CPI really is pointless garbage. Mostly just used by the Fed to say “Look we can print all the money we want, see there is no inflation”

    2. CPI omits a lot, and as mentioned in part above me, it makes CPI useless for many things.

    3. Both food and energy costs are omitted from the CPI due to price volatility.

      So two of the biggest non-discretionary components of the household budget aren’t counted in CPI. Wonderful.

      My totally non-scientific survey of my weekly grocery bill indicates that food costs are up at least 10%, maybe 15%, over last year. And the last big commodity price spike hasn’t shown up yet.

      But Helicopter Ben says we need higher inflation.

      Fuck it. Glad I bought more gold yesterday.

    4. For the record I’m pretty sure CPI includes some basic foods. But does not include fuel prices.

      1. Actually I’m positive, since I think it’s the first of the larger groups that are then full of individual items.

  8. Also, Little Drummer Girl Ms. Tucker, why do you hate donkeys and turtles and salamanders?

    1. I recently received $2.72 trillion in stimulus funds to build a squirreladuct in my back yard.

      It’s true! We are not over spending on entitlements and defense it is all animarchitecture!

      Moe Tucker is a fucking idiot.

      1. …and do we have a squirreladuct in capitol’s backyard yet?

        **tapping little squirrel feet impatiently**

        NO! No we do not…

        1. When da prezident sez “shovel ready” what he means is that I stand heres in my orange vest with this here stop sign while dem guys ova dere point at that hole in the ground. Ol’ Cappy is out bribing da pols to get us more of these sweet gigs. What the hells a aquabuddhaduct fer anyw…

          COFFEE BREAK

          1 hr later:

          Local 187 Rulz!

  9. So it’s now confirmed: That women interviewed at a Georgia Tea Party protest was […]

    […] very plural, to be singular. What an achievement!

  10. Damn, is she clueless:

    Inflation is a natural happening, I know.

    Ummm, no, the government devaluing its fiat money supply is a choice by certain policy makers, not a “natural happening”.

    1. Re: Prolefeed,

      She along with the rest of the clueless (e.g. the Chad-like) still subscribe to the notion that inflation just “happens,” as if by magic.

    2. You could argue inflation is naturally occurring with fiat currency. I have no clue what her intent was with the comment, but I don’t think calling inflation naturally occurring without some qualification bugs me all that much.

    3. She probably derived the phrasing from, “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.”

      1. Money grows on trees. Mother nature at her finest.

    4. Well, there is pretty much a natural law* that any fiat currency will inflate itself to worthlessness.

      *As in, there have been no exceptions.

    5. Natural is often, probably improperly, used as a synonym for “normal” or “consistently true”. One could argue that inflation is part of the nature of any fiat or debasable currency.

  11. She’s just another person. Idolaters beware.

  12. She really is dumb to think social security payment increases are a good thing. Fuck the inconsistent tea party movement.

  13. They missed a really good quote.

    What are your feelings about the online reactions? Many people seem upset or outraged.
    I’m stunned that so many people who call themselves liberal yet are completely intolerant. I thought liberals loved everyone: the poor, the immigrant, the gays, the handicapped, the minorities, dogs, cats, all eye colors, all hair colors! Peace, love, bull! Curious they have no tolerance whatsoever for anyone who doesn’t think exactly as they do. You disagree and you’re immediately called a fool, a Nazi, a racist. That’s pretty f’d up!! I would never judge someone based on their political views. Their honesty, integrity, kindness to others, generosity? Yes. Politics? No!

    I think pretty much every post by Tony, Choad and Steve Smith proves her point.

    1. No such expected requirement for conservatives, so they can be assholes and it’s okay, I guess?

      Conservatives miss this distinction all the time. Liberals are accepting of all people without thought to how they were born, how they look, who they love, etc. But your stupid opinions are fair game.

      Being a conservative is not a protected class. You were not born that way, it was a choice. And you don’t deserve affirmative action in colleges either.

      1. Don’t worry. We don’t hate you because you are narrow minded and ignorant. We may feel sorry for you. But we don’t hate you.

        1. I hate him. I hate his brother joe, too.

      2. Re: Tony,

        Liberals are accepting of all people without thought to how they were born, how they look, who they love, etc.

