Gay Patriot Header Image

Tea Parties:
Channeling Frustration with Ever Bigger Government Into Action

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 2:46 pm - April 15, 2009.
Filed under: Tea Party

One of the standard responses to (and certainly the most legitimate criticism of) the “Tea Party” movement is to question why we didn’t so protest the spending increases of the Bush Administration.

To be sure, while we and many other right-of-center blogs took Republicans to task for his profligacy, we never took to the streets to do so.  Perhaps, as I suggested in a recent post we might have gotten more attention from our elected officials if we had.

In quite possibly the best rant addressing both the legitimacy of the current protest and conservative frustration with out-of-touch Republicans, Patterico wonders about the road ahead:

But it needs to be channeled into action, or it won’t do us any good at all.

The problem is, what action? Bigger donations to the same clowns who let the deficit balloon during the Bush administration? Who were too gutless to fight lawless filibusters of qualified judicial nominees? Who allowed Barack Obama to cruise to victory by hanging the mortgage crisis around the neck of George Bush — without a fight? A crisis that was a product of neglect by both parties, quite notably corrupticrats like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd?

No. We’re not falling back in line with these morons.

But we have to do something.

Exactly.  We have to do something.

Our next task is not to convince the left-wing naysayers of our sincerity.  In their reflexive resentment of any political movement at odds with their ideology, they’ll criticize us no matter how many people show up today to protest.  (And the initial indications are large crowds across the nation.)  Our task is to get elected officials on board, committed to cutting excessive government spending and holding the line on taxes.

Success today is only the first step.

Share

73 Comments

  1. As I’ve written previously, the Tea Parties are just the kick-off. We have four long quarters ahead of us, and whether we can win depends on if we can move the ball through a variety of tactics and strategies.

    Comment by V the K — April 15, 2009 @ 3:32 pm - April 15, 2009

  2. #1 – I agree, V. Next job: block any and all of The Snob’s SCOTUS appointments if they are not strict constructionists. Period.

    Any RINO who chooses to confirm these nominees will do so at their own re-election peril.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 15, 2009 @ 3:38 pm - April 15, 2009

  3. What is your definition of a constructionist? Is it the same as a structuralist or a textualist? is it a mix of the two? Even Scalia has admitted to being a ‘faint hearted originalist’. What parameters would you set?

    Comment by Scottland — April 15, 2009 @ 3:47 pm - April 15, 2009

  4. Let it not be forgotten that John Marshall arguably constructed the doctrine of judicial review out of whole cloth. Does being a constructionist mean that judicial review should be abandoned?

    Comment by Scottland — April 15, 2009 @ 3:50 pm - April 15, 2009

  5. Wow. First time to the site, and not one post in before I see the same old ‘us vs. them’ diatribes. GAYpatriot? Remember all those years of being persecuted for being the ‘other’, and never understanding why you were hated just for who you were? Don’t you remember deciding to love yourself for whoever you were, and realizing that all those who exclude or persecute the ‘other’ were only serving to increase the hate that you’ve tried so hard to escape?
    When are you going to see the irony? Unless you’ve forgotten what hell you went through in your younger life, you can’t in all good conscience call any group of people ‘wrong’ or to use your lovely word, ‘morons’.
    It just doesn’t compute. You’re doing the same things that were done to you. The experience taught ME that we’re all the same — someone who appears to have opposing viewpoints is just seeing things thru their own lens, one that’s neither bad nor good (‘just an unbroken dance of shadows’) — and I came to realize that as long as we hate the ‘other’, we’re not doing what gay people on this planet were put here to do, and we’ve spent most of our lives trying to figure out: TO SEE THROUGH THE BULLSHIT.
    And I don’t mean see through the other side, I mean see through the WHOLE THING and realize that we’re all the same.

    Comment by Rob Miller — April 15, 2009 @ 3:52 pm - April 15, 2009

  6. Its a great question: What to do? Inquiring minds would like to know.
    - Restructure the Republican party? Lots of great infrasctucture, but there is institutional problems as the last 8 yrs shows us.
    -Throw your support behing Libertarians? Doubt it, they are “soft on terror” in that they don’t beleive in being the worlds police force or foreign incurrsions. But they are on the ballot in 50 states and a largely recognized party. A possiblity if you are confortable with gay marriage and decriminalizing marajuana.
    - Constitution party? I am pretty sure they are a 50 state party? They are also against the “war on terror”. They consider Social Security unconstitutional. Good luck selling that. They are theocratic. “restoring this nation to its Biblical foundations” Let the stonings in the public square commence.
    - Starting a new party? A massive task needing a lot of money. 50 states=50 different requirements to get on the ballot.

    Comment by Chuck In Del — April 15, 2009 @ 4:56 pm - April 15, 2009

  7. #5

    What in tarnation???

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 15, 2009 @ 4:59 pm - April 15, 2009

  8. ? filtered ?

