News The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

[BobG]

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/features/view/feature/Glenn-Beck-vs-Malia-Obama-1340/

Such a patriot! Such a man of honor! The savior of the country! If it takes a true leader to attack an eleven-year-old girl, then Glenn Beck is your man.

I would be embarrased to even admit that I listen to this idiot. Is this sort of nonsense why the Beck fans really listen; adolescent taunts and jabs? Beck has been at the heart of the Tea Party from the start.

Don't his Christian followers EVER stop to ask themselves if these are the words of a Christian man? Would a Christian man - a man of honor - ever, EVER, use his media fame to beat up on little girls? Or do his words betray his true nature - a snake in the grass?

Perhaps you're mixing two separate movements. The Tea Party movement and Evangelical movement are only related by sharing the same party.

The Tea Party is more a Libertarian viewpoint and places less emphasis on social issues except where they interfere with personal or states rights. I imagine they do attract several Evangelicals that agree with their economic viewpoints, seeing as how the Tea Partiers are capturing the Republican headlines right now.

On the other hand, the conflict between moderate Northeastern Republicans, the Evangelical social movement, and the more libertarian Western Republicans is a real conflict that weakens Republicans when it comes to national issues.

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.

This is a valid criticism of the tea partiers. Their direction towards less government might be very appealling, but their views on individual issues are too simplistic and too absolute (see Rand Paul comments). They're closer in direction to Goldwater and Reagan than the Bush administration, but are much more extreme than Reagan, whose applications of his policy tended to be much more moderate than his words, and lack the anti-Communism fuel that complemented Goldwater's libertarianism - although the anti-Muslim rhetoric could just be a substitute for anti-Communism.

If they were a splinter group from a united Republican Party, I'd say the direction they would push the party would be good. As a splinter group from a fractured Republican Party, there's a real chance some really dumb ideas could be pushed as valid solutions by the party.

Eventually, they have to move beyond simplistic slogans and provide a little intellectual credibility to their ideas. Or has politics moved beyond intellectual credibility and into an arena where only the entertainment value matters? It's worked to a certain extent for Pallin, but it's hard to ignore how badly it worked for her in the general election. No matter how appealling some of these groups look at first glance, they eventually need to back up the slogans with substance or crash.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Perhaps you're mixing two separate movements. The Tea Party movement and Evangelical movement are only related by sharing the same party.

The Tea Party is more a Libertarian viewpoint and places less emphasis on social issues except where they interfere with personal or states rights. I imagine they do attract several Evangelicals that agree with their economic viewpoints, seeing as how the Tea Partiers are capturing the Republican headlines right now.

The only intended association between the Tea Party and religion, in this case, is Glenn Beck. But he isn't an evangelical. I'm not sure how that got into the mix. He is actually a Mormon; a late convert. He is a pseudo-libertarian of some kind or another [apparently the kind that cries a lot on tv], with a strong religious bias. He has also been a loud voice for the Fox News tea drinker's party.

In either case, I would hope that one doesn't have to be religious in order to find the public humiliation of a little girl, objectionable. My comments about religion stem from that fact that Beck uses religion as part of his gimmick. So at the least this shows him to be a hypocrite - a rather slimy breed of hypocrite, in my opinion.

I will try to find a stat and post it later tonight, but not too long ago, I saw a poll indicating that something like 60% of those sympathetic to or involved with the tea drinkers, are Glenn Beck fans. In fact I think I posted that somewhere around here...

 

[NeoDevin]

Don't his Christian followers EVER stop to ask themselves if these are the words of a Christian man? Would a Christian man - a man of honor - ever, EVER, use his media fame to beat up on little girls? Or do his words betray his true nature - a snake in the grass?

Most of his Christian followers (does he even have any non-christian followers?) are just as hateful as he is.

 

[mheslep]

Most of his Christian followers (does he even have any non-christian followers?) are just as hateful as he is.

Yes they have been allowed to be hateful for too long. They should be identified as such, probably with an highly visible armband, and restricted to designated living areas. Now I have no idea who 'they' are, but since you seem to know of the followers ('Most of his ... are') and their mindset, perhaps you could provide a list.

