DABR Twitter Web Client Mini Blog Yo Mama Jokes Sports Bookmarklets About Us

May 22, 2010

Just Build The Danged Fence!



 

so we can solve our illegal immigration problems, right John?

FENCE BUILDING, FUCK YEAH!

What’s that now?

According to the independent, non-partisan citizen watchdog group, Taxpayers for Common Sense. In a recent report, it is estimated that the cost of building and maintaining the fence will cost an astronomical “$300 million to $1.7 billion per mile, depending on materials.” [Fact Sheet: Border Fence Cost Out of Bounds]

$300M to $1.7B per mile?!? My small-government tea-party outrage says no, but my fear of “the others” is saying yes.

Yep, and keep in mind, those figures don’t factor in:

  • Fluctuating fuel, labor and materials prices, exacerbated by the use of private contractors.
  • The high costs of purchasing land from private owners and fighting lawsuits challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s waiver of nearly 40 environmental and regulatory laws. Though CBP added $0.8 million per mile for land acquisition costs in their most recent estimates, this figure is likely low considering the more than 100 cases challenging the DHS awards currently before the courts.
  • Environmental mitigation. The $50 million Congress added to DHS’ 2009 budget for “regulatory and environmental requirements” is a drop in the bucket. Taxpayers often end up with the bill for long-term environmental impacts when the government is exempted by legal waivers.

So with our debt going forward we can’t afford this AND the war on terror AND our other commitments, right?

only if it involves keeping “illegals” out of the country. Who needs to worry about a budget deficit then, when you’re willing to spend more in enforcement than could be gained from true comprehensive immigration reform.

But if it keeps me safe, and …

…we really want to be all Arizonans now, as Sarah Palin alluded to this past weekend?

Build baby build!

Naw. Debt baby debt!

conversation courtesy of: THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: What John McCain’s “Just build the danged fence,” campaign ad fails to tell you

Bookmark and Share Email This Print This PDF This Blog This Facebook Twiit Google Google Yahoo! Buzz Ping StumbleUpon LinkedIn MySpace

Popularity: 1% [?]

May 19, 2010

How the First Black President’s Approach to Race Is Transforming What It Means to Be White | News & Politics | AlterNet



 

Very interesting article that I think helps explain the rampant Tea Partyism.

How the First Black President’s Approach to Race Is Transforming What It Means to Be White | News & Politics | AlterNet

By displaying all these tropes of traditional whiteness, Obama’s candidacy disrupted the very idea of whiteness. Suddenly whiteness was no longer about educational achievement, family stability or the command of spoken English. One might argue that the folksy interventions of Sarah Palin were a desperate attempt to reclaim and redefine whiteness as a gun-toting ordinariness that eschews traditional and elite markers of achievement.

Obama’s whiteness in this sense is frightening and strange for those invested in believing that racial categories are stable, meaningful and essential. Those who yearn for a postracial America hoped Obama had transcended blackness, but the real threat he poses to the American racial order is that he disrupts whiteness, because whiteness has been the identity that defines citizenship, access to privilege and the power to define national history.

In 1998 Toni Morrison wrote that Bill Clinton was the first “black president” because he “displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald’s-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas.” Ten years later the man who truly became America’s first black president displayed few of these tropes. Instead he was a scholarly, worldly, health food-eating man from Hawaii. In this sense, Obama was the white candidate in 2008, and a substantial portion of white voters preferred Obama’s version of whiteness to that of McCain and Palin.

Which brings us back to Obama’s Census choice. Despite his legitimate claims on whiteness, he chose to call himself black. As historian Nell Painter documents in her new book The History of White People, white identity was a heavily policed and protected border for most of American history. A person born to an African parent and a white parent could be legally enslaved in America until 1865. From 1877 until 1965 that person would have been subject to segregation in public accommodations, schools, housing and employment. In 1896 the Supreme Court established the doctrine of separate but equal in the case of Homer Plessy, a New Orleans Creole of color whose ancestry was only a small fraction African. President Obama’s Census self-identification was a moment of solidarity with these black people and a recognition that the legal and historical realities of race are definitive, that he would have been subject to all the same legal restrictions had he been born at another time. So in April, Obama did as he has done repeatedly in his adult life: he embraced blackness, with all its disprivilege, tumultuous history and disquieting symbolism. He did not deny his white parentage, but he acknowledged that in America, for those who also have African heritage, having a white parent has never meant becoming white.

