Writing at the Corner with NR’s biggest bloggers, Jonah responds to the five most frequent complaints from liberals about the tea parties (via Glenn).

Among my favorites are these two.

These protests are unpatriotic astroturfing by plutocrats:

So much for “dissent is the highest form of patriotism”!

I find it sort of amazing that when groups like ANSWER, a Mos Eisley cantina of America-hating nut cases, take to the streets it’s a full-flowering of democracy in action. When ACORN pays their ragamuffins to protest, or when Rainbow/PUSH shakes down businesses through racial extortion, it’s the sort of direct democratic action Thomas Paine dreamed of. And when labor unions pay people to protest, it’s populist. But when a bunch of independent Americans, talk-show hosts, and email campaigners organize hundreds of protests around the country, it’s astroturfing.

Republicans are hypocrites for suddenly caring about deficits.

Well, maybe. But then so are liberals for suddenly not caring about deficits. (That part always gets left out.)

Moreover, I don’t get it. Republicans didn’t care enough about the deficit when it went up a “little” under Bush (to pay for a war), therefore they can’t complain when Obama sends it through the stratosphere (to pay for socialized medicine)?

Read the whole thing!

Given that Bruce and I (as well as John and Nick) have been faulting Republicans, including former President George W. Bush, for not holding the line on federal spending for almost as long as we’ve been blogging, I find it most amusing to read snarky comments from liberal readers who ask why didn’t we protest the then-President’s bloated budgets.  Well, we didn’t take to the streets as we did on Wednesday.  And maybe we should have organized such protests.  But, we did take Republicans to task for losing sight of their conservative fiscal principles.

So, I thought I’d offer a few posts with their dates of publication to show that we’ve been doing just that–even when our party was in power.

2008 Elections: The Republicans’ DUI (November 17, 2008)

DeLay’s 1994 Election as House GOP Whip: Harbinger of GOP’s 2006 Defeat (November 14, 2006)

2006 Elections — Ronald Reagan’s Vindication (November 10, 2006)

GOP’s Failure to Hold True to Conservative Principles Cost Party Its Majorities
(November 8, 2006)

Conservatism Still Ascendant even if Democrats Prevail (October 30, 2006)

2006; An Election, not a Realignment (October 23, 2006)

Wall Street Journal Blasts GOP (October 2, 2006)

Reagan on My Mind (August 3, 2006)

George W. Bush: Moderate (May 15, 2006)

Grading the President on Reagan’s Legacy (March 20, 2006)

*Partial listing.

Earlier this month, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid hailed the passage of his house’s version of the president’s budget as “‘a critical step’ in the direction of cleaning ‘up the mess we inherited.’”  Now, with the budget he’s passed, we risk creating an even greater mess than the one he “inherited” as this chart shows:

(Created by Washington Post via Heritage Foundation)

Now, I’m just curious.  Harry Reid was Senate Democratic Leader for the last four years of the Bush Administration.  For the four previous years (W’s first term), he was the Democratic Whip.  Did he ever use those positions to propose or otherwise promote budgets which held the line of federal spending.  If you have evidence, send me the links so I can update this post accordingly?

Since Mr. Reid mentioned the “mess” he inherited, after Wednesday’s Tea Parties, I got to wondering who’s going to clean up the Democrats’ mess should they enact the President’s budget?

Will they hope that a more Republican Congress might have to accede to their push for higher taxes, thus neutering the tax issue (to the benefit of the Democrats since rank-and-file Republicans stay home on election day when elected Republicans support higher taxes)?

How are we going to clean up this mess and start paying off the multi-trillion dollar deficits?

CNN flops in ratings.

If you’re in the cable news business you fall behind what CNN reporter Susan Roesgen called the “right-wing, conservative Network” (FoxNews).  In fact, you fall so far behind that on the day of the protests, if you combined that “news” network’s Prime time numbers with those of another network which slurred the protests, MSNBC,”  you still wouldn’t equal the “right-wing” network’s numbers.  And heck, we’ll throw in Headline News (to the CNN and MSNBC side) for good measure.

A smart young blogger wonders if Ms. Roesgen is trying to replace Matthew Lesko, given how she confronted “a Chicago Tea Party protester and looks in the camera and says, “Did you know that the state of Illinois gets $15 billion in stimulus?” Guess the infomercial style is not conducive to ratings.