 

[NeoDevin]

Yes they have been allowed to be hateful for too long. They should be identified as such, probably with an highly visible armband, and restricted to designated living areas. Now I have no idea who 'they' are, but since you seem to know of the followers ('Most of his ... are') and their mindset, perhaps you could provide a list.

Allow me to rephrase then:

Every single person (no exceptions), who considers Beck to be a reasonable source of information, with whom I've had the (dis)pleasure of interacting, have been hateful, christian, bigots.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here we go

...Two thirds of Tea Partiers said they had a favorable opinion of Palin, according to the poll, conducted April 5 - 12, while 59 percent have a favorable opinion of [Glenn] Beck...[emphasis mine]

...Asked to volunteer their most admired political figure generally, no single person stands out among Tea Party supporters. As many as 29 percent offered no one or said they aren't sure. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich leads the list of those mentioned, with 10 percent, followed by Sarah Palin with 9 percent, and former President George W. Bush and Mitt Romney at 5 percent.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002534-503544.html

The options of "none" or "other" claimed a combined 49%

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2673653&highlight=Glenn+Beck+Tea+Party#post2673653

 

[BobG]

...Asked to volunteer their most admired political figure generally, no single person stands out among Tea Party supporters. As many as 29 percent offered no one or said they aren't sure. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich leads the list of those mentioned, with 10 percent, followed by Sarah Palin with 9 percent, and former President George W. Bush and Mitt Romney at 5 percent.

That adds support to the idea that Tea Partiers aren't quite working with a full deck. I don't think Mitt Romney would exactly fit the Tea Party profile.

Wait, what am thinking!? Romney's a chameleon that can change to blend into absolutely any political environment.

 

[turbo]

Need any help understanding how unhinged the tea-partiers are? They swarmed the Maine GOP caucus and passed this platform:

http://paintmainered.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=2731571:Topic:31119

If you are a moderate Republican, you can be assured that your opponent will paint you with this platform in the campaign leading up to November and force you to publicly repudiate point after point, or end up looking like a far-right loon.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

RALEIGH – During a press conference Tuesday in Raleigh, 13th Congressional District candidate [Tea Party favorite] Bill Randall speculated on the possibility of collusion between BP and the federal government to cause the gulf oil spill...

http://charlotte.news14.com/content/local_news/triangle/627156/candidate-suggests-federal-conspiracy-in-bp-oil-spill

And George Bush brought down the twin towers.

 

[russ_watters]

Here we go

I haven't spent much time in this thread, but with 60 posts, I figure there must be something interesting/useful going on here. So I'd like to get an idea of what the point of all this is.

It seems like the point is to demonstrate that members of the Tea Party movement are, for the most part, on the far right of the political spectrum.

Here's how *I* see where they would draw their membership from: If you split the political spectrum into quintiles, with the middle quintile being true moderates and swing votors, each party would get two-fifths on each side. The Tea Party movement would then draw its membership almost exclusively from the right-most fifth of the spectrum. Or perhaps it's more like the right-hand 10th? Not sure. In either case, the right-most group in a reasonbly sliced spectrum.

Is this a reasonable interpretation of what all these links and stats are intended to show?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Tea partier” Mark Williams writes ‘letter to Abe Lincoln’ … from the ‘coloreds’

Dear Mr. Lincoln

We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don’t cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!

In fact we held a big meeting and took a vote in Kansas City this week. We voted to condemn a political revival of that old abolitionist spirit called the ‘tea party movement’.

The tea party position to “end the bailouts” for example is just silly. Bailouts are just big money welfare and isn’t that what we want all Coloreds to strive for? What kind of racist would want to end big money welfare? What they need to do is start handing the bail outs directly to us coloreds! Of course, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is the only responsible party that should be granted the right to disperse the funds.

And the ridiculous idea of “reduce[ing] the size and intrusiveness of government.” What kind of massa would ever not want to control my life? As Coloreds we must have somebody care for us otherwise we would be on our own, have to think for ourselves and make decisions!