.

Link

Bookmark and Share Email This Print This PDF This Blog This Facebook Twiit Google Google Yahoo! Buzz Ping StumbleUpon LinkedIn MySpace

Popularity: 1% [?]

April 21, 2010

THE greatest segment in recorded TV History!



 

Link

Bookmark and Share Email This Print This PDF This Blog This Facebook Twiit Google Google Yahoo! Buzz Ping StumbleUpon LinkedIn MySpace

Popularity: 1% [?]

March 20, 2010

Healthcare Reform: Thoughts on the Tea Party and Tavis Smiley from @profblmkelley and @harrislacewell



 

@profblmkelley: Tea people are acting like healthcare is for black people only. Tavis is acting like health care excludes black people. They all hate Obama.

@profblmkelley: These slurs highlight the larger sentiment of why they oppose healthcare. They think that “the other” will benefit.

@harrislacewell: Yep @profblmkelley It’s an indication of American individualism becoming selfish tribalism. But interestingly so is the Smiley mess.

————–

@MotherJones: TeaParty Heckle Dems w Racist, Homophobic Slurs http://bit.ly/ar7yS1

“A lot of us have been saying for a long time that much of this is not about health care at all. And I think that a lot of people out there today demonstrated this,” Clyburn said at the Capitol Vistors Center after the speech, where protesters continued to shout “vote no” at the passing members of Congress. Rather, he explained, the protesters’ opposition was in reaction “to extend a basic fundamental right to people who are less powerful.”

When asked whether he felt apprehensive as a result of the racist attacks, Clyburn replied: “As I said to one heckler, I’m the hardest person in the world to intimidate.”

Posted via web

Bookmark and Share Email This Print This PDF This Blog This Facebook Twiit Google Google Yahoo! Buzz Ping StumbleUpon LinkedIn MySpace

Popularity: 1% [?]

February 22, 2010

“The GOP’s “small government” tea party fraud” by Glenn Greenwald – Salon.com



 

There’s a major political fraud underway:  the GOP is once again donning their libertarian, limited-government masks in order to re-invent itself and, more important, to co-opt the energy and passion of the Ron-Paul-faction that spawned and sustains the ”tea party” movement.  The Party that spat contempt at Paul during the Bush years and was diametrically opposed to most of his platform now pretends to share his views.  Standard-issue Republicans and Ron Paul libertarians are as incompatible as two factions can be — recall that the most celebrated right-wing moment of the 2008 presidential campaign was when Rudy Giuliani all but accused Paul of being an America-hating Terrorist-lover for daring to suggest that America’s conduct might contribute to Islamic radicalism — yet the Republicans, aided by the media, are pretending that this is one unified, harmonious, “small government” political movement.

The Right is petrified that this fraud will be exposed and is thus bending over backwards to sustain the myth.  Paul was not only invited to be a featured speaker at the Conservative Political Action Conference but also won its presidential straw poll.  Sarah Palin endorsed Ron Paul’s son in the Kentucky Senate race.  National Review is lavishly praising Paul, while Ann Coulter “felt compelled [in her CPAC speech] to give a shout out to Paul-mania, saying she agreed with everything he stands for outside of foreign policy — a statement met with cheers.”  Glenn Beck — who literally cheered for the Wall Street bailout and Bush’s endlessly expanding surveillance state — now parades around as though he shares the libertarians’ contempt for them.  Red State’s Erick Erickson, defending the new so-called conservative “manifesto,” touts the need for Congress to be confined to the express powers of Article I, Section 8, all while lauding a GOP Congress that supported countless intrusive laws — from federalized restrictions on assisted suicide, marriage, gambling, abortion and drugs to intervention in Terri Schiavo’s end-of-life state court proceeding — nowhere to be found in that Constitutional clause.  With the GOP out of power, Fox News suddenly started featuring anti-government libertarians such as John Stossel and Reason Magazine commentators, whereas, when Bush was in power, there was no government power too expanded or limitless for Fox propagandists to praise.