This blogger finds her reporting to be

. . . a symptom of a bigger issue: the extreme polarization of the media and it’s viewers. Encouraged by the rise of the internet and more choices, people are seeking out news they agree with on ideological lines. . . . 

This was happening to a lesser degree with cable news. FOX News filled a void for conservative-leaning networks when it launched in 1996 in a vastly liberal media environment. They have always leaned conservative, and the rest of the major news channels might have been somewhat liberal due to the media atmosphere as a whole, but not because they went out of their way to do so.

He suggests that CNN is tilting left “to win back some of MSNBC’s audience.”  This precocious college student is onto something.   So, just read his post to see why he believes this new tack isn’t working.

Imagine if a Republican Congressman lambasted rallies for a left-of-center cause, calling them “despicable” and “shameful.”  ”Reporters” for the various organs of the MSM would report the story, editorialists would deand he apologize if not resign.  Democratic Congressmen and Senators would rush to the wells of their respective houses to decry his remarks.

Well, that’s how Illinois Democrat Jan Schakowsky referred to the 250,000-500,000 Americans from all walks of life who rallied yesterday to protest excessive government spending and the higher tax rates that eventually must follow:

The ‘tea parties’ being held today by groups of right-wing activists, and fueled by FOX News Channel, are an effort to mislead the public about the Obama economic plan that cuts taxes for 95 percent of Americans and creates 3.5 million jobs. . . .  It’s despicable that right-wing Republicans would attempt to cheapen a significant, honorable moment of American history with a shameful political stunt.

Um, Ms. Schakowsky, we don’t believe that plan will create that many jobs.  Are you calling it “despicable” for us to express our opposition to this plan when we disagree with the President’s economic philosophy?

Let’s change the language a bit.  How would you, Ms. Schakowsky, react to a statement like this from 2004:

The anti-Iraq war protests being held today by groups of left-wing activists, and fueled by MSNBC and the DailyKos, are an effort to mislead the public about the Bush Administration’s plan to secure our nation, a plan which has already liberated 28 million people from tyranny.   It’s despicable that left-wing Democrats would attempt to cheapen a significant, honorable moment of American history with a shameful political stunt.

Guess it’s only a political stunt when people with a diversity of political views* protest Democratic policies.  When they protest Republican policies, well then that dissent becomes patriotic.

Ms. Shakowsky, you need to apologize.  If not, those on the right who believe that Democrats in our nation’s capital hold Americans outside urban and coastal areas in great contempt will have further evidence to justify their prejudiced view of your party.

————

*There were more than just right-wing Republicns there, there were hardcore libertarians and left-wing independents at the rally in Santa Monica.  But, I guess to Ms. Shakowsky, they can only be right-wing Republicans because only such extremists would protest Democratic policies.

Yesterday, after the rally in Van Nuys, a reader and I went out to dinner to discuss the events of the day, relationships and family and blogging.  She, who seems to follow the comments threads more regularly than I, wondered about the fervor of a particular critic.

In response, I echoed a question I have posed from time to time in the threads, wondering why some who revel in criticizing us, often accusing us of being self-hating and otherwise narrow-minded, spend so much time on this blog.  If our words so offend their sensibilities, why do they return to read them on a regular basis?  Do they delight in being offended?  (Although sometimes it seems they don’t read so much as skim, seizing on a point which particularly excites them.)

Like many right-of-center bloggers, I used to read Andrew Sullivan every day.  He was once my first stop in the blogosphere.  Yet, as he started to resemble the angry left, I ratcheted down my reading until I only read his blog when another blogger (usually on the right, but sometimes in the middle) linked him.

I found that other conservative bloggers reacted similarly.  When they found his rhetoric offensive, they decided they would rather not be offended.

Now, I welcome criticism; some of our critics, notably the fellow who calls himself Scottland, offer some pretty sound rebuttals to our arguments, often (but not always) without rancor.  I’m glad they liven up the debate in the threads which sometimes seems a discussion entirely independent of Bruce or myself–or anything either of us has said.

As I write this, something comes to mind, a memory of a conversation I had in DC with a friend who then worked for Log Cabin’s national office.  He told me how a certain “ex-gay” leader used to regularly contact him when he was in the nation’s capital.  That leader, even after renouncing his gay identity, apparently frequented gatherings of gay groups.