The racist tea parties also demand that the government “stop the out of control spending.” Again, they directly target coloreds. That means we Coloreds would have to compete for jobs like everybody else and that is just not right.

Perhaps the most racist point of all in the tea parties is their demand that government “stop raising our taxes.” That is outrageous! How will we coloreds ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn? Totally racist! The tea party expects coloreds to be productive members of society?

Mr. Lincoln, you were the greatest racist ever. We had a great gig. Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by the massa in the house. Please repeal the 13th and 14th Amendments and let us get back to where we belong.

Sincerely

Precious Ben Jealous, Tom’s Nephew NAACP Head Colored Person

http://blog.reidreport.com/2010/07/tea-partier-mark-williams-writes-open-letter-to-lincoln-from-the-coloreds/

 

[KalamMekhar]

Name the Tea-Party protesters:
Option A:

Option B:

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Tea partier” Mark Williams writes ‘letter to Abe Lincoln’ … from the ‘coloreds’

I should have noted that this is the same tea party leader who said that Muslims worship a monkey god.
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/05/19/2010-05-19_tea_party_leader_mark_williams_says_muslims_worship_a_monkey_god_blasts_ground_z.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Earlier this week, the NAACP passed a resolution calling on all people — including tea party leaders — to condemn racism within the tea party movement. In return, the NAACP was accused of being racist. The conservative blogs hummed:

The nearby St. Louis Tea Party group drafted a resolution of its own condemning the civil rights group for reducing itself to a "bigoted" and "partisan attack dog organization."

http://www.examiner.com/x-38352-Pau...Examiner~y2010m7d18-NAACP-2010-We-like-coffee

Hannity, at Fox News, had this to offer

Now, we've heard this left-wing attack from Democrats and their allies before. For more than a year, the left has waged a vicious smear campaign against Tea Party supporters and town hall attendees. We've learned that anyone who dares to speak out against the president's policies is at risk of being called stupid, un-American, racist and worse...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,597002,00.html

Palin:

Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, a tea party favorite, issued a statement saying that NAACP claims that tea party members judge people by the color of their skin are “false and appalling.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0714/Nasty-tea-party-NAACP-racism-feud-Who-s-right

Nevermind that anyone watching TV could see the racist posters displayed at tea party rallies, as the movment gained momentum.

Enter William's appalling letter to Lincoln, which he described as an effort to initiate a dialogue with the NAACP.

Today, the national coalition tea party leader implicity admitted that the NAACP was right and expelled Mark Williams and the Tea Party Express, from the so-called national coalition of tea parties.

The National Tea Party Federation, which comprises scores of tea parties across the country, announced Sunday that it has expelled the Tea Party Express and its spokesman after a racially charged blog post...

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/07/18/2092512/racial-comments-cause-rift-in.html#ixzz0u6HC7Jsy

It's a start. But the tea party's problems extend beyond the racist elements in their midsts. It also has a problem with its candidates. Even the once thought to be doomed Senator Reid, in Nevada, has taken the lead in his reelection bid for the Senate.

The headline: "Reid takes lead on Angle", the poll that the R-J commissioned showed, Reid 44 percent and Angle 37 percent...

“Nevadans don’t share Sharron Angle’s extreme views. They don’t want to kill Social Security. They don’t want to get rid of the Department of Education. And they don’t want Nevada to become the nation’s nuclear dumping ground,” said Reid..

http://www.examiner.com/x-34890-Cla...New-MasonDixon-Poll-for-Nevada-US-Senate-Race

So the picture emerging is that a failed conservative party spawned a hyperconservative "grassroots" movement, that in turn has already begun to fracture. Additionally, as the tea party favorites are scrutinized in the light of day, they are far less attractive to mainstream voters that it would seem while watching the tea party's flag-waiving extravaganzas.

It is hard to see how this could be anything but the death rattle of neo-conservatism. My expectation is that the much anticipated tea party victories in November will never materialize to any siginficant degree. The Republican party will be forced to purge its radically conservative elements in order to survive. I suspect that, rather than representing a great wave of change, the tea party will instead be like a tsunami that washes over the land, leaving nothing in its wake but rubble. With the conservative base so highly fractured, it is hard to see it going any other way.

