News The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

[mheslep]

Edit: According to NBC news moments ago, thanks to corporate spending on behalf of candidates, the GOP candidates are getting 7 times the ad-buys as the Democrats. Welcome to the Oligarchy of the US. Our government bought and paid for.

? Maybe in some momentary time window, but otherwise you are mistaken - the D's are outspending the R's this campaign.

 

[turbo]

? Maybe in some momentary time window, but otherwise you are mistaken - the D's are outspending the R's this campaign.

I'm not mistaken. I was simply repeating what the reporter said. Edited into the post less than a minute after he said it. It might have been more qualified, though I didn't catch the qualification.

It could have been that he (she, actually, after finding the clip) said the Republicans are getting 7 times the ad-buys from outside groups than Democrats are. I was busy at the time and was half-listening to the news. Here is the clip. It's in the Andrea Mitchell spot at the end of the clip. Outside money is pumping 7 times as much money into supporting Republicans, compared to Democrats.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/ns/nightly_news/#39584144

 

[CAC1001]

Another issue to consider is the actual effect campaign finance reform has. Unfortunately, like many "well intended" forms of government intervention, the rules can actually benefit the established candidates.

When working for some Libertarian candidates, we wouldn't bother with a lot of the reporting requirements. Why? Because their idiotic. If you did, as a small, grassroots campaign, you would spend all your resources and time on filing finance reports. Furthermore, the rules are very complex. They can actually be a barrier to entry for all but establishment candidates, who have the legal resources to follow the regulations. See this video for a dramatic illustration:

Yes, some joked that because of campaign finance reform laws, the Senate was turning into the House of Lords because you pretty much either had to be well-established or at least a multimillionaire to run.

 

[CAC1001]

I'm not mistaken. I was simply repeating what the reporter said. Edited into the post less than a minute after he said it. It might have been more qualified, though I didn't catch the qualification.

It could have been that he (she, actually, after finding the clip) said the Republicans are getting 7 times the ad-buys from outside groups than Democrats are. I was busy at the time and was half-listening to the news. Here is the clip. It's in the Andrea Mitchell spot at the end of the clip. Outside money is pumping 7 times as much money into supporting Republicans, compared to Democrats.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/ns/nightly_news/#39584144

Would Republicans getting more ad-buys right now than Democrats be because of the SCOTUS ruling though? Because during the 2006 elections, when Democrats were on the up-and-up, the Democrats were out-raising and out-spending the Republicans. Now it is a wave year for the Republicans.

 

[CRGreathouse]

But your statement taken literally isn't so much false as it is misleading. It's not true that the constitution explicitly says that, but it's true that Supreme Court justices, like every congressman, senator, and President, must take an oath of office that (implicitly) requires them to be proficient enough in English to understand what it says.

An inability to understand what the constitution says (and means) would disqualify anyone from any elected federal office, since their oath of office requires them to understand it.

Would you say that the reason congressmen must take an oath of office is so they can just pass any law they want, constitutional or not, and let the Supreme Court sort them out later?

I have no idea how this ties into what we were discussing. To make your question relevant I would have to interpret it much more severely than you implicitly claim I do with the Constitution. :)

 

[Al68]

I have no idea how this ties into what we were discussing. To make your question relevant I would have to interpret it much more severely than you implicitly claim I do with the Constitution. :)

Yes, it was a tangent. My point was that yes, the Supreme Court technically must "interpret" the constitution, but so must congress, the Senate, and the President.

How else could they uphold their oath of office?

 

[Al68]

Direct funding? No. Unlimited in-kind contributions for ads and media for or against you? Yes.

Ad-buys are a huge drain on campaign finances. Got a corporate sponsor that will make massive ad-buys on your behalf? Then you sit back fat and happy, and use your war-chest for other purposes, including polling, phone-banking, grassroots get-out-the-vote efforts and other efforts. Do you see the problem?

Edit: According to NBC news moments ago, thanks to corporate spending on behalf of candidates, the GOP candidates are getting 7 times the ad-buys as the Democrats. Welcome to the Oligarchy of the US. Our government bought and paid for.

Oligarchy = a republic with free political speech? How intellectual!

Do you seriously believe political ads constitute "ruling" people? Free political speech constitutes a "bought and paid for" government?