This is what Republicans always do.  When in power, they massively expand the power of the state in every realm.  Deficit spending and the national debt skyrocket.  The National Security State is bloated beyond description through wars and occupations, while no limits are tolerated on the Surveillance State.  Then, when out of power, they suddenly pretend to re-discover their “small government principles.”  The very same Republicans who spent the 1990s vehemently opposing Bill Clinton’s Terrorism-justified attempts to expand government surveillance and executive authority then, once in power, presided over the largest expansion in history of those very same powers.  The last eight years of Republican rule was characterized by nothing other than endlessly expanded government power, even as they insisted — both before they were empowered and again now — that they are the standard-bearers of government restraint.

What makes this deceit particularly urgent for them now is that their only hope for re-branding and re-empowerment lies in a movement — the tea partiers — that has been (largely though not exclusively) dominated by libertarians, Paul followers, and other assorted idiosyncratic factions who are hostile to the GOP’s actual approach to governing.  This is a huge wedge waiting to be exposed — to explode — as the modern GOP establishment and the actual ”small-government” libertarians that fuel the tea party are fundamentally incompatible.  Right-wing mavens like Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin and National Review are suddenly feigning great respect for Ron Paul and like-minded activists because they’re eager that the sham will be maintained:  the blatant sham that the modern GOP and its movement conservatives are a coherent vehicle for those who believe in small government principles.  The only evidence of a passionate movement urging GOP resurgence is from people whose views are antithetical to that Party.  That’s the dirty secret which right-wing polemicists are desperately trying to keep suppressed. Credit to Mike Huckabee for acknowledging this core incompatibility by saying he would not attend CPAC because of its “increasing libertarianism.”

These fault lines began to emerge when Sarah Palin earlier this month delivered the keynote speech to the national tea party conference in Nashville, and stood there spitting out one platitude after the next which Paul-led libertarians despise:  from neoconservative war-loving dogma and veneration of Israel to glorification of “War on Terror” domestic powers and the need of the state to enforce Palin’s own religious and cultural values.  Neocons (who still overwhelmingly dominate the GOP) and Paul-led libertarians are arch enemies, and the social conservatives on whom the GOP depends are barely viewed with greater affection.  Sarah Palin and Ron Paul are about as far apart on most issues as one can get; the “tea party movement” can’t possibly be about supporting each of their worldviews.  Moreover, the GOP leadership is currently promising Wall Street even more loyal subservience than Democrats have given in exchange for support, thus bolstering the government/corporate axis which libertarians find so repugnant.  And Coulter’s manipulative claim that she “agrees with everything [Paul] stands for outside of foreign policy” is laughable; aside from the fact that “foreign policy” is a rather large issue in our political debates (Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia), they were on exactly the opposite sides of the most intense domestic controversies of the Bush era:  torture, military commissions, habeas corpus, Guantanamo, CIA secrecy, telecom immunity, and warrantless eavesdropping.  

Part of why this fraud has been sustainable thus far is that libertarians — like everyone who doesn’t view all politics through the mandated, distorting, suffocating Democrat v. GOP prism — are typically dismissed as loons and nuts, and are thus eager for any means of achieving mainstream acceptance.  Having the GOP embrace them is one way to achieve that (Karl Rove:  some ”see the tea party movement as a recruiting pool for volunteers for Ron Paul’s next presidential bid . . . . The Republican Party and the tea party movement have many common interests”).  Additionally, just as the Paul-faction of libertarians is in basic harmony with many progressives on issues of foreign policy and civil liberties, they do subscribe to the standard GOP rhetoric on domestic spending, social programs and the like.  