 

[KalamMekhar]

Would you mind posting some pictures of these "racist" picket signs?

Nevermind that anyone watching TV could see the racist posters displayed at tea party rallies, as the movment gained momentum.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Would you mind posting some pictures of these "racist" picket signs?

Sure. Don't you ever watch the news? If you are completely unaware of this, then I hope you don't have an opinion on the matter.

Just to be clear, the allegation that the tea party has a problem racists in their midsts has already been clearly demonstrated by Mark Williams - the head of the Tea Party Express. They admitted this when Williams was expelled. While you are perfectly capable of googling this yourself, I'll post this one of the person who runs TeaParty.Org

http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/804/teapartypic.jpg
http://washingtonindependent.com/73036/n-word-sign-dogs-would-be-tea-party-leader

 

[KalamMekhar]

So one man represents the whole tea-party? Sounds like you are grasping at straws to me.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Actually, I'm not even sure that's a valid example. What if (in blatant violation of Godwin's law) the sign said, "Congress = Nazis, taxpayer = Schwulenverband"? Clearly, the purpose of that sign would be to draw a parallel between Congress' treatment of taxpayers and the Third Reich's treatment of homosexuals; its force comes from an implicit understanding that the Nazi treatment of gays is bad. Similarly, Robertson's sign relies on the audience understanding that slaveholders were bad to their slaves. Using a loaded term is useful here, because the sign is an appeal to emotion. It calls to mind the worst aspects of slavery.

Now clearly the sign was tasteless... but it's by no means obvious that it was racist.

 

[Proton Soup]

that sign is almost as inflammatory as Shirley Sherrod

 

[NeoDevin]

[PLAIN]http://mokellyreport.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/obamawillis.jpg?w=300&h=225

[PLAIN]http://mokellyreport.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/obamamassa.jpg?w=375&h=500

[PLAIN]http://mokellyreport.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/obamaafrican.jpg?w=300&h=225

Need I go on?

 

[mheslep]

Unlike this news on Mark Williams (who?), elected to nothing, I missed the demand to expel the elected speaker of these http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/09/obama.reid/index.html" about Obama:

a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,' "

Nor did I ever see 'nails in the coffin' predictions as a consequence of keeping the former http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd#Ku_Klux_Klan" in the ranks for so many years.

 

[mheslep]

Need I go on?

Only if you have a point.

 

[NeoDevin]

Only if you have a point.

That was directed more at KalamMekhar who seems to be suggesting that there isn't a problem with racism in the tea party.

 

[mheslep]

Sorry for butting in ...

 

[SixNein]

I consider every step forward for the Tea Party, and every primary Republican win for so-called grassroots leaders who appeal in particular to the tea drinkers, to be just more nails in the coffin for the GOP. While the Tea Party wants to claim the Independents, and while they help to fuel the anti-incumbent fervor, in fact, I think the entire movement is based on superficial claims - pandering to irrational fears and anger. The tea drinkers represent the death rattle of a failed conservative party. The Republicans cannot afford to embrace the Tea Party favorites, and they can't afford not to. Either choice means certain death for the foreseeable future.

I had to laugh when I saw that, just after winning the the Republican nomination, Tea Party favorite Rand Paul, caused the Republicans to run for cover.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/us/politics/21paul.html?ref=politics

Please do tell us more, Mr. Paul. I am dying to hear all about it!

I think the tea party members are just insane.

If they did manage to gain power *shivers*.

 

[mheslep]

I think the tea party members are just insane.

Though the 'tea party' is not really a political party with its own candidates, Senator Scott Brown had substantial tea party support. Do you find him insane?

If they did manage to gain power *shivers*.

Me, I reserve shivers for severe cold and not politics, but if I did have political shivers it would be for a continuation in power of the current political party.

 

[SixNein]

Though the 'tea party' is not really a political party with its own candidates, Senator Scott Brown had substantial tea party support. Do you find him insane?

Me, I reserve shivers for severe cold and not politics, but if I did have political shivers it would be for a continuation in power of the current political party.