My friend was convinced this guy had the hots for him (after all, he was an attractive fellow).

If we use that anecdote as analogy, that would make these critics closet conservatives.  And maybe they are. I don’t know.  I just throw it out there in this speculative post which I guess serves more to invite discussion than offer any conclusion.

It’s just that I wonder why those who are ever ready to make assumptions about us, criticize us, sometimes in the most mean-spirited of language, spend so much time on our blog.

Welcome Instapundit Readers!  While you’re here, you might want to engage in a little thought experiment I set up for Jan Schakowsky (the Illinois Democrat who called the tea parties “despicable” and “shameful.”)

Just days after signing a near-trillion dollar “stimulus” package further increasing a deficit he ran against, President Obama convened a Fiscal Responsibility Summit at the White House. On the day when more than a quarter-million people across the nation protested (among other things) his spending plans, anticipating that he’ll have to raise taxes to pay for them, he promises to simply our “monstrous tax code.”

Even as he proposes doubling if not trebling the national debt, he regularly speaks about being responsible stewards of tax dollars, calling his latest budget, which increases the national debt at a far faster pace than did his predecessor, “A New Era of Responsibility.”

He knows this idea resonates with the American people.  Heck, I think he and his campaign team were aware that it resonated particularly well with rank-and-file Republicans (and recently ex-Republicans) unhappy with how Republicans they elected, expecting them to hold the line on federal spending, lost sight of that mandate.

No wonder he regularly decried then-President Bush’s spending habits during his campaign, proposing “throughout” his campaign “a net spending cut.”

Given the high percentage of Ron Paul supporters and other non-Republican libertarians at yesterday’s rallies, there’s clearly a large crowd of people the GOP could reach should it return to its Reaganite roots. We’re not there yet, not nearly so.

But, the President’s record (both in his successful campaign and once in office) as well as the turnout yesterday show that fiscal responsibility resonates.  Unless the President acts in accordance with his words (and there’s no sign of that at present), expect this phenomenon to spread.

If the GOP wants to tap into this success, it only need put forward policies which respond to our discontent and which recognize why the President repeatedly references “responsibility” when discussing federal spending.

Yesterday, at the Santa Monica “Tea Party,” there was a very unhappy man eager to do battle with Code Pink should they arrive constantly trying to get the crowd to join him in a chant, “Jail Barney Frank.”  Despite my criticisms of the unhappy Democrat from Massachusetts, I did not join in.  It didn’t think served the purpose of the rally to personalize it.

While most of the people at the rally seemed of good humor, this man did not.  He snarled at my suggestion that we be respectful of counter-protesters.

His presence served to remind me that the left does not have a monopoly on activists who seem to be projecting their inner demons on political figures.

While some may ascribe this man’s obsession with the mean-spirited Democrat to his own repression of his urges for intimacy with men, I think it was something else.

Whenever I blog about Mr. Frank, I use the adjective “unhappy” to describe him.  He never smiles when I see him on TV, always scowls and just appears to lead a very lonely and discontented existence.  Look, I could be wrong.  I don’t know what his life is like.  But, that’s my impression.  Were he not a public figure who regularly attacks his adversaries, I would not so speculate.

You’ll note that the first adjective I used to describe the man at the rally obsessed with Barney Frank is that very adjective I use to describe his nemesis, “unhappy.”  He had nearly the same demeanor as the Massachusetts Democrat.  Of all the protesters, he seemed to having the least amount of fun.

So, I wondered, just wondered if he was projecting his denoms onto Barney because he senses a kindred spirit, albeit one with more worldly success than he.

UP-UP-UP-UPDATE: The estimates of tea party protesters keeps growing.  One estimate has the tally at nearly 500,000, while Nate Silver (see below) now estimates over 300,000 attended the various rallies.  Jim Geraghty has upped his estimate to 337,682.

In a comment, our reader Scottland, one our most civil critics links liberal blogger and polling expert Nate Silver who finds that over a quarter-million people attended yesterday’s “Tea Parties:”

. . . based on news accounts of 306 “Tea Party” protests in different cities across the country yesterday, I get a cumulative attendance of 262,025, with a fair number of (probably mostly smaller) events still unaccounted for.