    Comment by Chuck In Del — April 15, 2009 @ 5:02 pm - April 15, 2009

  9. “Our task is to get elected officials on board, committed to cutting excessive government spending and holding the line on taxes.”

    What do you recommend we cut?
    Especially in this economy?

    The problem is your “task” is not workable. Regan, Bush I, Bush II and the republican congresses found that its a good slogan but its not real.

    Comment by gillie — April 15, 2009 @ 5:06 pm - April 15, 2009

  10. Our task is to get elected officials on board, committed to cutting excessive government spending and holding the line on taxes.
    Guys, they’re just not that into you: in related news, John Cornyn announced his support for Specter. Liberal Republican? Voted for the stimulus package? The GOP establishment seems to like him.
    And holding the line on taxes for who? Obama signed one of the biggest tax cuts on the middle class in history. Are you concerned about taxes on the wealthy?

    Comment by torrentprime — April 15, 2009 @ 5:28 pm - April 15, 2009

  11. You seem to forget a few things, so let me remind you of them.

    1. Your president, George W. Bush, was a miserable failure.

    2. You lost the last two elections, and your margins of defeat are growing.

    3. Obama is very popular. More than 70% of the public believes he is trustworthy on the economy.

    4. Your party, the Republicans, is at its lowest popularity level in more than two decades.

    You don’t want to believe it, which is good. Maybe when you get your asses handed to you in 2010, you’ll believe it, but I doubt it. Which will be good, because that will set you up for 2012. Keep it up! This is fun!

    By the way, was your closet case congressman, Rep. David Dreier, at your Santa Monica event, serving appletinis to the boys in their khakis and starched white shirts?

    Comment by Terrible Leftist — April 15, 2009 @ 5:28 pm - April 15, 2009

  12. Are you concerned about taxes on the wealthy?

    Absolutely — because the Obama Party constantly redefines the term “wealthy”.

    You see, the Obama Party supported tripling the tax on tobacco — which, according to the Obama Party’s own research, disproportionately affects the poor and minorities — to fund free healthcare for white Obama Party liberals who can afford to pay for it themselves. In this case, the people who make less are being taxed more heavily to pay for those who make more, but the Obama Party shills like you, torrentprime, insist that this constitutes a “tax cut”.

    Just as the Obama Party supports people like Geithner, Solis, Sebelius, Daschle, Stark, and Rangel, who demand that crushing taxes be imposed on working-class Americans while staunchly refusing to pay their own. In this case, they require working Americans to pay more and more while themselves getting a free ride — and they are rewarded by the Obama Party with Cabinet appointments and posh committee chair status.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 15, 2009 @ 5:58 pm - April 15, 2009

  13. Don’t you remember deciding to love yourself for whoever you were … Unless you’ve forgotten what hell you went through in your younger life

    Gawd, how old are you? Are you stuck in 1954 or something? All that angst is so out of date. It wasn’t a big deal when I was in high school, and less of a deal to my kids now.

    And I see Terrified Leftist has returned to throw a lot of unoriginal talking points at us. Yawn. I guess it’s a marginal improvement from his middle-school “tea-bagging jokes.” Sadly, not much of one.

    Comment by V the K — April 15, 2009 @ 6:01 pm - April 15, 2009

  14. Now, as to what I would like to see next… and I know this ain’t gonna happen, but a man can dream can’t he? I’d like to see two things come out of the Tea Party movement:

    1. A blueprint for reducing the footprint of the Federal Government 20%. I mean… come on. We can live with 80% of the government we have. Some people should get together and come up with a plan to eliminate all unnecessary programs. (Obama promised to do that, but instead, he gave $4 Billion to ACORN, and billions in porkulus to his home state of Illinois.) Then, we restructure the remaining necessary programs to make them cost-effective.

    2. A new tax code. Instead of the current 66,000 page behemoth with all its hidden tax breaks for connected friends of congressman and senators, a simple 100 page document that treats everybody the same and eliminates corporate welfare and special interest perks.

    That’s my dream. What’s yours?

    Comment by V the K — April 15, 2009 @ 6:05 pm - April 15, 2009

  15. I do have a question for all of you guys who literally do dream of being tea-bagged by Obama… do you really believe he can implement his massive spending increases and government expansion without raising taxes on the middle class?

    Do you really believe that?

    Really?

    Comment by V the K — April 15, 2009 @ 6:12 pm - April 15, 2009

  16. One of the standard responses [of the Left] to… the “Tea Party” movement is to question why we didn’t so protest the spending increases of the Bush Administration.

    First, SOME OF US DID.

    Second, let’s go back to The Chart:
    http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/03/30/bush-deficits-vs-obama-deficits/

    Here’s the short version for the lazy kids:

    - Bush deficits: In the 100-400 billion range. Not anything that doubled the national debt (or came close) in 8 years. Not a threat to the survival of the nation.