 

[turbo]

Oligarchy = a republic with free political speech? How intellectual!

Do you seriously believe political ads constitute "ruling" people? Free political speech constitutes a "bought and paid for" government?

Do you know what an oligarchy is? How does the US deviate from that? A small segment of the US population controls the vast majority of our wealth and resources and wields the most power.

Allowing corporate interests to swamp our airways with political ads is not "free speech". Many people (especially older folk) get most of their information on political races from broadcast TV and radio. In small TV markets like Maine (7 commercial broadcast TV stations in the whole state representing ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX in two markets) it is possible to make large enough ad-buys to make it difficult and expensive for your opponent to even get ad-time in prime spots. That is not "free speech". Such "freedom" allows deep-pocketed corporations to control the message to an extent never before possible.

 

[Al68]

Do you know what an oligarchy is? How does the US deviate from that? A small segment of the US population controls the vast majority of our wealth and resources and wields the most power.

An oligarchy is a government which is controlled by a few and rules many. Rich people controlling their own resources does not equal "ruling people". Political ads do not constitute "ruling people". These things are so obvious I don't even know why I'm saying them.

Allowing corporate interests to swamp our airways with political ads is not "free speech".

Yes, it is. That's what the words "free speech" mean.

Free speech doesn't mean restricting political speech because the speaker has "corporate interests", or anything else you don't like.

 

[mheslep]

I'm not mistaken. I was simply repeating what the reporter said. Edited into the post less than a minute after he said it. It might have been more qualified, though I didn't catch the qualification.

It could have been that he (she, actually, after finding the clip) said the Republicans are getting 7 times the ad-buys from outside groups than Democrats are. I was busy at the time and was half-listening to the news. Here is the clip. It's in the Andrea Mitchell spot at the end of the clip. Outside money is pumping 7 times as much money into supporting Republicans, compared to Democrats.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/ns/nightly_news/#39584144

What is 'outside' money? Foreign money?

 

[turbo]

What is 'outside' money? Foreign money?

Untraceable money that comes from outside the candidates' campaign funds. And yes, the money could well be from foreign sources or from foreign-owned corporations that want to elect compliant candidates. Thanks to the Citizens United ruling, there is now no transparency regarding these donations.

 

[CAC1001]

Do you know what an oligarchy is? How does the US deviate from that? A small segment of the US population controls the vast majority of our wealth and resources and wields the most power.

Of course a small segment controls the vast majority of the wealth, as only a small segment takes the risk and works hard enough to create said wealth in the first place. We are not a country with equality of outcome. An oligarchy however is not what we have. Oligarchies are what you find in for example Saudi Arabia, where one or a few very powerful families who hoard all the wealth for themselves literally rule society and oppress anyone who tries to prevent them.

 

[turbo]

Of course a small segment controls the vast majority of the wealth, as only a small segment takes the risk and works hard enough to create said wealth in the first place.

What an ideal capitalistic society you live in. Apparently, we are all born naked and penniless and work our way to the top, in your world.

This is not reality, however. Many of the people at the top were born into positions of power and privilege, and many of the people at the top live lives of leisure and opulence and do not work all that hard. Money follows money and power and influence follow money.

My wife and I started out with nothing when we married. During the last 5 years of my working life, we were easily within the top 2% of earners for which the Republicans want to retain the Bush tax cuts (which I oppose, even if the cuts are retained for lower wage-earners). We worked our way out of poverty, and had to endure decades of limited personal contact as I worked rotating shifts for years, and then generally had to travel at least 2 weeks every month when I worked as a consultant to the pulp and paper industry. If there are any fiscal conservatives around, it's my wife and me. We are comfortable, but still watch the pennies, raise most of our own vegetables, and burn wood for heat.

 

[CAC1001]

What an ideal capitalistic society you live in. Apparently, we are all born naked and penniless and work our way to the top, in your world.

This is not reality, however. Many of the people at the top were born into positions of power and privilege,

Many may have been born into it, but most of the people at the top created their own wealth. Inherited money accounts for a smaller portion of the wealth in this country: http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/01/14/the-decline-of-inherited-money/?mod=WSJBlog

And many of the people at the top live lives of leisure and opulence and do not work all that hard.