I've spoken to many tea party members, and most of them seemed to suffer from severe paranoia. Quite frankly, Ivan Seeking's comments were a very accurate assessment of the party.

No, the tea party is not a 3rd party. But the tea party does have its own ideal candidates that it attempts to place in power. And I'm not so sure Scott Brown is looked upon so favorably since his go-along with the recent financial regulations.

 

[mheslep]

What's wrong with this word picture:

I've spoken to many tea party members, and most of them seemed to suffer from severe paranoia.

If they did manage to gain power *shivers*.

 

[WhoWee]

I've spoken to many tea party members, and most of them seemed to suffer from severe paranoia. Quite frankly, Ivan Seeking's comments were a very accurate assessment of the party.

Can you please elaborate?

 

[SixNein]

What's wrong with this word picture:

Hehehe, let me rephrase. I would shiver if some of their constitutional suggestions were to be implemented.

 

[SixNein]

Can you please elaborate?

Most of the ones I talked to had a belief in a conspiracy theory called "new world order." Some seemed to be ready for an armed revolt to stop it.

 

[Galteeth]

The "tea party" is not a monolithic group. I am a bit surprised by the hatred this group seems to engender from the "left".
I would say it is vaguely a group of conservative leaning people who feel that the mainstream republican party no longer represents their interest.
There are various factions trying to ideologically dominate and controol the tea party.
It is not surprising that this group can't identify a single figure that represents them.

It is very common for the media and critics to try and paint the "tea party" as racist. Honestly, this is bizarre, as the conclusion seems to mainly stem from their being "anti-obama". It is inferred by the left that the only reason people could be so critical of Obama and his policies is because of a racist reaction. This is the height of arrogance.

As far as Rand Paul goes, the idea of allowing private business owners to discriminate is totally consistent with his libertarianesque view point. As someone who was supportive of Ron Paul, there are numerous things that trouble me about Rand Paul, but this is not one of them.

The fact of the matter is that private business can and does discriminate against people all the time. While this is not an ideal thing, it's preferable in the real world to the alternative (this is a complex conversation that would be off topic, I am not really focused on "race" here when i refer to discrimination).

Finally, "pragmatism", though the creed of the modern liberals and neo-conservatives, is not recognized by everyone as a good thing. Many people still believe in some sort of a morality or moral standard that trumps convenience or political expediency.

 

[NeoDevin]

It is very common for the media and critics to try and paint the "tea party" as racist. Honestly, this is bizarre, as the conclusion seems to mainly stem from their being "anti-obama". It is inferred by the left that the only reason people could be so critical of Obama and his policies is because of a racist reaction. This is the height of arrogance.

You apparently missed the posters which I posted earlier in the thread. Those (and many more like them), and not, as you claim, the fact that they are "anti-Obama", are why they are ("painted as") racist.

 

[Galteeth]

You apparently missed the posters which I posted earlier in the thread. Those (and many more like them), and not, as you claim, the fact that they are "anti-Obama", are why they are ("painted as") racist.

Undoubtedly, there are racist undertones (or even overtones) in those signs, but the message is not explicitly racist. The tea party is not a monolithic group, and there has definitely been an effort to paint them as racist by the left. Naturally, there are people who are both tea partiers and racists. However, the left and the media has made the effort to portray the tea party as motivated by racism, and in the worst cases, to advocate some sort of white supremacist ideology. I don't think this stands up under scrutiny, and is really sort of an ad hominem response to the tea party's arguments (We don't want to talk about the ever expanding role of government and national debt, so let's talk about how you have racists in your ranks.)

I would also note that while there is a lot of hyperbole against Obama, the same types of hyperbole were made against Bush (i.e. comparisons to hitler) and racism was not seen as a factor.

This video shows some of the media representation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf9BB6mrR3s&feature=player_embedded

It's worthy to note there is grey propaganda here as well.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...r-plans-to-destroy-the-tea-party-movement.php

Here is a Jack Conway supporter at a Rand Paul event posing as a racist Rand Paul supporter.