    - Obama deficits: In the 1-2 trillion range. Something that will double the national debt in 8 years and threaten the survival of the nation.

    GPW, you characterize the Left’s criticism as “legitimate”. I couldn’t disagree more. It is not remotely a fair or legitimate criticism. It is wholly illegitimate. Please don’t legitimize the IL-legitimate arguments of your opponents. Notice the uptick in the aggressive silliness of certain lefties’ comments in this thread alone… I believe it’s because you foolishly started off by giving legitimacy to one of their most illegitimate ‘arguments’.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 15, 2009 @ 6:13 pm - April 15, 2009

  17. Actually, there was a great piece about this in the WSJ the other day.

    A very small number of taxpayers — the 10% of the country that makes more than $92,400 a year — pay 72.4% of the nation’s income taxes. They’re the tip of the triangle that’s supporting virtually everyone and everything. Their burden keeps getting heavier.

    As a result of the 2001 tax cuts enacted by a bipartisan Congress and signed by President George W. Bush, the share of taxes paid by the top 10% increased to 72.8% in 2005 from 67.8% in 2001, according to the latest data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

    Contrary to the myth that Mr. Bush cut taxes only for the wealthy, the 2001 tax cut reduced taxes for every income-tax payer in the country. He reduced the bottom tax rate to 10% from 15% and increased the refundable child tax credit to $1,000 from $500 per child, both cuts that President Barack Obama says we should keep. In so doing, millions of lower income taxpayers were removed from the tax rolls, shifting the remaining burden to those at the top, even after their taxes were cut.

    According to the CBO, those who made less than $44,300 in 2001 — 60% of the country — paid a paltry 3.3% of all income taxes. By 2005, almost all of them were excused from paying any income tax. They paid less than 1% of the income tax burden. Their share shrank even when taking into account the payroll tax. In 2001, the bottom 60% paid 16.3% of all taxes; by 2005 their share was down to 14.3%. All the while, this large group of voters made 25.8% of the nation’s income.

    When you make almost 26% of the income and you pay only 0.6% of the income tax, that’s a good deal, courtesy of those who do pay income taxes. For the bottom 40%, the redistribution deal is even better. In 2001, these 43 million Americans, who earn less than $30,500, made 13.5% of the nation’s income but paid no income tax. Instead, they received checks from their taxpaying neighbors worth $16.3 billion. By 2005, those checks totaled $33.3 billion.

    I’d really love the Obama shills here to tell us what the “fairness” quotient is. These are the people who shriek about “equality” and “equal protection”; do they really think it’s “equal” when you have people who are earning 25% of the income and paying only 14% of the taxes?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 15, 2009 @ 6:23 pm - April 15, 2009

  18. I do have a question for all of you guys who literally do dream of being tea-bagged by Obama… do you really believe he can implement his massive spending increases and government expansion without raising taxes on the middle class?

    Spending increases *are* tax increases, as Milton Friedman pointed out. Spending is the government doing what it needs to do to command – that is, to grab – a larger share of the economy’s real output. The rest is mere financing details. You can finance it with conventional tax increases, which at least have the virtue of being honest… or by borrowing money, which in effect is committing your kids to tax increases… or by ‘printing money’, a stealth tax that works by diluting the value of money, hitting savers and retirees especially hard. Obama-Bernanke have chosen the latter path, btw; they’ve been ‘printing money’ like you wouldn’t believe.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 15, 2009 @ 6:39 pm - April 15, 2009

  19. In 2003, someone might have said something like what Terrified Leftist said, slightly differently.

    Bush is very popular. More than 70% of the public believes he is trustworthy on the War in Iraq.

    Now you see why the left is terrified.

    Comment by V the K — April 15, 2009 @ 7:05 pm - April 15, 2009

  20. Back on topic, I think you’ve hit the nailhead again Dan… where does the Tea Party community head from here? I know there will be lots and lots of people trying to take advantage of the movement –from the talkradio politico-entertainers to candidates seeking political advantage to news outlets seeking ratings via the voter anger-empathy nexus all the way to the farLeft and Obama’s WHouse looking for and needing those useful scapegoats.

    My hunch is that nearly every one of those groups will try to claim credit for the events… try to pick up the Tea Party’s mantle and make it into their own in the next few weeks.

    Will it matter to the ruling Party in Congress? Nope. They’ll just spin it by co-opting the movement and claiming they’ve already cut taxes, they were made to spend because of the depression but really didn’t want to do it and then they’ll work like Hell to make sure their base remains ready and willing to defend them in the next election.

    How will they do it? By giving the base some red meat issues… sort of like W did with FMA… maybe immigration reform, maybe mini-health care reforms, maybe DADT repeal for gays, maybe new entitlements for urban mayors, and certainly more money for ACORN.