So...? You aren't paid according to how hard you work, you are paid according to what you produce. Many people seem to have this misconception that if you aren't doing back breaking labor, you shouldn't be paid much. Society doesn't care how hard anyone works, it is what you produce that counts.

If you make yourself wealthy to the point that you can retire early and sit on your butt and your investments continue to make you money, that is your right. In general though, a combination of working hard and working smart, is needed to get wealthy.

Money follows money and power and influence follow money.

Sure they do.

My wife and I started out with nothing when we married. During the last 5 years of my working life, we were easily within the top 2% of earners for which the Republicans want to retain the Bush tax cuts (which I oppose, even if the cuts are retained for lower wage-earners). We worked our way out of poverty, and had to endure decades of limited personal contact as I worked rotating shifts for years, and then generally had to travel at least 2 weeks every month when I worked as a consultant to the pulp and paper industry. If there are any fiscal conservatives around, it's my wife and me. We are comfortable, but still watch the pennies, raise most of our own vegetables, and burn wood for heat.

Nothing wrong with any of that.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Untraceable money that comes from outside the candidates' campaign funds.

Just curious -- to what extent does the "untraceable" part bother you? Would requiring strict reporting be half as good as disallowing the spending entirely? 10% as good? 90% as good?

I'm just interested to see because it will help me understand your position better. Also, there are legal issues: as far as I can tell, Congress could require extended reporting now without causing trouble with the Supreme Court ruling, where disallowing the spending entirely could require a Constitutional amendment or a contrary SCOTUS ruling.

 

[edward]

Untraceable money that comes from outside the candidates' campaign funds. And yes, the money could well be from foreign sources or from foreign-owned corporations that want to elect compliant candidates. Thanks to the Citizens United ruling, there is now no transparency regarding these donations.

Campaign money is being provided by organizations using a 501(c)4 non profit. There is some great irony here.

Other money is flowing to the 501(c)s, which allow for donor anonymity. This group includes trade associations such as the powerful US Chamber of Commerce, which plans to spend more than twice what it did on the 2008 presidential campaign.

Also bulking up are 501(c)4 groups, or social nonprofits. Technically, their primary purpose must be to promote social welfare, not political campaigns. Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana has called for an IRS investigation of these nonprofits to see if they have veered too far from their central mission.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary...ncing-machine-cranks-up-for-midterm-elections

 

[Astronuc]

I heard this article on the radio this morning.

Tea Partiers Explain What Makes Them Boil
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130535771

I was impressed with some of Feigel's comments. I wasn't impressed by the comment of someone that they got 'informed' from watching FOX news.

"I wasn't particularly enamored with the Republicans or the Democrats at the time, simply because to me, it just seemed like a big group going in the same direction," says Wayne McDaniel, who works for a used-car company.

These Virginians made an effort to work with local Republicans — and found themselves up against what they called "the kingdom" or the "inner circle." It's an argument that is not yet over.

"We're getting in on their machinery, we're scratching around in their sandbox, and they don't like it," Darriel Burnett says. "But we are people — and if they had been doing their job, nobody would have to call them to task. But they haven't been doing their job, so here we are."

This group is looking past the Republican Party — they want candidates who could carry their ideas, even more than they want winning candidates who might help Republicans control the Congress.

. . . .

I hope the members of the Tea Party retain there independence, and it's better that the movement stay an amorphous movement and not become an organization with a hierarchical structure.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I read the article which sounds like a bunch of drivel to me. Sure, we all want the debt reduced. That's the easy part. The hard part is doing so without making life for many Americans much more difficult. And as you pointed out Astro, it goes right back to Fox. This is a TV party, not a political party.

As long as the tea party refuses to offer an official platform, or publish an agenda, or select leaders, they are accountable for nothing. They can whine and complain on Fox, in the abstract, ad infinitum, with no burden of responsibility. Just as we saw last night with O'Donnell, the tea party is big on complaints, but an empty shirt [or should I say a witchless broom] when it comes to practical solutions.

The Tea Party is nothing but a pseudo-politician in permanent campaign mode. But they can say anything they want because the campaign never ends. And just as we saw with Scott Brown, as soon a favored candidate has to contend with real issues, the TV party will turn on him or her like vultures.

