I haven't been a big booster of the tea-parties. Hell, I haven't been a small booster. I think that protests and street theater are, while a sacred civil right, usually counterproductive. And I don't have much sense of identification with either the right wing grass roots, or the organizers.
But the left wing response to the tea parties is stirring my sympathy.
People are calmly assembling in the public square, waving barely legible signs, delivering stilted speeches, and cheering at each other. The wave of vitriolic contempt, nay rage, that this has unleashed is wholly inappropriate. The federal government is ratcheting up spending to massive levels, with no corresponding plan to pay for it. Even taking out the stimulus, Obama's projected deficits outpace Dubya's for the next decade.
You may think that the programs are worth the price. But dissent from that view is not unreasonable. And given that there is little representation in Congress for their views right now, the dissenters can be forgiven for taking (extremely politely, AFAICT) to the streets in an attempt to make their views heard. Whether the topic is war or taxes, telling honest citizens to shut up and do what the government tells them is not the act of a sound democratic society.
(Full disclosure: as I've mentioned, before we dated, my boyfriend worked for Freedomworks. Freedomworks is one of the organizers of the tea parties, though not, as some would have it, a shadowy secret organizer--it's on the front page of their website. Neither Peter nor I have now, nor ever have had, any involvement with the tea party movement, though some of our friends have organized and attended them.)
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Let them have their fun, too much entertainment value to be had. Can they do it again next week?
These kinds of protests have value in that they serve as place people can meet and get involved. I don't think they'll change anyone's mind, but "you are not alone" is a pretty powerful political messages in a democracy.
Of course the left hates it. Because they know where it could lead - the return of the organized small-government conservatism the Republicans have abandoned in their quest for the mythical "middle".
"You are not alone"? Really? You realize Limbaugh and Beck have huge ratings compared to everyone else. I'm pretty sure they're well aware, since they're told daily, of the size of the group to which they belong. Remember "We Surround Them"?
Anyway, being part of the left, I don't know a single actual person on the left that "hates" this. Or even dislikes it! I would in fact LOVE a "return of the organized small-government conservatism the Republicans have abandoned". That's an opposition who actually has ideas and one that can be discussed honestly. The current opposition is clinically insane.
But I'm pretty sure, given the same people's incredible outrage over only a 4% increase in defense spending and insistence that the government intervene to enact their stances on abortion and gay marriage, that a small government isn't really what these people are about. These weren't libertarian protesters, they were Fox News watchers. It's just about them not being in power, and expressing that frustration in possibly the most juvenile manner possible. So I wouldn't mind seeing as much of that as possible, seeing as how it turns that "mythical middle" further and further away from Republicans for the foreseeable future.
But I'm pretty sure, given the same people's incredible outrage over only a 4% increase in defense spending...
Okay, I'm gonna have to call you on this one. The official budget is going up by 4%, but much of Iraq and Afghanistan have been funded by supplemental appropriations, which have now been rolled into the official budget. So in fact DoD is getting less money than last year. Are you people ever gonna get over your infatuation with Obama enough to recognize when he's lying to you?
Actually, I believe Obama, like with so many other things, has found Wisdom in another of the Bush administrations more annoying habits:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-war-budget10-2009apr10,0,7040091.story
"President Obama is seeking an additional $83.4 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a request that will drive the cost of the two wars to nearly $1 trillion since 2001.
The budget request, to cover operations for the remainder of 2009, comes on top of $67.2 billion approved last fall as a down payment for the year. However, the annual total, about $150 billion, is lower than the amount spent in 2008, after the conclusion of the U.S. troop "surge" in Iraq."
Megan, you're being disingenuous. Janeane Garofalo as a typical left-wing response? Seriously?
Anyway, here's the problem. "But dissent from that view is not unreasonable." Of course it isn't. Long-term fiscal responsibility is a very important topic that should be seriously discussed as often as possible.
But the people at these protests weren't doing it. Not in the least. They went on and on about how unfair tax increases are (on a bracket they'll never see in their lives), even though tax increases are going to be necessary to reduce the deficit. They talk about socialism and fascism and Marxism, none of which have any relation to actual serious political arguments.
Now, the tea parties were originally planned by Ron Paul supporters who actually mean what they say about smaller government and fiscal responsibility. I can respect that view, though I disagree with it. But the vast majority of the actual protesters don't share that view. You see the same people holding signs saying "no more new taxes" and "don't cut defense spending". It morphed from a small group with legitimate complaints and an actual solution into a completely unfocused, vitriolic anti-Democrat, anti-Obama tantrum. Which is cool, they need to express that somehow. It's just not in any way productive.