    I hope the Tea Party community can remain steadfast and viligant. Like the original Tea Party activist Sam Adams said: “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds”.

    Of course, the father of the modern Democrats, Ben Franklin, argued then that the destroyed tea must be repaid –and the owners of the ship made whole and the British Port Authorities reimbursed for lost levies on the purloined 90k lbs of tea. Gotta love those Democrats –even then– protecting the govt’s interests just like today.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 15, 2009 @ 7:08 pm - April 15, 2009

  21. #17 – V, TerLeft is also wrong. Obama isn’t popular. Obama’s approval ratings are mediocre for a President at this point in his presidency… and heading south.

    I know there will be lots and lots of people trying to take advantage of the movement –from the talkradio politico-entertainers to candidates seeking political advantage to news outlets…

    …to GOP Establishment “moderates” wanting to pretend that they are somehow relevant to a current issue coming from the American grassroots… to GOP Establishment “progressives” wanting to faux-spin the Tea Party movement as something that could somehow be anti-conservative… ;-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 15, 2009 @ 7:18 pm - April 15, 2009

  22. Yeah, Bush was more popular than Obama at this stage in his presidency. Another reason the left is insecure.

    The Tea Party protests are already bigger than the first “Anti-War” Protests.

    Comment by V the K — April 15, 2009 @ 8:07 pm - April 15, 2009

  23. #20- Domestically for you, probably. There was a co-ordinated day of protests totalling at least 6 million people on febuary 13th, 2003, before the war had even happened.

    Comment by Scottland — April 15, 2009 @ 8:25 pm - April 15, 2009

  24. 15th*

    Comment by Scottland — April 15, 2009 @ 8:26 pm - April 15, 2009

  25. Yeah, Europeans can always be counted on for a quick surrender.

    Comment by V the K — April 15, 2009 @ 8:32 pm - April 15, 2009

  26. More that there were protests about the war before it became a war.
    The tea parties are protesting government expansion, even though government has been expanding considerably for some time. While both policies elicit protest, the timelines of protesting and actual policy excecution are two pieces of data that warrant investigation in relation to each other. What it says at large, I don’t know. It might even mean that european protesting is even more professionalised than the claims about freedom works and the like. At least it gets better numbers. And i’m saying that as a bored cynical ranting keyboard warrior!!

    Comment by Scottland — April 15, 2009 @ 8:45 pm - April 15, 2009

  27. http://teaparty.gop.com/default.aspx

    Comment by Vanessa — April 15, 2009 @ 8:48 pm - April 15, 2009

  28. Well, I could only spare an hour from the office for my local tea party – But I just got back. And it was teh awesome!!!1!

    It was something over 200 people with signs, lining a major street in a small town. That may not sound like much, but you gotta remember, this was a small town sandwiched between two much larger and more famous towns, with larger protests. Men and women, old and young. I chatted briefly with two very fetching Stanford kids.

    Everything was totally positive, on-message, orderly, a great ‘vibe’. And what was the message? All you had to do was open your eyes and read the signs:

    - Anti-bailout, anti-tax, anti-spending, anti-deficit, anti-socialism, anti-Big Government, anti-Obama.
    - Pro-America, pro-freedom, pro-capitalism, pro-personal responsibility (yes, I actually saw signs in favor of “personal responsibility” as a concept), pro-free markets, pro-middle-class, pro-liberty, pro-We The People.

    I was presently surprised at what you might call the ‘Ayn Rand’ character of many signs. I saw signs like:

    - “Socialism no, Capitalism yes!”
    - “Producers, not looters!”
    - “Freedom to prosper”
    - “Free markets, not free loaders!”

    I couldn’t have dreamed of a better demonstration – people were actually demonstrating in favor of capitalism and limited government! Yay! :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 15, 2009 @ 8:52 pm - April 15, 2009

  29. Pro-America, pro-freedom, pro-capitalism, pro-personal responsibility (yes, I actually saw signs in favor of “personal responsibility” as a concept), pro-free markets, pro-middle-class, pro-liberty, pro-We The People.

    Why are so many of our trolls and media types so appalled by those concepts?

    Comment by V the K — April 15, 2009 @ 8:54 pm - April 15, 2009

  30. There was a co-ordinated day of protests [against the liberation of Iraq] totalling at least 6 million people on febuary 13th, 2003

    Scottland, that is not something you should be proud of.

    It is something you should be deeply sorry and ASHAMED of.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 15, 2009 @ 8:54 pm - April 15, 2009

  31. Why are so many of our trolls and media types so appalled by those concepts?

    Um, because they are looting parasites who want to live off others, or in other words, live by the exercise of power over others. And they don’t want their victims to protest.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 15, 2009 @ 8:57 pm - April 15, 2009

  32. I don’t feel any shame in acting on my convictions. and neither should anyone who wishes to protest, peacefully, but dynamically, provocatively, confrontationally. Why do you want me to feel ashamed?