        Look, Tony! A unicorn!

      3. So bigotry is acceptable for liberals. Gotcha.

      4. Leftist diversity is a beautiful multicolored rainbow of people of all ages, races and sexes…

        …who all think exactly alike. Kind of like the Borg, only without the awesome cubes and tractor beams.

      5. Tony, are you saying that who you love, your religion, and what country you choose to move to are not choices?

      6. Tony, I didn’t choose to be smarter than liberals, nor did I choose to be right.

  14. It drives me nuts to see that X millions are being allocated to build a turtle tunnel, a donkey museum, a salamander crossing, etc, etc, etc

    But not X trillion dollars going to blow up people in countries with a lot of sand.

    This rant is so typical Tea Party, and their central problem is completely misplaced priorities. But that’s what you get when your anger is being fed to you by radio and TV demagogues.

    1. Hee Haw. Hee Haw. HeeHawHeeHaw.

      1. Hee Haw. Hee Haw. HeeHawHeeHaw.

        You bray rather well, Tony – typical Democrat ass.

    2. Yeah, if she didn’t like that stuff, she would really be mad at Obama. Seriously Tony, how long are you going to keep falling into the same trap?

    3. Is that the only criticism you have of her statements? That she didn’t mention war, is a reason not to discuss the things she did mention?

      1. Being overly concerned with spending that helps poor people while completely ignoring pointless wars and welfare for the rich is what I criticize right-wingers for, yes.

        1. Well, now that we have the liberals in power, I look forward to the rapid cunclusion of these pointless wars.

          How’s that working out for you?

            1. Tony, the Reasonoids may not hate you, but we do. The stupid is just so deep in you, we can’t ignore it.

              But we appreciate that you support spending for “poor people” like us, and our squirreladuct!

              Now run to your room like a good boy and flagellate yourself to sleep…

            2. Because progressive elitist-cunt bombs don’t hurt as bad as republican-asshole bombs.

        2. while completely ignoring pointless wars

          Kind of like how you are ignoring the two wars Obama has been fighting since he took office that he promised to get us out of.

          1. Obama promised to end one and escalate the other.

            John Kerry promised to escalate both and then wonders why he lost.

        3. The government is broke because we spend so much money “helping the poor.” Military spending is far less than that, and “welfare for the rich” doesn’t exist, unless not taxing something counts as “welfare,” or you count things like Social Security, meant for the poor, which often goes to the well-off (due to the insistence of Democrats, by the way).

          1. “The government is broke because we spend so much money “helping the poor.” Military spending is far less than that”

            You’re joking, right? Military spending is the largest part of the budget, and it made up 60% of the discretionary budget last year. Its bigger than every single other discretionary budget item COMBINED!

            The country is broke largely because we flushed trillions down a rat hole called Iraq while deciding to pay for it with the national credit card.

            1. You are ignoring entitlements, which are supposed to help the poor and are most of the budget. Social Security spending alone exceeds the defense budget.

              1. I said discretionary spending. You know, the spending that actually has to be covered by income taxes besides FICA. The funding that W and his Republican Congress exploded for years without figuring our a way to pay for.

                SS and Medicare are not what exploded the deficit, and they aren’t just “for the poor”. They are programs that people pay into and then later receive benefits from, and they are paid for without adding a dime to the deficit. Its discretionary spending which puts us in the red.

                And you’re wrong about SS spending exceeding military spending. The 2009 budget lists 782 billion for defense, 23% of the budget. SS came in at 678 billion, or 20%. Defense is the largest chunk of the pie, and its the largest chunk of that 4 trillion that Bush added to the deficit.

                1. “Discretionary spending” is just a leftist dodge to ignore what’s bankrupting us. Spending is spending, and the idea that entitlements are “paid for without adding a dime to the deficit” is laughably wrong.

                  So OK, SS alone doesn’t exceed defense. The Wikipedia chart I referenced was wrong. But SS + Medicare + Medicaid certainly does.

  15. A donkey museum sounds pretty cool. And if Bulgaria can build one, so should we:

    http://www.aardvarktravel.net/…..ighlight;=

  16. Sounds like a pretty sharp gal.

  17. I should note that, in fairness to the interviewer, the interview was conducted via email.

    By a bot.