 

[CRGreathouse]

As long as the tea party refuses to offer an official platform, or publish an agenda, or select leaders, they are accountable for nothing. They can whine and complain on Fox, in the abstract, ad infinitum, with no burden of responsibility. Just as we saw last night with O'Donnell, the tea party is big on complaints, but an empty shirt [or should I say a witchless broom] when it comes to practical solutions.

Let's separate those. I'm not at all concerned about its lack of leaders and its supposed lack of accountability; we can hold its members accountable for their own actions and beliefs. On the other hand, its lack of a framework for moving forward does bother me: it's easy to find problems but hard to find solutions. (They have partial ideas, but they seem more like ideology and less like polished, usable bills.)

I'm not sure why you say they haven't published an agenda; 90 seconds with Google found it:
http://www.thecontract.org/the-contract-from-america/

 

[CAC1001]

The Tea Party has struck me as being in support of basic principles around which you go and form policy. I mean either one believes in big government, higher taxes, etc...and creates policy based on this, or one believes in limited government, fiscal conservatism, low taxes, etc...and creates policy around this.

As for Fox News with the Tea Party, that's probably because when the Tea Parties first formed, the rest of the MSM made them out to be a bunch of white racist yahoos, and the MSM invented the term "Tea Bagging" for them, and was completely dismissive of them at first. The Democrats in Congress themselves acted this way as well, Nancy Pelosi I remember saying (paraphrasing), "I saw something very similar to this in the 1970s, it was very scary..." So it isn't shocking that Fox News has become their main outlet. Also you have Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity who embrace them in particular, and those two are of Fox News. If Beck or Hannity were of say MSNBC or CNN, then CNN and MSNBC would be accused of "embracing" the Tea Party IMO.

 

[Gokul43201]

A seemingly counter-intuitive cover story in the latest issue of Businessweek:

Why Business Doesn't Trust the Tea Party
The Tea Party's small-government slogans may be appealing, but its policies could throw the U.S. economy into chaos

[PLAIN]http://images.businessweek.com/mz/10/43/600/1043_mz_66teaparty.jpg
Beck, the Tea Party's chief theologian, at his August rally on the National Mall Kristoffer - Tripplaar/Sipa

By Lisa Lerer and John McCormickNikki Haley is almost everything the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce could want in a candidate for governor: A former small business owner (she helped run her family's luxury-clothing company in Lexington, S.C.), Haley has served on the boards of two local chambers and campaigns on the traditional business gospel of lower taxes and smaller government.

As Haley was steaming toward an easy win in the Republican primary runoff last June, the South Carolina Chamber's board—56 business leaders representing sectors ranging from banking to health care to construction—met at Clemson University to decide whether to endorse her or her general election opponent, Vincent Sheheen, a Democratic state senator. It took only 20 minutes around a U-shaped conference table for the board to make its decision: Almost 80 percent of members voted for the Democrat—even though they knew Haley was a virtual lock to become the next governor of their heavily Republican state.

The issue, as the board saw it, was Haley's extreme and inflexible approach, an ideology of confrontation that can be summed up in two words: Tea Party.

More here: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_43/b4200066170117.htm

Cover graphic:
[PLAIN]http://images.businessweek.com/mz/covers/1043_current_147x207.jpg

 

[WhoWee]

I am really surprised by this debate. The TEA Party can be studied and understood using physics.

In the past, the silent majority stood by and watched as all the special interest groups and self serving politicians did as they pleased.

This body was at rest - the forces acting on them were not unified from any particular direction.

Then along comes Obama and his promises of "change", the bailout, the stimulus promises, health care "reform" promises, Blago, the Black Panthers at the polling place, the shooter on the military base, the apology tour, the underwear bomber, the BP leak, Vance Jones and the rest of the "Czars", fear over cap and trade (utility rate increases), the printing of money to cover deficit spending, a nuclear Iran, Medicaid expansion, the Arizona immigration issues, the GM takeover and handling of the bondholders and union bailout, fear over card check or other general unionization plans and suspicion over the SEIU, etc. Rather than try to argue each point - just consider all of it as a "Force" on the body at rest.

All of a sudden, the body was in motion - forces were increasing and the body grew in size. People who never before spoke up or got involved were now knee-deep in the debate.