These figures, wherever possible, are drawn from objective attempts to estimate crowd sizes, such as police accounts or estimates made by reporters. Organizers of these events have strong incentives to exaggerate crowd sizes.

Interesting then another reader said the police gave a higher estimate (3,000) for the turnout out at the Van Nuys rally than she, other participants and I had estimated (1,500-2000).  Now, Silver notes he left out a number of rallies.  He lists neither of the rallies I attended.  So, it’s possible that more 300,000 people attended these protests.

Well, even if we lowball the estimate, using Silver’s number and add in just 2,000 folks at those remaining tea parties (which you’d get just by adding the two I attended), there were 50,000 more people protesting higher government spending, including Obama’s budget, than those who signed petitions in favor of the spendthrift document.

As I wrote last week, to consider the tea parties a success:

We simply need to have more people protesting the president’s budget than signed petitions supporting it:  214,000.  Unlike the DNC’s Organizing for America which grew out of the Obama’s presidential campaign, the tea party effort is just getting started.  [This was the outfit which gathered the signatures.]  We don’t have a long-established organization in place with the resources of a national political party possessing a database of 13 million supporters.

And given that many (if not most) of these rallies were held during the day when some of those most likely to attend had to work, the turnout becomes even more impressive.  And you also have to consider that we did not have a central command directing our efforts, providing experienced organizers with lists of volunteers or offering funding to pay for the rallies and bus participants to the rally sites.

It was a haphazard affair, largely run by a variety of individuals across the country, many of whom had never previously organized such events.

And we’re just got started.  Unless the President and Congress take action to curb the increases in federal spending, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

UPDATE:  Raven’s current tally at Redstate is 310,000.

UP-UPDATE:  Jim Geraghty pegs it at 333,682.

UP-UP-UPDATE:  Almost half a million?  Glenn links a roundup of counts, from Silver’s 262,025 to 456,444.

This morning while reading Robert Johnson’s Lying with the Heavenly Woman: Understanding and Integrating the Feminine Archetypes in Men’s Lives, for my dissertation, I chanced upon this passage:

Many men in our culture are permanently stuck in this contamination, and they are constantly fighting a mother.  What a variety of forms there are!  A man’s own mother only begins the long list.  The poor waitress in the restaurant who elicits a man’s rage because she brought the wrong order, the woman office manager, the woman traffic officer, the Republican Party, and the mother in a thousand other disguises incur the wrath of the man who has not made this differentiation between the inner complex and the outer form.

Emphasis added.

It is interesting that he included the Republican Party on the individuals or institutions who elicit certain men’s rage.  Must be that a lot of this psychologist’s clients vent against the GOP.  (I’m sure that some extreme social conservatives with similar psychoses frequently mention “homosexuals”.)

It just all goes to my point about the psychological basis of such animosity.  It’s not the object so much that they hate, but the demon they’re trying to exorcize.

On Tuesday, when I was identified Children’s Hospital/Los Angeles as one my charitable donations to my tax guy, he, recalling my past returns, commented that I always support that international leader in pediatrics.  I always support them, I replied, because of the institution’s sterling reputation.

He then related how when his nephew was suffering from a complicated respiratory problem, he was airlifted there and received extraordinary care.  He’s doing fine today.  It made me feel good to hear an example of the good work that one of “my” charities does.

Because I would be getting back a little more from the feds than I had anticipated, when I returned home to find a solicitation from the hospital in my pile of mail to be sorted, I instantly cut them a check.  I’m sure I’m not alone.  I’m sure countless other Americans, when getting money back, are equally generous.  If not more so.

Unless of course they’re the Vice President of the United States.  On Tuesday, I gave more to Children’s Hospital than the total amount Joe Biden gave to charitable organizations in 1998 or 1999 on an adjusted gross income considerably less than his (via Volokh via Glenn).

You’d think somebody so generous with other people’s money would be more generous with his own.

While Biden has given more in recent year than he has in years past, he gave less than $2,000 last year on an income greater than $250,000.  According to the New York Times, “the White House said the Bidens have made additional donations to charity not listed on the returns.“  And the White House hosted a Fiscal Responsibility Summit only days after the president signed a near-trillion dollar “stimulus,” further boosting the deficit he derided on the campaign trail.