But that GOP limited government rhetoric is simply never matched by that Party’s conduct, especially when they wield power.  The very idea that a political party dominated by neocons, warmongers, surveillance fetishists, and privacy-hating social conservatives will be a party of “limited government” is absurd on its face.  There literally is no myth more transparent than the Republican Party’s claim to believe in restrained government power.  For that reason, it’s only a matter of time before the fundamental incompatibility of the “tea party movement” and the political party cynically exploiting it is exposed.

mmmmhmmmm

Posted via web

Bookmark and Share Email This Print This PDF This Blog This Facebook Twiit Google Google Yahoo! Buzz Ping StumbleUpon LinkedIn MySpace

Popularity: 1% [?]

February 18, 2010

[Dear Sarah: Say it is so, run for president - Leonard Pitts Jr. - MiamiHerald.com] awesome!

Filed under: Election, George Bush, Politics, Randomness, Republicans — Tags: , , , — webadmin @ 11:40 pm


 

Dear Sarah Palin:

I hear you’re pondering a run for the White House in 2012. Last week, you told Fox news it would be “absurd” to rule it out.

I’m writing to ask that you rule it in. I very badly want you to run for — and win — the Republican nomination for the presidency.

I know you’re waiting for the punch line. Maybe you figure I think you’d be a weak candidate who would pave the way for President Obama’s easy re-election.

That’s not it. No, I want you to run because I believe a Palin candidacy would force upon this country a desperately needed moment of truth. It would require us to finally decide what kind of America we want to be.

Mrs. Palin, you are an avatar of the shameless hypocrisy and cognitive disconnection that have driven our politics for the last decade, a process of stupidification creeping like kudzu over our national life.

As Exhibit A, consider your recent speech at a so-called “tea party” event, wherein you dismissed the president as a “charismatic guy with a teleprompter.” Bad enough you imply that teleprompter use is the mark of an insubstantial man, even though you and every other major politician uses them. But what made the comment truly jaw-dropping is that even as you spoke, you had penned on your left palm, clearly visible, a series of crib notes.

Mrs. Palin, if Obama is an idiot for reading a prepared speech off a teleprompter, what are you for reading notes you’ve inked on your hand like a school kid who failed to study for the big test?

In the Fox interview, you scored Obama for supposedly expecting Americans to “sit down and shut up” and accept his policies. But when asked when the president has ever said that, you couldn’t answer. Obama, you sputtered, has just been condescending with his “general persona.”

I found that a telling moment. See, ultimately what you represent is not conservatism. Heck, I suspect that somewhere, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan are spinning like helicopter rotors at the very idea.

No, you represent the latest iteration of an anti-intellectualism that periodically rises in the American character. There is, historically and persistently, a belief in us that y’all just can’t trust nobody who acts too smart or talks too good — in other words, somebody whose “general persona” indicates they may have once cracked a book or had a thought. Americans tend to believe common sense the exclusive province of humble folks without sheepskins on the wall or big words in their vocabularies.

I don’t mock those people. They are my parents, my family elders, members of my childhood church. I honor their native good sense, what mom called “mother wit.” But if it is insulting to condescend to them, it is equally insulting to mythologize them.

More to the point, something is wrong when we celebrate mental mediocrity like yours under the misapprehension that competence or, God forbid, intelligence, makes a person one of those “elites” — that’s a curse word now — lacking authenticity, compassion and common sense.

So no, this is not a clash of ideologies, but a clash between intelligence and its opposite. And I am tired of being asked to pretend stupid is a virtue. That’s why I’d welcome the moment of truth your campaign would bring. It would force us to decide once and for all whether we are permanently committed to the path of ignorance, of birthers, truthers and tea party incoherence you represent, or whether we will at last turn back from the cliff toward which we race.

If the latter, wonderful, God bless America. If the former, well, some of us can finally quit hoping the nation will return to its senses and plan accordingly. Either way, we need to know, and your candidacy would tell us. If you love this country, Mrs. Palin, you can do it no greater service.

Run, Sarah, run.

I want Sarah to run … AND win for the good of the country to see that STUPID PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE PUT IN CHARGE OF SHIT.