Here is an alleged infiltrator being thrown out of a tea partySome tea party infiltration weirdness:

http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/04/16/crashing-the-crashers-tea-party-infiltrators-outmaneuvered-in-s-f/

 

[NeoDevin]

Undoubtedly, there are racist undertones (or even overtones) in those signs, but the message is not explicitly racist. The tea party is not a monolithic group, and there has definitely been an effort to paint them as racist by the left. Naturally, there are people who are both tea partiers and racists. However, the left and the media has made the effort to portray the tea party as motivated by racism, and in the worst cases, to advocate some sort of white supremacist ideology. I don't think this stands up under scrutiny, and is really sort of an ad hominem response to the tea party's arguments (We don't want to talk about the ever expanding role of government and national debt, so let's talk about how you have racists in your ranks.)

I would also note that while there is a lot of hyperbole against Obama, the same types of hyperbole were made against Bush (i.e. comparisons to hitler) and racism was not seen as a factor.

They are not being called racist because of the "hyperbole against Obama", but because a good number of them are racist. If there was any backlash from the rest of the group against these racists, if they were shouted down by the tea party, and shown to be a minority, then they wouldn't be called racist. Instead, they welcome these people, and deny that there is a problem.

 

[mugaliens]

They are not being called racist because of the "hyperbole against Obama", but because a good number of them are racist. If there was any backlash from the rest of the group against these racists, if they were shouted down by the tea party, and shown to be a minority, then they wouldn't be called racist. Instead, they welcome these people, and deny that there is a problem.

I do not believe this is an accurate description of the issue.

Rather, I think as has been said earlier by several folks, there are radicals in all camps of thought, and they sort of give the rest a bad reputation. Also, given the basic human nature of pointing fingers at the opposition, people in all camps are... pointing fingers at the opposition. I believe debating the merits of one camp's position over another here on PF is futile. All have their own reasons for believing what they do, and despite the fact they've been endlessly debated elsewhere, few from either side have crossed over.

Most people are either moderate or indifferent anyway, regardless of their party affiliation. I think what's not working here is our two-party system, as it results in polarization of just about every single issue, along with a huge waste of resources.

It fact, the current structure loggerjams most issues. Interestingly, however, our Founding Fathers sort of wanted things that way, so perhaps that's not such a bad thing after all. :)

I think the bigger issue are the huge waste of America's resources. Parasitic economics i.e. taxing Peter to create jobs for Paul is circular reasoning at its worst. To a limited extent it does help stabilize the economy, but it's not a substitute for production and the creation of valid goods and services.

 

[SixNein]

I do not believe this is an accurate description of the issue.

Rather, I think as has been said earlier by several folks, there are radicals in all camps of thought, and they sort of give the rest a bad reputation. Also, given the basic human nature of pointing fingers at the opposition, people in all camps are... pointing fingers at the opposition. I believe debating the merits of one camp's position over another here on PF is futile. All have their own reasons for believing what they do, and despite the fact they've been endlessly debated elsewhere, few from either side have crossed over.

Most people are either moderate or indifferent anyway, regardless of their party affiliation. I think what's not working here is our two-party system, as it results in polarization of just about every single issue, along with a huge waste of resources.

It fact, the current structure loggerjams most issues. Interestingly, however, our Founding Fathers sort of wanted things that way, so perhaps that's not such a bad thing after all. :)

I think the bigger issue are the huge waste of America's resources. Parasitic economics i.e. taxing Peter to create jobs for Paul is circular reasoning at its worst. To a limited extent it does help stabilize the economy, but it's not a substitute for production and the creation of valid goods and services.

Everyone thinks of his or her self as a moderate regardless of their place on the political spectrum. I think of myself as a moderate, but tea party members would refer to me a highly liberal. And many of them would call themselves moderates although I would consider them to be very far to the right. A decent discussion between myself and tea party members are impossible because our world views are so different.

 

[vertices]

Undoubtedly, there are racist undertones (or even overtones) in those signs, but the message is not explicitly racist.
...
I would also note that while there is a lot of hyperbole against Obama, the same types of hyperbole were made against Bush (i.e. comparisons to hitler) and racism was not seen as a factor.