There are many causes worthy of our support, particularly in these tough times.  I hope you’ll join me in supporting Children’s Hospital/Los Angeles.  And when you do so, maybe write the Vice President and ask him to support this great facility as well, without dipping into our tax dollars to do so.

ADDENDUM:  This is not the first time I blogged on this.  The last time I did so, several of our readers commented that they too gave more in charity than does the Vice President.

This rally where I arrived about 7 PM was much more subdued than the one in Santa Monica even though the crowd was about four times as big. As in Santa Monica, protesters were waving signs at passing motorists who regularly honked their support.

Signs celebrating the Gipper were in abundance as well as a plethora of clever references to piracy. There was one man eager to get protesters (as per this DailyKos acolyte) to say silly things as he recorded them on his video camera.

Once again, the spirit was a festive one. A lot of people were coming from work, hence the larger crowd.  The Santa Monica rally had been held during the work day.

And there was a more organized public portion of the protest, with a variety of speakers, including actors and activists. One person said, “This is not the end, it’s the beginning.”

Given how little attention the MSM paid to these, they can only grow as word of their success seeps out.

Someone read the speech that launched Obama’s presidential campaign:

(more…)

Well, it was excessively windy when I arrived in Santa Monica so much so that they moved the protest from the Pier to the corner of Colorado and Ocean.

It was a most diverse crowd. One young man arrived on a skateboard while one old woman arrived, leaning on her walker. There were a lot of young people, maybe one-third of the crowd was under 30. And a good number of Ron Paul supporters, maybe one-fifth of the crowd.

It was haphazard. People were coming and going all day. And no one was sure who was in charge. While angry about federal spending, people were very, very friendly to one another. It almost seemed like a party at one point.

At the height of the rally, we estimate that there were about 400 people there, pretty good considering it was in the middle of the day in one of the most liberal jurisdictions in LA County.

I left this party to attend the evening rally in Van Nuys which drew a much larger crowd, maybe as many as 2,000. Fewer Ron Paul supporters there.

Here are a few of my Santa Monica pictures. In a later post, I’ll include those from Van Nuys.

Despite this woman’s loss of income, her spirits remained high.

And here are two ladies agitating for liberty, one of them our loyal reader Leah:

This was not just a Republican rally:

And here’s Leah laughing with a lesbian:

A sign that speaks for itself:

(more…)

To address this child’s fears . . .

. . . this man has a suggestion:

For my first report from the Santa Monica Tea party where we gather that about 400 gathered at its height. People had been coming and coming from about 1:40 or so when I got there until about 6:00 when I left.

This is my left-leaning lesbian friend, featured frequently on this blog. Left-leaning she may be, but liberty she loves.

When she was waving this sign, a socially conservative woman asked her, “Aren’t you afraid of us?”

To this my friend replied, “Are you afraid of me?”

She wasn’t. And together they continued to demonstrate their disgust at the excessive government spending the president has proposed.

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.

Roger sums up the tea party movement and addresses its adversaries:

Of course, what’s interesting about the Tea Party movement, whatever its success, is that it is pretty much about what it says it is – lower taxes and less government spending. A lot of people, Republican and Democrat, are concerned about our escalating debt and what this might mean for future generations. This is clearly a serious subject for serious discussion from whatever side of the issue you fall out on, but… no matter… the moment something gains momentum out comes the derangement crowd. In a certain way, it’s a sign of success.

For all of you attending, or following the National Tea Party gatherings, feel free to comment here.  If you post links to photos, or other blogs, PLEASE use www.tinyurl.com.  Thank you!

There are live postings, with photos, at Twitter right now.

UPDATE: PatriotPartner is sending pics “live” from the Charlotte, NC Tea Party:

UPDATE:  Photo from Madison, WI Tea Party:

UPDATE: 3000 at Cincinnati, Ohio Tea Party! (via RighteousRantings)

UPDATE: ColoCelt has photos from Denver, CO protest.  So loud the House Speaker shut the windows!

DEVELOPING…..

-Bruce (GayPatriot, a DHS-certified rightwing extremist)

Lots of action across the USA today as law-abiding, frustrated Americans take to the streets to protest the mounting debt on our backs by the Obama Administration and US Congress.