Now, the body has so much force behind it and so much momentum that real change might now inevitable? One liberal leader seems to think so...
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/11/soros-i-cant-stop-a-republican-avalanche/

"Mr. Soros, a champion of liberal causes, has been directing his money to groups that work on health care and the environment, rather than electoral politics. Asked if the prospect of Republican control of one or both houses of Congress concerned him, he said: “It does, because I think they are pushing the wrong policies, but I’m not in a position to stop it. I don’t believe in standing in the way of an avalanche.”"

Perhaps the only way to stop the "avalanche" is to take away the forces that put the body into motion?

 

[CAC1001]

A seemingly counter-intuitive cover story in the latest issue of Businessweek:


More here: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_43/b4200066170117.htm

Yep, just saw it. I was a bit shocked to see an article that seemed to be defending things like subsidies and so forth for big business!

The article I think is a good example of how the Leftwing claim that the Right is for "the rich" and "Big Business" is rather inaccurate. A whole portion of the Right despise Big Business, along with big government. As said before, being pro-free enterprise is not the same as being pro-big business.

However, one can also be anti-big business, which can be bad as well I think (one shouldn't be for or against big business IMO).

I think the article leaves a few things out, however. For example, on GE and Jeffrey Immelt, people were not demonizing him solely over things like the F-35 program, they were criticizing him for having GE continue to do business with Iran, and for pushing for carbon cap and trade, which GE stands to profit from.

Also on the light bulbs (ironically this article is what led me to posting my lightbulb thread): The article mentions that the electrical and manufacturing industries are against Michelle Bachmann's wanting to repeal the mandated move to compact flourescent bulbs and phasing out of the incandescent bulbs.

But the compact flourescent bulbs cost a lot more than the incandescent bulbs right now, so maybe it is more that the companies do not want to reverse legislation requiring purchasing of a more expensive version of their product?

 

[mugaliens]

Yep, just saw it. I was a bit shocked to see an article that seemed to be defending things like subsidies and so forth for big business!

Really! Wow. Who in the world do you think funds R&D, even on a global basis?

 

[CAC1001]

Really! Wow. Who in the world do you think funds R&D, even on a global basis?

R&D from the government I assumed went mostly to universities, not corporations. Big corporations should be able to fund their own research, as they are big corporations, not arms of the state (or not supposed to be).

 

[BobG]

Really! Wow. Who in the world do you think funds R&D, even on a global basis?

R&D from the government I assumed went mostly to universities, not corporations. Big corporations should be able to fund their own research, as they are big corporations, not arms of the state (or not supposed to be).

R&D from the government isn't aimed at benefitting universities or corporations. It's aimed at encouraging R&D on some technology that the government thinks (rightly or wrongly) will develop products beneficial to the whole country.

In other words, the being able to fund their own is irrelevant. Left to their own devices, the corporation might spend that money on something that would yield a quicker return on their investment.

 

[Al68]

R&D from the government isn't aimed at benefitting universities or corporations. It's aimed at encouraging R&D on some technology that the government thinks (rightly or wrongly) will develop products beneficial to the whole country.

In other words, the being able to fund their own is irrelevant. Left to their own devices, the corporation might spend that money on something that would yield a quicker return on their investment.

Sure they might, but if that were true generally, the bulk of new technology, life saving drugs, etc would not exist today.

The most important encouragement for R&D that government provides is patent protection, not funding. And it works far better, since it is directed at what is likely to succeed instead of what is likely to gain political power.

 

[mheslep]

A seemingly counter-intuitive cover story in the latest issue of Businessweek:

I didn't read any but the lead you presented, but I would have said predictable. One the major reasons the US has a big government problem is that big business likes it that way. Lots of barriers to entry for new, lean and mean small businesses; allows the big players to thrive almost completely from rent sinking in many cases - GM the most prominent case. No big government, and there would be no GM today.

 

[jdnoslo]

Ivan,that's the same kind of "seat of your pants" thinking from "intellectual cowards" that was responsible for the American Revolution.

 

[Char. Limit]

Ivan,t hat's the same kind of "seat of your pants" thinking from "intellectual cowards" that was responsible for the American Revolution.