Do you not think that superimposing Obama's face with that of Hitler goes way beyond mere 'hyperbole'? How can anyone with a modicum of sensitivity equate a racial supremacist who murdered over 6 million people with America's first black president?

It is astonishing that such actions are sanctioned and supported by the mainstream tea party 'movement':

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7888741/Barack-Obama-compared-to-Hitler-and-Lenin-in-Tea-Party-billboard.html

John White, state coordinator of the Iowa Tea Party movement... told Radio Iowa that he believed that everything Mr Obama had done was in "lock-step" with what Hitler did in his day.

yeah, like exterminating 6 million jews...

As as aside, the irony of this comparison is unbelievable. There are 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism, which can be found here: http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm

I think you will agree that comparisons between Bush and Hitler weren't hyperbolic at all..

 

[Galteeth]

Do you not think that superimposing Obama's face with that of Hitler goes way beyond mere 'hyperbole'? How can anyone with a modicum of sensitivity equate a racial supremacist who murdered over 6 million people with America's first black president?

It is astonishing that such actions are sanctioned and supported by the mainstream tea party 'movement':

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7888741/Barack-Obama-compared-to-Hitler-and-Lenin-in-Tea-Party-billboard.html



yeah, like exterminating 6 million jews...

As as aside, the irony of this comparison is unbelievable. There are 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism, which can be found here: http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm

I think you will agree that comparisons between Bush and Hitler weren't hyperbolic at all..

Is this post meant to ironically support my point? Honestly, I'm not sure.

 

[vertices]

Is this post meant to ironically support my point? Honestly, I'm not sure.

No, it was to ask you a question: namely, "do you not think that superimposing Obama's face with that of Hitler goes beyond mere 'hyperbole'?"

 

[CRGreathouse]

I'm seeing some serious Ketl-Pott issues here.

 

[mheslep]

Do you not think that superimposing Obama's face with that of Hitler goes way beyond mere 'hyperbole'? How can anyone with a modicum of sensitivity equate a racial supremacist who murdered over 6 million people with America's first black president?

I think you will agree that comparisons between Bush and Hitler weren't hyperbolic at all..

How can anyone with a modicum of sensitivity equate a racial supremacist who murdered over 6 million people with an American President? Good grief.

BTW, one can find numerous references of sitting US Democratic politicians comparing opposing party politicians (e.g. Bush Sr) to Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. Objections to some bozo in Iowa who went over the top, elected to nothing by nobody, might include those Dem. politicians for taking the discussion there in the first place.

Edit: I see CRGr beat me to it.

 

[vela]

Undoubtedly, there are racist undertones (or even overtones) in those signs, but the message is not explicitly racist. The tea party is not a monolithic group, and there has definitely been an effort to paint them as racist by the left. Naturally, there are people who are both tea partiers and racists.

They are not being called racist because of the "hyperbole against Obama", but because a good number of them are racist. If there was any backlash from the rest of the group against these racists, if they were shouted down by the tea party, and shown to be a minority, then they wouldn't be called racist. Instead, they welcome these people, and deny that there is a problem.

The Tea Party has a significant problem in that its core belief of reining in government appeals to racists. Simply put, limiting the reach of government allows them more freedom to discriminate, which is exactly what racists want.

However, the left and the media has made the effort to portray the tea party as motivated by racism, and in the worst cases, to advocate some sort of white supremacist ideology. I don't think this stands up under scrutiny, and is really sort of an ad hominem response to the tea party's arguments (We don't want to talk about the ever expanding role of government and national debt, so let's talk about how you have racists in your ranks.)

This is just standard operating procedure for both sides, isn't it? Latch on to some controversial issue to divert attention away from more important issues. And the media just play along because controversy sells.

 

[vela]

How can anyone with a modicum of sensitivity equate a racial supremacist who murdered over 6 million people with an American President?

It's because Hitler was responsible for more than just the Holocaust. It may not be fair to equate Hitler with Bush or Obama, but it is fair to compare their political tactics. Secret courts, warrantless eavesdropping? These are examples of things you'd expect from a ruler like Hitler, not from presidents of a supposedly free society.