Here are some more details on the San Francisco Tea Party today:

Civic Center (Plaza) Park. Corner of McAllister and Polk.
From there, we walk to 450 Golden Gate (one block) to Pelosi’s office.11:00 a.m. until 1:00 p.m.
Come for the entire time or part of it; we will be in either of the two locations.

BE PREPARED TO:

–cheer and chant a lot!
–sign the Grievance Scroll (a draft of which is attached)
–register so that I have your name and email for next time (there will be a next time)

WHAT TO BRING:

1—pin a teabag to your lapel, jacket.
2—bring extra tea to give to Princess Pelosi, more symbolic than anything at this point as she will be at the Mark Hopkins for her book signing.
3—signs—keep them appropriate.  Stay on message (bailouts, stimulus, budget, taxes, pork, earmarks).  Please refrain from signs that will take us off message and give fuel to the left wing press and left wingers who might show up.
4—cameras and videos cameras: for posterity and security.
5—period outfits, FLAGS!  We will say the Pledge to start this off and we’ll need flags for that as well as patriotism in general.
6—if you have a boombox and have extra hands for it, download some music (appropriate please) and bring it along.  I’m trying to work something out w/ this.  It’s not the end of the world if we don’t have music…it just might be nice on the march to Princess P’s.
7—a great attitude, your principles and a sense of humor as well as purpose.
8—patience.  If the HuffPo or other leftwing brigades bother to appear, DO NOT LET THEM GOAD YOU….that is their sole purpose.  I say: IGNORE THEM!

And here are some good stats to keep in mind and perhaps spur you on to attend a Tea Party today (via Newt Gingrich):

•    If you’re a 50-year old-with a college degree, you will pay approximately $81,000 over your working life just to pay the interest on the debt in the Obama budget.
•    If you’re a 40-year-old, you’ll pay $132,000.
•    And if you’re a 20-year-old, just starting out after college, you will pay a whopping $114,000 just to service the interest on the debt created by the Obama budget.

And here is a map of the breadth of the Tea Party protests across the USA.  Very impressive.

Feel free to email me photos and accounts of your Tea Party activities.  I will try my best to get them up, though I will be on work travel later today.

I also hope to be able to stop by the Charlotte Tea Party on my way to the airport today.

“Don’t Tread On Me!”

-Bruce (GayPatriot, proud member of the Obama “Extremist” Enemies List)

With word that CodePink will be crashing the Tea Party I’ll be attending today at the Santa Monica Pier from 3 – 7 PM local time, let us remember to be civil with our adversaries.

They’re looking to bait us so they can capture our outrageous outbursts on camera.  Don’t give them that pleasure.  Instead give them your respect.

Let them shout, let them taunt, let them cry, but just don’t allow them to drown you out or intimidate you.  And if they get really, really, really angry, diffuse their bile with a kind word or an offer of a refreshment.  Or just ignore them.

Don’t them distract us from getting out our message that we share the sentiments Barack Obama expressed in his successful bid for the White House.  We don’t want to see federal spending increased by leaps and bounds.  Instead, we want something he proposed “throughout” his campaign:  we want “a net spending cut.”

And let us make this message clear in our slogans and in our signs.  Criticize the president and other advocates of big government for their policies; don’t attack them for their personalities.  Criticize our adversaries, don’t insult them.

Be wary of anyone who approaches you with a petition to sign or who seeks your address.  Read that petition first.

Above all, be polite, be friendly, be upbeat.  We’re not doing this because we hate anybody, but because we love this great nation and her founding ideals.  We want to remind our elected officials of the principles of our founding, how they still guide us, how by returning to smaller government, we will achieve greater freedom and greater prosperity.  We will all benefit by these reforms, including, indeed especially, those now faring the worst in the current economic downturn.

Higher taxes and bigger government will only prolong that downturn and delay the recovery.

So, as we protest against bigger government and the coming increases in our tax rates, let us always remember what we are fighting for.  And with kind words and a good heart, let us affirm those principles even to those who would publicly contest our ideas and question our integrity.

FROM THE COMMENTS: Derek Moore offers additional advice–and it’s worth your attention:

And if anyone that says they are with the “Press” or a news service, Ask for credentials up front, who their supervisor is and then tell them you will get back to them if they leave a phone number. Unless you know who they are and they are a recognized journalist. Gonna be a few Fake News crews out there.