What post are you responding to? Because with 43 pages of posts, probably of which 50 are by Ivan, I don't want to guess.

 

[Gokul43201]

Ivan,that's the same kind of "seat of your pants" thinking from "intellectual cowards" that was responsible for the American Revolution.

I call BS on the claim that the Revolution was born from "seat of the pants" thinking. If ever there was a War of Enlightenment, this would be it. How can anyone read the founding documents, the Bill of Rights, Jefferson's thoughts, the Federalist papers, ... and call any of that the outcome of "seat of the pants" thinking?

 

[Evo]

Ivan,that's the same kind of "seat of your pants" thinking from "intellectual cowards" that was responsible for the American Revolution.

jdnoslo, the correct way to post here, if you are referring to a certain post, or posts, is to click the quote button in the lower right hand corner.

The post will appear in a reply box, and you will have the enire post along with a link to it so that others has some clue what you are talking about.

Just to be perfectly clear: It is my position that the tea drinkers are essentially intellectual cowards; that they are unwilling to face the truth. They cannot accept that our problems are tremendously difficult; not solved with simple seat-of-the-pants solutions. The movement is appealing because it caters to the ego-driven delusion that our problems could easily be solved if we would just put Joe Sixpack in charge. It is a refusal to accept that the world really is complicated and they don't understand it.

 

[jdnoslo]

I call BS on the claim that the Revolution was born from "seat of the pants" thinking. If ever there was a War of Enlightenment, this would be it. How can anyone read the founding documents, the Bill of Rights, Jefferson's thoughts, the Federalist papers, ... and call any of that the outcome of "seat of the pants" thinking?

Brilliant papers they are, and well thought out. This is not to say that the actions that lead to the revolution were also well thought out. The Boston Tea party, where this group in question derived it's name, was not a planned event but instead the same type of action (though less sever) that the party hosts now, this one just got out of control, as some seat of pants decisions are apt to do. The Tea Party Group holds those founding documents to be more important than the very president of the United States these days. This is why I personally love the idea of a government watch-dog group like them being out there.

 

[jdnoslo]

jdnoslo, the correct way to post here, if you are referring to a certain post, or posts, is to click the quote button in the lower right hand corner.

The post will appear in a reply box, and you will have the enire post along with a link to it so that others has some clue what you are talking about.

Thanx, I am new to this and appreciate your kind help.

 

[Char. Limit]

First of all, they are lead by an ex drug addict, who converted to mormonism. They support radical religious extremist nutjobs like Sarah Palin, and Christine O'donnel. Christine O'donnel is so mentally ill it is scary. She has a long history of lying about being a college graduate. She converted from catholic, to satanist, to evangelic.

Why would any sane person support these people? I think it boils down to mostly religious extremism, and racism. The motives of their cult leaders are probably another story.

Racism? Really? Just assume racism?

 

[jreelawg]

Racism? Really? Just assume racism?

I assume this in part because they didn't make a fuss when Bush was raping our country.

Another reason I think so, comes from reading comments on news articles, in which a very large percentage are racist, and IMO, racism, is on the rise, not only in the US, but in Europe and Russia as well.

Another reason I assume this, is that there are a lot of people trying to make Obama out to be a muslim, and an african, instead of an american. This claim alone is one of the main recruiting tools they use. As well, Rush, and Glenn beck have repeatedly made very racist statements.

Basically, the reason racism is such a factor, is because it exists. They will take advantage of any and all people who they can manipulate into joining their movement against the Democrats, and it is a plain fact that racism plays a large part.

 

[CRGreathouse]

jreelawg, you have a lot of anecdotes, opinions, and hearsay in htat last post. Can you source your claims?

Also, I don't understand the implication of your first sentence. It doesn't seem related to the question it purports to answer. What am I missing?

 

[edward]

Not necessarily racism, but a racial bias is inside of most of us. Even some blacks have a difficult time, in this well conceived test, linking a black face to the word good.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18122831/

Banaji: Something like 79 or 80 percent of white Americans who take the test, show a preference for white over black.

This issue is wide open for exploitation. Proving that it would be one of the driving factors behind the tea party would be difficult. I have watched some of the local Tea Party meetings and they follow a pattern.