    Comment by Scottland — April 15, 2009 @ 8:58 pm - April 15, 2009

  33. Was that 6 million anticipated or actual and according to whom?

    One of the things that liberals seem to be confrused about is they believe that the tea parties are anti-Obama. The reality is that they’re more anti-government spending if anything.

    Somewhere, Levi foolishly asserted that liberals had cornered the market on nutroot movements using technology to organize. Problem with that is that it was controlled and dictated by groups like MorOn.org, the KOSholes, the Obama campaign etc. Whereas the tea parties have no central organization.

    An honest person will note that there’s no set rules either. Some are allowing celebrities and former politicians to speak, like Atlanta with Hannity and Newt. Some, like Chicago, are not.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123975867505519363.html

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 15, 2009 @ 9:05 pm - April 15, 2009

  34. Every host on Air America and every unbathed, basement-dwelling loser on the left-wing blogosphere has spent the last week making jokes about tea bagging, a practice they show a surprising degree of familiarity with.

    Except no one is calling the tea parties “tea bagging” – except Olbermann and Maddow. Republicans call them “tea parties.”

    But if the Republicans were calling them “tea-bagging parties,” the MSNBC hosts would have a fantastically hilarious segment for viewers in San Francisco and the West Village and not anyplace else in the rest of the country. On the other hand, they’re not called “tea-bagging parties.” (That, of course, refers to the cocktail hour at Barney Frank’s condo in Georgetown.) Every host on Air America and every unbathed, basement-dwelling loser on the left-wing blogosphere has spent the last week making jokes about tea bagging, a practice they show a surprising degree of familiarity with.

    Except no one is calling the tea parties “tea bagging” – except Olbermann and Maddow. Republicans call them “tea parties.”

    But if the Republicans were calling them “tea-bagging parties,” the MSNBC hosts would have a fantastically hilarious segment for viewers in San Francisco and the West Village and not anyplace else in the rest of the country. On the other hand, they’re not called “tea-bagging parties.” (That, of course, refers to the cocktail hour at Barney Frank’s condo in Georgetown.)

    Ann Coulter

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 15, 2009 @ 9:06 pm - April 15, 2009

  35. Oops

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 15, 2009 @ 9:07 pm - April 15, 2009

  36. Why do you want me to feel ashamed?

    Protesting in support of a dictator who murdered 300,000 of his own people, tortured and imprisoned countless more. That’s pretty shameful. I am sure you have a way to rationalize it, and perhaps even feel smug about it.

    Comment by V the K — April 15, 2009 @ 9:09 pm - April 15, 2009

  37. I was protesting that my government was not representing me. Isn’t that what you’re doing?

    Comment by Scottland — April 15, 2009 @ 9:14 pm - April 15, 2009

  38. I don’t feel any shame in acting on my convictions.

    Up next: Scottland tells us about his demonstrations in favor of Stalin, Castro, Mao and Hitler.

    Because Saddam Hussein was on their level, Scottland. And that is why you should feel deeply ashamed, if in fact you have been a demonstrator against Iraq’s liberation.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 15, 2009 @ 9:14 pm - April 15, 2009

  39. I was protesting that my government was not representing me.

    But your government was acting in accord with more than a dozen U.N. resolutions, passed over a dozen years. Isn’t that something you support?

    Isn’t that what you’re doing?

    It’s what I’m doing, but I question whether it’s what you did. I take care that my protests don’t have the effect of supporting a genocidal dictator who killed at least 1 million (not 300k, sorry V) of his own people.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 15, 2009 @ 9:20 pm - April 15, 2009

  40. Excellent post and dittos to all of it.

    The Tea Parties will be useless if people do not follow up on them. Sitting at your computer and wringing your hands over all all Republicans are RINO’s or some such won’t help.

    Google for your local Republican committee (each party has what is called a committee in each county). Go to their meetings, and if you don’t like what you see don’t leave but join and try to change them. Get your friends involved to do likewise.

    When primary elections roll around find a candidate that you like and get out and campaign for them. This means doing door-to-door on Saturday, and spending evenings at their local office making phone calls or stuffing envelopes. In Virginia this year we’ve got gubernatorial elections (also in NJ) so I’ll be doing exactly these things.

    I say these things not to toot my own horn but to encourage all of my fellow conservatives to do likewise if your not already.

    Comment by Tom the Redhunter — April 15, 2009 @ 9:20 pm - April 15, 2009

  41. If you mean to say that I thought that removing A Stalinist dictator and replacing it with a government headed by a fundamentalist Shia Islam party with profound ties to Iran was probably not the best way to go about dealing with Islamic terrorism, then yea, I think we had different calculations going on in ours heads before the war began. I feel no shame. I don’t particularly feel any pride. Only amazement that I have to worry about such stupid bullshit.