Posted via web

Bookmark and Share Email This Print This PDF This Blog This Facebook Twiit Google Google Yahoo! Buzz Ping StumbleUpon LinkedIn MySpace

Popularity: 1% [?]

September 13, 2009

Jeff Hoard calls it: The Million Moron March



 

Bookmark and Share Email This Print This PDF This Blog This Facebook Twiit Google Google Yahoo! Buzz Ping StumbleUpon LinkedIn MySpace

Popularity: unranked [?]

September 12, 2009

My 9/12 Teabagging Protest

Filed under: Politics, The Daily Show — Tags: , , , , , , , — webadmin @ 7:28 am


 

Like my Teabagging friends, I’m also protesting the President on this 9/12

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Headlines – Metaphorical Map Quest
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political Humor Healthcare Protests

On the way to the Fertile Gardens of Liberty, when you get to the Slausson cutoff, get out of your car and cut off your slausson.

Bookmark and Share Email This Print This PDF This Blog This Facebook Twiit Google Google Yahoo! Buzz Ping StumbleUpon LinkedIn MySpace

Popularity: unranked [?]

April 18, 2009

What IS the Matter with Kansas? and America?



 

This case by Thomas Frank seems especially relevant after the anti-tax, anti-deficit, anti-Obama tea parties:

What’s the matter with America? What explains the dysfunction at the dark heart of our politics?

Over the last thirty-five years the Republicans have transformed themselves from an aristocratic minority into the nation’s dominant political party, a brawling, beer-drinking buddy of the working man. The strategy by which they have won this triumph is instantly familiar and yet so bizarre it’s sometimes hard to believe it’s actually happened: Think of Richard Nixon extolling the virtues of the “silent majority,” or Ronald Reagan shaking his head at those crazy college professors, or George W. Bush sticking up for the “regular Americans,” or the army of pundits who have written so eloquently in recent months about the humble folk of the “red states.”

And then think of the political changes that this sappy stuff has helped to sell: Privatization. Deregulation. Monopolies in every industry from banking to radio to meatpacking. The destruction of the welfare state. The beatdown of the labor movement. The transformation of the Midwest into the rust belt. And, shimmering in the heavens above all this, the rise of a new plutocracy, a class of overlords so taken with their own magnificence that they are moved to compare themselves to the Almighty.

What we are observing, then, is a populist movement that has done irreversible harm to the material interests of the common people it professes to love so tenderly-a form of class animosity that rages against a shadowy “elite” while enthroning a new aristocracy of bankers, brokers, and corporate thieves.

In the burned-over districts of conservatism the right-wing class war grown so powerful that it has taken over the environmental niche once held by the left. It is the dissenting movement out there, the voice of the hard-done-by, and in places like Kansas it draws headlines with its high-profile campaigns against evolution and abortion.

This is what’s the matter with Kansas, and with America. From the air-conditioned heights of a suburban office complex this may look like a new age of reason, with the Websites singing each to each, with a mall down the way that every week has miraculously anticipated our subtly shifting tastes, with a global economy whose rich rewards just keep flowing, with a promotion and a bonus every year, and with a long parade of rust-free Infinitis purring down the streets of beautifullymanicured planned communities. But on closer inspection the country we have inhabited for the last three decades seems more like a panorama of madness and delusion worthy of Hieronymous Bosch: of sturdy patriots reciting the Pledge while they resolutely strangle their own life chances; of small farmers proudly voting themselves off the land; of devoted family men carefully seeing to it that their children will never be able to afford college or proper health care; of hardened blue-collar workers in midwestern burgs cheering as they deliver up a landslide for a candidate whose policies will end their way of life, will transform their region into a “rust belt,” will strike people like them blows from which they will never recover.

And it continues when the people who ran the country into the ground both socially, economically and morally convince the economic second class citizens that they created that the problem here is Obama and the answer is to foment anger through Fox News and Tea Parties:

HUSSEIN = COMMIE

That was the sort of sign I was planning on highlighting in my little write-up of last night’s New York Tea Party protest, sponsored by the radio station AM970 “The Apple,” the 20-year-old 527 group Citizens United, the “integrated event marketing” firm XA, and Dick Armey’s Freedom Works. You know the usual liberal-media right-wing-rally-covering drill: hey, look at the crazies, aren’t they a bunch of crazies? But after 90 minutes of talking to those real Americans, I had a change of heart.