That pattern is to say the words. Failure, Obama, Pelosi, Name of democratic candidate.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Not necessarily racism, but a racial bias is inside of most of us. Even some blacks have a difficult time

Interesting pairing, was that intentional?

 

[jreelawg]

jreelawg, you have a lot of anecdotes, opinions, and hearsay in htat last post. Can you source your claims?

Also, I don't understand the implication of your first sentence. It doesn't seem related to the question it purports to answer. What am I missing?

I'm not saying all tea party protesters are motivated by racism, just that a lot of them are.

Here is an example, of NAZI's and KKK, excited about going to a tea party event to protest Obama, and spread their message of hatred.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t588834/Then there is this guy

On March 21, 2010, Springboro Tea Party founder Sonny Thomas posted racist slurs against Hispanics on the group's Twitter webpage, including one post that said, "Illegals everywhere today! So many spics makes me feel like a speck. Grrr. Wheres my gun!?".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#Other_controversies

When I type "racist", in google, and a list pops up under the search bar guessing what I am going to type, it reads:

racist jokes, racist black jokes, racist mexican jokes, racist asian jokes, racist world cup logos, racist white jokes, racist hallmark cards, racist names, racist indian jokes, and last, racist tea party signs.

But then when I type, "racist elements", all that google suggests under the box was, "racist elements in the tea party", and "racist elements in tea party".

I just thought it was kind of funny, not arguing it means anything.

 

[BobG]

I'm not saying all tea party protesters are motivated by racism, just that a lot of them are.

Here is an example, of NAZI's and KKK, excited about going to a tea party event to protest Obama, and spread their message of hatred.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t588834/


Then there is this guy



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#Other_controversies

When I type "racist", in google, and a list pops up under the search bar guessing what I am going to type, it reads:

racist jokes, racist black jokes, racist mexican jokes, racist asian jokes, racist world cup logos, racist white jokes, racist hallmark cards, racist names, racist indian jokes, and last, racist tea party signs.

But then when I type, "racist elements", all that google suggests under the box was, "racist elements in the tea party", and "racist elements in tea party".

I just thought it was kind of funny, not arguing it means anything.

Is that because racism is prevalent or because expressions of racism in the Tea Party are more newsworthy than their message?

Few signs at tea party rally expressed racially charged anti-Obama themes

Of course, the study could have been as biased, or moreso, than the news media's coverage, considering it was conducted by one person with a Libertarian background. None the less, I don't think it's fair to say racism is one of the prevalent themes of the Tea Party movement.

 

[CAC1001]

Christine O'donnel is so mentally ill it is scary. She has a long history of lying about being a college graduate. She converted from catholic, to satanist, to evangelic.

Support for O'Donnell initially was because the Tea Party made a mistake on that one, and also because her alternative, they don't see as much better (I think he described himself as a Marxist...?).

Why would any sane person support these people? I think it boils down to mostly religious extremism, and racism. The motives of their cult leaders are probably another story.

It boils down to their wanting to get people elected into Congress who will vote against Obama's agenda. If they can support her or her Democratic opponent, they will support her.

I assume this in part because they didn't make a fuss when Bush was raping our country.

Yes they did. Many conservatives and libertarians didn't like the excessive spending of the Bush administration. President Obama's mistake was in seeing his election as a mandate to change America to a European model. Many in the media thought the same, saying America was now a center-left country.

But they were wrong to a good degree. As a result of many people perceiving Obama and the Democrats as governing as if we are Germany or France, a grassroots reaction sprung up in response.

Another reason I think so, comes from reading comments on news articles, in which a very large percentage are racist, and IMO, racism, is on the rise, not only in the US, but in Europe and Russia as well.

Another reason I assume this, is that there are a lot of people trying to make Obama out to be a muslim, and an african, instead of an american. This claim alone is one of the main recruiting tools they use. As well, Rush, and Glenn beck have repeatedly made very racist statements.

Basically, the reason racism is such a factor, is because it exists. They will take advantage of any and all people who they can manipulate into joining their movement against the Democrats, and it is a plain fact that racism plays a large part.

A plain fact? I think Charles Krauthammer made a good point when he pointed out that during the Bush years, dissent was the highest form of patriotism, now dissent is the lowest form of racism.