    Comment by Scottland — April 15, 2009 @ 9:27 pm - April 15, 2009

  42. Freedom and liberty: Not in Scottland’s Name!

    Comment by DaveP. — April 15, 2009 @ 9:28 pm - April 15, 2009

  43. DaveP – heh :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 15, 2009 @ 9:30 pm - April 15, 2009

  44. And as for this:

    I thought that.. replacing [Saddam] with a government headed by a fundamentalist Shia Islam party with profound ties to Iran was probably not the best way…

    Sorry, Scottland, but

    1) That’s not how things have turned out in Iraq; and
    2) It’s not anything you would have thought would happen on the date you gave, Feb 13, 2003. At that point, you and the rest of the “co-ordinated day of protests totalling at least 6 million” were merely protesting the idea that the world’s anti-terrorist governments would have the temerity to remove Saddam, thus carrying out 12 years of U.N. resolutions against him.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 15, 2009 @ 9:36 pm - April 15, 2009

  45. Filtered!!

    Comment by Scottland — April 15, 2009 @ 9:40 pm - April 15, 2009

  46. First they ignore you

    Then they laugh at you

    Then they fight you

    Then you win.

    - Mohandis Gandhi

    Comment by V the K — April 15, 2009 @ 9:45 pm - April 15, 2009

  47. I thought that.. replacing [Saddam] with a government headed by a fundamentalist Shia Islam party with profound ties to Iran was probably not the best way…

    No, you demonstrated because it gave you a smug sense of moral superiority. Everything else is rationalization

    Comment by V the K — April 15, 2009 @ 9:49 pm - April 15, 2009

  48. One major difference:

    How many of the tea parties blocked traffic and interrupted businesses and services like the anti-war gas bags did?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 15, 2009 @ 10:03 pm - April 15, 2009

  49. Grassroots Tea Party Yes.

    Soros backed fake grassroots Moveon/ACORN NO.

    Personal responsibility Yes

    Nanny government NO

    Freedom Yes

    Socialism/Fascism/Communism NO

    Comment by Libby — April 15, 2009 @ 10:36 pm - April 15, 2009

  50. Don’t you remember deciding to love yourself for whoever you were … Unless you’ve forgotten what hell you went through in your younger life…

    Good grief. Get over your teenage angst and grow up. We’ve come light years in acceptance for gays & lesbians in just one decade. It sounds like you’re still stuck in a “hell” of your own creation.

    Comment by KevinQC — April 15, 2009 @ 11:25 pm - April 15, 2009

  51. Earlier someone asked the leftists….do you really expect Obama to print 5 Trillion dollars, spend it and not have to pay for it somewhere down the line? Actually leftists do expect not to have to pay for it. Like folks that can’t afford the mortgages they signed for. They expect someone else will ride in and fix it. Or the government will just say, nevermind….and the debts will vanish. When I explain to my young nephews, 26 and 36, that this Obamateleprompter spending will cost them at least $35,000 and a 50% federal tax rate, they start to imagine how their lives will change. Donald Trump today on radio predicted possibly within 2 years, rising inflation that may hit 20%. Riviling Jimmy Carters 22% inflation. That my friends hurts the rich and poor.

    Comment by Gene on Pennsylvania — April 16, 2009 @ 1:02 am - April 16, 2009

  52. Here in Pennsylvania one of the first things we can do is support in everyway a primary challenge to Arlen Spector. If a true conservative, Pat Toomey challenges him we could make a statement.

    Comment by Gene on Pennsylvania — April 16, 2009 @ 1:07 am - April 16, 2009

  53. #21 ILC snarks “…to GOP Establishment “moderates” wanting to pretend that they are somehow relevant to a current issue coming from the American grassroots… to GOP Establishment “progressives” wanting to faux-spin the Tea Party movement as something that could somehow be anti-conservative…”

    Nawh, I don’t think so ILC. I can’t speak for the undisclosed event you supposedly attended, but here in Michigan there were lots and lots of independents, moderates and others touching elbows with hardline conservatives (from the signs being carried) and libertarians –yep, there were the usual RonPaulite “End the Fed” and “The Answer is Gold” signs.

    I didn’t see any moderates try to claim credit for anything… except for a few modest moderates I know who actually did something to help the event succeed. Like yours truly taking a group of high school whiz-kids to the event, kicking in $500 to help pay for Joe the Plumber’s appearance with an eye toward better media coverage and holding a local pre-event organizing meeting in our home.

    But you go on with your with your little digs. You’re right up there with CNN’s reporter, I guess. Full of disdain for those who succeed and contribute and elect to exercise their democratic rights.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOrPzVECSjo

    Next time there’s an event, my advice to you would be instead of leaving the office for an hour, plan ahead and leave the office with 2-3-4 fellow workers… invite family & others to join you… think about helping the effort succeed instead of just using it as an opportunity to selfishly engage in some “feel-good” “I’m doing something important” time.