I’ve been calling the Tea Parties a cynical exploitation of fringe loonies by rich conservatives looking for an invented populace to justify their obstructionism. But no. It’s far grander. Republicans have actually figured out how to do protests in mediated, cynical, post-60s America. They mastered it!

The Tea Parties came from a Ron Paul campaign idea that was co-opted by conservative bloggers and eventually adopted by Fox News and whatever remains of the actual leadership of the Republican party. Tea Parties, originally planned by libertarians, and held on tax day: those are protests against the income tax, right?

You fool! You have not begun the scratch the surface of the Tea Party!

Glenn Beck explained at the Alamo yesterday that Tea Parties are protesting spending, “power,” “corruption,” “mob rule,” “the rule of law,” “free speech,” and “the media that gets into bed with one party and has moved so far left that it can’t even begin to see we’re not extremists.” Get it?

If you throw an anti-war rally, only people who don’t want there to be a war will show up. But if you just throw a “shit sucks” protest, everyone has a reason to attend! An anti-taxes, anti-Democrats, anti-Obama, anti-government, anti–Wall Street protest means, hey, somebody around here must be against something you’re against.

So: last night, a good 2,000 people were standing on lower Broadway, nearish to City Hall, but not in City Hall Park, because actually arranging to have your protest in a public square large enough to accommodate the throngs of angry populists you hope will show up is for hippies! No, real Americans protest awkwardly on only one side of a narrow avenue because that’ll help stretch the crowd to the end of the block which will look good on the TV even if no one in the back can hear your speakers.

Because they had no interest in these speakers! It was radio talk-show hosts and Republican candidates for dog catcher babbling the usual platitudes to a crowd of bitchy Jersey moms, Paultards, actual bankers, crazy old people, dumb kids, and whatever Glenn Beck cultists actually live in the New York metro area.

Though to be fair, the crowd cared a bit when the emcee started in with the “U.S.A.! U.S.A.!” chant, but just a bit. MSNBC got booed too, but hey, who wouldn’t boo them?

I spoke to a kid named T.J. with a sign that read REPUBLICANS + DEMOCRATS = NATIONALISM + SOCIALISM. He was protesting neither higher taxes nor the growing deficit. T.J. was protesting “the two-party state,” which is actually a “one-party state, and that party is the party of global warfare.” T.J. voted for Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney last year. He was also on Wall Street after TARP first failed in Congress, with a sign that said, WILL BANK FOR FOOD. This was not, obviously, his first protest.

But right behind him was Bob, a suit from New Jersey, who approved of T.J.’s spirit but acknowledged that this Tea Party popped his “protest cherry.” Bob was maybe more of the sort of “regular person” that organizers imagined their tea parties appealing to: a McCain voter with a real job who’d never protested anything in his life, but who was fed up with federal spending. Except Bob’s real job is at the Bank of New York.

There was the fellow with the shaved head who told CBS that “stage four” of the Tea Party movement is “breaking people.”

I tried to speak to a woman with a sign that, on one side, asserted either that Obama wanted to turn American into Cuba or that he had done so already. The other side said, KOH MUST GO. I asked her who “Koh” was, and was told to “Google it.” Koh is Potassium hydroxide. He’s also the Dean of the Yale Law School, and crazy people are protesting his appointment to the State Department because he acknowledged that he’s heard of international law, which means he wants to take away our guns and sell our children to China or something.

Toward the back was Rich, from Brooklyn, whose sign said, GAY MARRIAGE EQUALS FAIR TAX. Because, yes, why not also use this opportunity to fight for gay rights? Rich was an Obama voter who thought the bank bailout was a hand-out to Wall Street but wondered where, exactly, the rest of the Tea Partiers had been when TARP actually happened, months ago. He was the first person to mention both actual tea bags and headline speaker Newt Gingrich! We discussed Newt’s disastrous marriage history, and then: “Everyone walking around with tea bags, that’s the gayest thing I’ve ever seen.”