Also, I think if racism was truly the motivating factor behind the Tea Parties, you'd see it, like speeches being given and so forth, some really vile and hateful stuff, but we don't.

Also, regardless of what one may think of them, what racist statements have Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh made? The most controversial thing said by Glenn Beck I believe is when he called Obama a racist, but that itself isn't per se a "racist" comment.

Limbaugh has been on the air for years, and was accused of having said that slavery built the South and that Martin Luther King's assassin deserved a medal, but both of these turned out to be false.

 

[WhoWee]

Of course you are racist if you don't want cap and trade or you think it's a bad idea to print money to pat the debt or that the US is one of the larger Muslim countries. The racism claim is nothing but a distraction and used here to derail the thread.

 

[Gokul43201]

... or that the US is one of the larger Muslim countries...

...if by "one of the larger, you mean 57th by number and 120th by fraction of population. If not, then it isn't racism to say this, it's ignorance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population

 

[WhoWee]

...if by "one of the larger, you mean 57th by number and 120th by fraction of population. If not, then it isn't racism to say this, it's ignorance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population

Take your pick - it's all nonsense. Instead of throwing around labels, the liberals need to stand up and defend their legislative agenda.

 

[nismaratwork]

Take your pick - it's all nonsense. Instead of throwing around labels, [...][...][...] the liberals need to stand up and defend their legislative agenda.

You hardly took a breath between decrying the use of labels before... using a label.

 

[mheslep]

When I type "racist", in google, and a list pops up under the search bar guessing what I am going to type, it reads:
[...]
I just thought it was kind of funny, not arguing it means anything.

Apparently you are:

I'm not saying all tea party protesters are motivated by racism, just that a lot of them are.

 

[WhoWee]

You hardly took a breath between decrying the use of labels before... using a label.

That's cute, how about this - anyone who stands behind Obama, Pelosi, Reid and their legislative agenda should stand up and be proud/defend their efforts. Is that better?

 

[jreelawg]

The thing about the Tea Party is, that their leaders remind me of cult leaders. Glenn Beck is the phoniest tv personality I have ever seen. The people they prop up, Sarah Palin, Christine O'donnel etc, make me do a face palm.

I understand that we need to balance the budget, and we need to protect the constitution, but I don't understand the idea that electing unqualified nut jobs is going to help.

Add to this, the fact that the conspiracy theories preached to and embraced by the tea party leaders and followers appear to be a convoluted mix of hatred, delusion, ignorance, and fear.

I just read it as a big sham exploiting peoples anger and ignorance.

I am reminded of how Hitler rose to power. It was a case of a failing economy, conspiracy theories to point the blame at immigrants and jews, and a call for action.

I worry that when the economy crashes, Hitler esc manipulators will be empowered into government through exploitation of peoples fears, economic fustration, and ignorance etc.

Go read a news article about illegal immigration, and read the comments posted.

I know that the tea party isn't all about this, but one thing can lead to another, and it seams that the way the tea party is lead, is similar in the aspect of ignorance, manipulation, appeal to fear, and scapegoating.

 

[turbo]

O'Donnell (GOP nominee and Tea Party darling) has demonstrated a profound ignorance of the Constitution and the principle of the separation of church and state.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101019/ap_on_el_se/us_delaware_senate;_ylt=Ah5RGSQCg4kDalCPXAJnZFas0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFpZDViOXI5BHBvcwMzOQRzZWMDYWNjb3JkaW9uX21vc3RfcG9wdWxhcgRzbGsDb2Rvbm5lbGxxdWVz

Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools."
"Local schools do not have the right to teach what they feel?" O'Donnell said. "Talk about imposing your beliefs on the local schools."
When O'Donnell cited "indispensable principles" of the Founding Fathers in her criticism of an overreaching federal government, Coons interrupted her to say, "One of those indispensable principles is the separation of church and state."
"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked, a statement that drew laughter from the audience. When Coons returned to the topic a few minutes later, he said her comment "reveals her fundamental misunderstanding of what our Constitution is."
"The First Amendment establishes the separation, the fact that the federal government shall not establish religion," Coons said.
"The First Amendment does?" O'Donnell interrupted. "You're telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?"

What an intelligent and knowledgeable candidate! She must have missed Civics class that day.