    And of course, don’t work against those who wanted to defeat the ObamaBus in the first place –I’m not part of the echo chamber here who wanted Obama to win in order to keep their bitching rights fully engaged. You know who they are, by now.

    The question was where does the Tea Party community go from here.

    It’s not likely, in spite of your spite, that moderates will be claiming anything from the event… or that fake anti-elite populism you’ve glummed onto of “It’s all about the Elites!” Because that doesn’t advance anything except the cynic wing of America.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 16, 2009 @ 7:50 am - April 16, 2009

  54. Dan, spam filter’s got a comment hanging.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 16, 2009 @ 12:59 pm - April 16, 2009

  55. Gene, since I live just the other side of the Mason-Sixon line and both of my senators suck the wax tadpole, I look forward to volunteering for Pat Toomey in the Primary and the General, as well as donating to his campaign and that of Bill Russell.

    Back on topic, there are stark contrasts between right-wing protests and left-wing protests.

    Comment by V the K — April 16, 2009 @ 1:09 pm - April 16, 2009

  56. Gene, I’m a big supporter of the notion that tough GOP contests make for a stronger candidate selection process and welcome primary competition. No serving pol ought to think that they have a “right” to a seat… nor a nod toward nomination and the Party’s candidacy.

    I don’t have a horse in the PA Sen 10 race. Of course, having watched Toomey and his Club cult over the last few years, I’d rather he wasn’t involved with the GOP but if he can win the nomination, then so be it.

    My question is if he can actually win in a GenElection? Given the left-drift of PA voters since Reagan’s ’80 win, given Rendell can’t run as Gov3, I’m wondering if all-the-King’s-men that Toomey can muster will be enough to beat the Dems?

    And that’s not just a recent drift left. AlGore took the State, Kerry took the state, Obama took it in a landslide… the StateSen picked up a seat and kept their majority status much like we did here in Michigan since 1983. But that has more to do with the right candidate recruitment strategy than voter preferences.

    I just wonder if the statement that farRight conservative Toomey might make is that the PA-GOP picks losers in a campaign that fails to appeal to a majority of voters. If it’s Specter -God help PA.

    One good thing is money. It’s pretty clear that given the current conventional 50% Dem, 41% GOP and 9% indie breakout in PA the US SenGOPCaucus isn’t going to be spending $$ on PA unless Specter is the choice… so Toomey’s vast treasure chest of contributors will make that seat even easier to right off by the RNC. That means more RNC $$ for other, more worthy and winnable seats elsewhere.

    Or do you think PA voters have changed since Nov 08, Nov 04, Nov 00 and Toomey’s message can resonate with a majority of voters?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 16, 2009 @ 4:56 pm - April 16, 2009

  57. …Toomey and his Club cult …
    …farRight conservative Toomey… the PA-GOP picks losers…

    Is it back to the conservative-bashing?

    A blog that calls itself “GOP for Liberty” and whose top 3-4 articles look OK to me, likes Toomey:
    http://gop4liberty.blogspot.com/2009/04/libertarian-republican-pat-toomey.html

    Wiki (not absolutely trustworthy, I know) says:

    In 1998, Toomey ran for the 15th District seat being vacated by incumbent Paul McHale… Toomey successfully flipped the seat from the Democratic McHale and won by an unexpectedly wide ten-point margin… was reelected two more times by relatively comfortable margins. While the 15th has historically been a Democratic district…

    In 2004… Toomey frequently denounced Specter as a liberal spendthrift…

    Sounds good. As for Specter’s great vulnerability, as Toomey pointed out yesterday:

    “In recent months, Senator Specter voted in favor of the unprecedented Wall Street and auto company bailouts and the massive “stimulus” spending bill. Senator Specter is on the wrong side of these critical issues…”

    Toomey sounds OK, so far. We’ll see.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 16, 2009 @ 5:58 pm - April 16, 2009

  58. ILC offers, with a fair dose of snark, “Is it back to the conservative-bashing?”

    I think you missed the operative word in my comments, ILC.

    Sigh.

    Again.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 16, 2009 @ 10:28 pm - April 16, 2009

  59. No snark, MM. Just the truth.

    Actually I think you might be projecting again, too. There was snark, I think, in your words which I carefully quoted.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 17, 2009 @ 1:18 am - April 17, 2009

  60. And P.S. – Care to respond on-point, about Toomey or Spector?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 17, 2009 @ 1:19 am - April 17, 2009

  61. ILC, you seem to have the big-ego penchant for trying to draw anyone –except one of your echo chamber boys– into a tit/tat/tit/tat endless repetition of “you said I said A”, “I meant to say B”, “you’re mean, I’m not” nonsense. But keep up that snark, ILC; one day I’m sure you can grow up and be even more like some of your idols here.