And to bring this back on topic with the thread, does anybody know what the Tea Party's take is on this aspect of expanding governmental powers? Are they only interested in opposing the government's economic influence, or do they also want to repeal the Patriot Act, in part or in full?

 

[mheslep]

It's because Hitler was responsible for more than just the Holocaust.

I know, I used Vert's phrasing almost word for word to draw attention to the double standard in that post.

It may not be fair to equate Hitler with Bush or Obama, but it is fair to compare their political tactics.

Yes, but such as?

Secret courts, warrantless eavesdropping? These are examples of things you'd expect from a ruler like Hitler, not from presidents of a supposedly free society.

I might disagree with those policies, but I find specious the suggestion that they are in anyway comparable as political tactics to those of Hitler's, especially given I can't point to an actual US citizen innocent of violating US laws yet oppressed by FISA courts or taps on international phone calls to Al Qaeda suspects. I have my own list of oppressive political actions by US federal and local governments, and those are not on it.

 

[mheslep]

The Tea Party has a significant problem in that its core belief of reining in government appeals to racists. Simply put, limiting the reach of government allows them more freedom to discriminate, which is exactly what racists want.

That's a good point, in that I agree the likely perception of some white racists is that less government intrusion would allow them more freedom to discriminate. However, I think the reality is more complicated, possibly the reverse is true. After all, it was government itself at the heart of the Jim Crow era by way of the law, and not just some nebulous background current in society that segregated Rosa Park's bus.

 

[mheslep]

And to bring this back on topic with the thread, does anybody know what the Tea Party's take is on this aspect of expanding governmental powers? Are they only interested in opposing the government's economic influence, or do they also want to repeal the Patriot Act, in part or in full?

Rand Paul, candidate for Senate in Kentucky, had substantial Tea Party support:

Whether it’s passing the 315 page Patriot Act without a single member of Congress ever reading the bill, proposing a National ID Card, establishing FISA courts and utilizing warrantless searches, or betraying the medical privacy of ordinary citizens, the Federal Government has overstepped its limited powers as stipulated in the Constitution.

http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/h-p/privacy-liberty/

 

[vertices]

How can anyone with a modicum of sensitivity equate a racial supremacist who murdered over 6 million people with an American President? Good grief.

Obama dared to push hard to redress the systemic unfairness and unsustainability of having millions of poor, uninsured, families - this elicited that ugly Hitler comparison.

The whole tea party "argument" (more like pretext) for that ad was that "big goverment"=>fascism, therefore Obama=Hitler. This is easy to disprove by counterexample - take your pick: are any of the following countries fascist states: Sweden, Norway, UK? Remember, Obama didn't even push for a "public option" - he himself ruled it out.

It is easy to show, however, that America, under Bush, did display some fascist tendencies (hence, Bush-Hitler comparisons were in some cases perfectly valid). The link I posted in my previous post is telling..

BTW, one can find numerous references of sitting US Democratic politicians comparing opposing party politicians (e.g. Bush Sr) to Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. Objections to some bozo in Iowa who went over the top, elected to nothing by nobody, might include those Dem. politicians for taking the discussion there in the first place.

Edit: I see CRGr beat me to it.

Context is everything, hint: what would have happened to a black person in Nazi Germany... Did Bush Sr, or any other US president for that matter, ever have their face superimposed on Hitler's? With Obama, I get the impression that people hate the guy rather than his politics.

BTW the "bozo who went over the top" was only the state coordinator of the Iowa Tea Party movement...

 

[CRGreathouse]

The whole tea party "argument" (more like pretext) for that ad was that "big goverment"=>fascism, therefore Obama=Hitler. This is easy to disprove by counterexample - take your pick: are any of the following countries fascist states: Sweden, Norway, UK?

I think that a person who feels that the United States under Obama is fascist (or rather, proto-fascist) is unlikely to automatically agree that those countries are non-(proto-)fascist. This shows the essential weakness in argument by metaphor.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Did Bush Sr, or any other US president for that matter, ever have their face superimposed on Hitler's?

Almost surely. Comparisons of disliked persons with Hitler is an American pastime.