Thought experiment: what if liberals had thrown the equivalent of this protest? What if they just said, “Hey, are you pissed about shit? Come on down!” And then the ANSWER instigators, Leonard Peltier and Mumia-free-ers, anarchists, and NYU students all converged on City Hall, along with a couple hundred “regular people” who came down because they’re pissed about something, and this little party was heavily promoted on/co-sponsored by, say, MSNBC or something. And at the front of the crowd, accepted mainstream members of New York’s liberal establishment—Freddy Ferrer, Ed Schultz, maybe a has-been hero looking for a second chance like John Kerry—spoke, decrying Washington and fat cats and celebrating the true patriotic spirit of the protesters assembled today. What would that have looked like?

Well those mainstream types wouldn’t have showed, and with good reason, because the second they were spotted at the rally they’d all be accused of associating with socialists and anarchists. Plus that crowd would’ve been tear-gassed.

But otherwise, pretty much the same deal.

Blaming Obama after 88 days is in vogue now when a year ago blaming Bush was considered heresy. Nice work, hoodwinkers.

Bookmark and Share Email This Print This PDF This Blog This Facebook Twiit Google Google Yahoo! Buzz Ping StumbleUpon LinkedIn MySpace

Popularity: unranked [?]

April 16, 2009

Tea Party Theft: How The GOP Robbed Libertarians!



 

You didn’t think that Republicans had a masterstroke of thought, did you? Call it the Piracy of ideas. They steered their privateering ship up to the SS Libertarian and pillaged and plundered the idea booty of Captain Ron Paul. Argh!!

Tax Protest Origins: Ron Paul Supporters Make Case On “Rachel Maddow” (VIDEO)

Who invented this Tea Party stuff, anyway? Glenn Beck? Rick Santelli? Twinings? The matter is up for dispute. Serious dispute. In fact the dispute over who invented the tea party may be a more serious and substantive dispute than anything that will actually be disputed at the Tea Parties themselves.

On the Rachel Maddow Show Tuesday night, Maddow explained the burgeoning teabaggy rift that’s emerged within the teabaggers. On one side: RON PAUL SUPPORTERS! They were going to float around the country on a blimp and drop tea into Boston harbor. On the other side: a special Astroturf comprised of Newt Gingrich and Fox News and Dick Armies.



YouTube – Rachel Maddow: Tea Parties and Ron Paul

It’s Paul’s supporters who most strenuously claim ownership, and they largely feel that their great works have been co-opted by the GOP. Maddow quotes libertarian activist Jason Pye, who griped to the Washington Independent thusly:

Bringing in someone like [Newt] Gingrich takes away from the message…Newt Gingrich enabled George W. Bush…he enabled the big spending. He lobbied conservative Republicans to compromise their principles and support Medicare Part D. He supported the bailout.”

So how did the tea parties go? Swimmingly. It was a motley mix of anti-fascists, anti-socialists, anti-immigrationists, anti-inclusivists, and anti-taxists but all anti-Obamists. And the publicity-seeking TV pundits and politicians to whom they owe their relevance. Check out the pictures from DC:


There was even a Tea Party here – although not a big one. It was three dudes. At the post office. In Spanish. I wonder if those anti-Immigration dudes in DC would approve.

Miami Tea Party

And as I drove by to mail my taxes, I felt solidarity with the movement. No taxation without representation … that we voted for! I wonder if, given that, I could have not paid my taxes under the 8 years of Bush because I didn’t vote for him! Or if, in the future, I should protest the government policies of the governments I don’t vote for using mob-rallying hyperbole? Wouldn’t be America if I didn’t! These people better be glad ol’ Dick Cheney’s out of office – he wouldn’t have any of this protest shit going on under his watch.

Bookmark and Share Email This Print This PDF This Blog This Facebook Twiit Google Google Yahoo! Buzz Ping StumbleUpon LinkedIn MySpace

Popularity: unranked [?]

Powered by WordPress

Blog Information