    I already spoke about Toomey and Specter; nice try at snark-laden spin on your part tho’. I spoke fairly and correctly from the position of an ACTUAL GOP activist who actually DOES something to change our political system –unlike some here who, at best, whine and play the village cynic all day because that feeds their needs.

    Now, to answer the question raised in # 57; the operative word above was “Gene”. My comments were addressed to Gene of PA, not you.

    Maybe you can post comments about the thread? Or the issue the Gene raised? Or maybe something that doesn’t require your snarky, petty back-biting tricks? Of course, that would require hope you can change those spots… I’m not sure anything in your past practice warrants hope.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 17, 2009 @ 7:53 am - April 17, 2009

  62. MM, I raised the following fair points about Toomey and Specter:

    1) Whatever Toomey’s present flaws, real or imagined, he has, in fact, beaten Pennsylvania Democrats before.

    2) Specter is one of the capitalism-destroying big spenders that many in the Tea Party movement are protesting.

    Again: Do you have an on-point, substantive response to those? It’s starting to look like you don’t.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 17, 2009 @ 10:16 am - April 17, 2009

  63. My comments were addressed to Gene

    So what? This is an open blog, MM. The entire point is for people to read what’s written and respond if and when a response occurs to them. I made substantive points about Toomey, Specter and the Tea Parties. You have made the choice to address me now – twice. But you still haven’t responded to my points. Toomey… Specter… Tea Parties. Focus.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 17, 2009 @ 10:35 am - April 17, 2009

  64. Reading up more about Toomey here… still liking him. He might get a donation from me. :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 17, 2009 @ 11:41 am - April 17, 2009

  65. ILC offers: “But you still haven’t responded to my points. Toomey… Specter…”

    So what? The question was addressed to Gene. I don’t jump when the junkyard dawg barks, ILC. You seem to be under some impression that you can inject yourself into any argument and like with American Elephant or Ignatius or countless other commenters here, you can badger and harrass until your need for attention is satiated. Go get your rub-on elsewhere. BTW, ILC, it’s a persistent problem you need to work on.

    I spoke about Toomey and Specter already. Your question and need for attention is irrelevant to me.

    Counting down to a self-congratulatory self-backslapping comment from ILC in 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 ,1…

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 17, 2009 @ 11:57 am - April 17, 2009

  66. I’m looking for an on-point reply to what I had to say about Toomey, Specter and Tea Parties… namely:

    1) Whatever Toomey’s present flaws, real or imagined, he has, in fact, beaten Pennsylvania Democrats before.

    2) Specter is one of the capitalism-destroying big spenders that many in the Tea Party movement are protesting.

    Sorry MM, that was your third attempt, but still “not it”. *Sigh*

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 17, 2009 @ 12:17 pm - April 17, 2009

  67. ILC, thanks for proving even old dawgs can’t learn new tricks… once again.

    “Counting down to a self-congratulatory self-backslapping comment from ILC in 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 ,1…”

    You never fail to disappoint.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 17, 2009 @ 12:45 pm - April 17, 2009

  68. BTW, I did answer you in #64 –immediately above your last post.

    To wit: “So what? The question was addressed to Gene. I don’t jump when the junkyard dawg barks, ILC. You seem to be under some impression that you can inject yourself into any argument and like with American Elephant or Ignatius or countless other commenters here, you can badger and harrass until your need for attention is satiated. Go get your rub-on elsewhere.”

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 17, 2009 @ 12:46 pm - April 17, 2009

  69. #64 is my comment. And your comment that you just re-quoted may be chock full of your trademark wild accusations on people who disagree with you, MM, but still doesn’t answer my points about Toomey, Specter and Tea Parties… which were:

    1) Whatever Toomey’s present flaws, real or imagined, he has, in fact, beaten Pennsylvania Democrats before.
    2) Specter is one of the capitalism-destroying big spenders that many in the Tea Party movement are protesting.

    Looking for an on-point reply. Your fourth and fifth addresses toward me… still “not it”. *Sigh*

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 17, 2009 @ 1:21 pm - April 17, 2009

  70. Asked and answered already, ILC; you just can’t handle the truth.

    I’m growing tired of your stunts for attention and junkyard barking.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 17, 2009 @ 5:50 pm - April 17, 2009

  71. Still not it, MM. Toomey… Spector… Tea Parties… focus.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 17, 2009 @ 6:14 pm - April 17, 2009

  72. Here are my points again, that you still haven’t answered meaningfully:

    1) Whatever Toomey’s present flaws, real or imagined, he has, in fact, beaten Pennsylvania Democrats before.
    2) Specter is one of the capitalism-destroying big spenders that many in the Tea Party movement are protesting.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 17, 2009 @ 7:59 pm - April 17, 2009

  73. *crickets chirping*

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 19, 2009 @ 9:59 am - April 19, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.