  18. I should note that, in fairness to the interviewer, the interview was conducted via email.

    So the interviewer wrote the questions in advance and assumed how she would answer each one?

    1. Or, the interviewer actually had written responses, and so couldn’t possibly have mis-heard her, and still managed to botch it?

      1. Or the interviewer could have sent more than one question at a time.

        1. No doubt, but wouldn’t you, like, edit the article before publishing it? Remove redundant questions, for example?

          1. I didn’t go to the link, so I’m not sure exactly how the article reads, but, yeah, I’d try to make it read more conversationally if I were publishing it.

          2. Its an alt-weekly. They’re probably paying the guy in Arby’s coupons.

  19. See, I took “in fairness to the interviewer, the interview was conducted via email” as sarcasm for the reason you just stated.

  20. Riverfront Times follows up by asking if she knows are “other closet conservatives in the music/art world?”

    ‘Cause, you know, that shouldn’t be happening! Can’t be, even! Conservatives are a bunch of heartless demons incapable of creativity!

  21. It’s so cute when liberal journalists find a ‘conservative’ (in this case, not so much even) hipster… They’re like, “When did you go nuts and lose your natural-born progressive liberalism? Was it when you stopped doing smack? It’s like a Bob Dylan-Finding-Jesus thing, right?”

    It runs so counter to their presumptions (cool=liberal! uptight=right-wing!) its completely incomprehensible to them. “”Are there other ‘closet conservatives’ in the music/art world?””

    WTF!! You have to be ‘in the closet’, because *naturally* its an insane idea to be ‘openly’ anything other than progressive liberal in the world of hipsterdom?? (if you are… you would obviously want to *hide* your views).

    The guy doing the interview simply could not compute the idea that anyone could be ‘conservative-ish’ without either being ignorant, racist, brain damaged, or whatever… I don’t care if he wrote all the questions first ; they’re fully loaded with horseshit liberal assumptions about *everyone* either way you cut it.

    I think reading William Burroughs (and Rand, of course!) when I was a kid did a lot to explode my assumptions about what the spectrum of political “normalcy” entailed. Even though neither of those people were particularly normal, they made it clear that politically-conservative radical individualism made a lot more sense than traditional progressive liberalism, and that – what do you know – it was a natural fit for hepcats.

    My favorite line of hers was her answer to “Have you always had conservative views”?

    “”To be honest, I never paid attention to what the hell was going on. “

    Thats pretty much the best explanation for why most people find it so easy to be Democrats: Politics for the Intellectually Lazy

    1. The guy doing the interview simply could not compute the idea that anyone could be ‘conservative-ish’ without either being ignorant, racist, brain damaged, or whatever… I don’t care if he wrote all the questions first ; they’re fully loaded with horseshit liberal assumptions about *everyone* either way you cut it.

      I don’t see any sign in that interview that the reporter is a liberal OR a conservative. You’re reading into it.

      Noting that art-world conservatives are typically closeted is not a normative proposition; it’s just a descriptive statement.

    2. I personally know the interviewer in question. You’re way off-base. I wouldn’t say he’s a pure conservative, necessarily, but he’s definitely not a doctrinaire liberal either.

  22. The interviewer has less of an excuse if the interview was done by email because they can go back and read the damn responses.

    1. The interviewer has less of an excuse if the interview was done by email because they can go back and read the damn responses.

      My guess is there was only 2 emails for the interview.

      One sent by the interviewer to Moe with all the questions and one sent by Moe with all her answers.

      The interviewers sin is not that he had a tin ear to her responses his sin is that his list of questions exposed his presumption of her answers.

      1. One round of emails (questions, then answers) is utterly typical for this kind of email interview. Tucker had declined previous interview requests from the likes of the Huffington Post, so I imagine she wasn’t too amenable to an extended email exchange.

  23. For everyone complaining about the second question: isn’t the whole reason she was being interviewed because she was previously interviewed at a Tea Party Event? Does it not make sense to ask her if she’s a member or otherwise associated? How is this not a legit question?

    1. You’re obviously right. Most people would say that someone who attended rallies for a political movement, and agreed to be interviewed on TV news in support of that movement, is “involved” in that movement.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.