But I'd really like to see how you got to the conclusion that the left-wing response can be summarized as "the wave of vitriolic contempt, nay rage, that this has unleashed". Because I visit a lot of liberal blogs regularly and 99% of the response was simply laughter. Seriously, check DKos or TPM's coverage of it. These guys were the equivalent of Code Pink and the Free Mumia protesters that the other side rightly mocks. Who among us was actually...*mad* at these guys other than Garofalo?
Janeane Garofalo as a typical left-wing response?
Keith Olbermann is the netroot's (DKos or TPM) standard bearer and he just chuckled and nodded to Garofalo's tirade.
Olbermann has a lot in common with the Kos crowd (and posts there as well), but that doesn't mean the netroots agree with him on every single point. Unlike Rush's followers, we don't have to. He and Garofalo were wrong here. He can sometimes go over the top in his partisanship and screechiness, which makes him difficult to watch for me at times. I don't feel obligated to defend everything he does or says.
Adam, that's just childish. It's easy to paint your opponents as all one-way-thinking knee-jerk robots, but it simply isn't true. Libs agree with Olbermann and disagree with him, conservatives with Limbaugh and disagree with him.
That being said, olbermann is way further wacko than rush. He's the michael savage of the left. Anyone who continuously called Bush "facist" more than once is clearly as nutty as a fruticake. Someone should give the sportscaster some valium.
Garofalo is just insane.
I think the tea parties contributed to rebuilding what for lack of a better term I've been calling "tribal affiliations" in what is generally considered to be the American right that have been damaged in the last political cycle . That's productive in a way.
That's an evaluation, not an endorsement, BTW.
The protests I've seen regarding tax increases at the Tea Parties seem to indicate that a lot of people realize taxes on the rich are not going to be enough to pay for the kinds of new programs and borrowing we are looking at.
You're absolutely right tsotha.
It wasn't too long ago when the Left said protest was the highest form of patriotism and in keeping with the finest traditions of this nation. We now know those were hollow words, much like when the Left touts the benefits of free speech in universities.
It also wasn't too long ago when our President, then candidate, stated he would "review the federal budget line by line and eliminate programs that don’t work or are unnecessary." The Left praised him for it in the campaign, but apparently not only has lost its appetite to hold him accountable themselves, but mocks and derides those who do.
Prime example: Andrew Sullivan (Conservative Masquerader)
"It wasn't too long ago when the Left said protest was the highest form of patriotism and in keeping with the finest traditions of this nation."
It is. Go for it. Protest every day if you want. We were just laughing at these protests because, well, they sucked. Ours suck too, mind you. Effective protesting is a lost art not seen since the 60s.
"It also wasn't too long ago when our President, then candidate, stated he would "review the federal budget line by line and eliminate programs that don’t work or are unnecessary."
And as far as I'm aware, he's still doing that. From today's news:
Veterans Affairs has canceled or delayed 26 conferences, opting for less costly alternatives such as video conferencing, saving nearly $17.8 million. The Agriculture Department is working to combine 1,500 employees from seven office locations into one facility in 2011, which the agency said would save $62 million over a 15-year lease term. Also, Homeland Security projects that it can save up to $52 million over five years by buying office supplies in bulk, officials said.
Yeah, it's chicken scratch, I know. The main problem is that the vast majority of our spending goes to defense and entitlements. Cuts in defense programs were met with absolute outrage from the right, as would raising the payroll tax to help with Social Security and reforming health care to lower Medicare costs.
So what exactly is their solution then? I've yet to see one. We don't "mock and deride" people who want to hold him accountable, we mock and deride people who protest against deficits while opposing every measure (like tax increases on the top bracket and defense cuts and health care reform) intended to cut the deficit.
And have you been reading Sullivan lately? He's been saying exactly this: the tea parties are deeply unserious because they're not remotely interested in providing a solution. The Republican Party has no solutions. Look at their budget proposal and tell me how I'm supposed to take that seriously. Come up with something, then we'll talk.
"we mock and deride people who protest against deficits while opposing every measure (like tax increases on the top bracket and defense cuts and health care reform) intended to cut the deficit."
Did it occur to you that the protesters are saying that the money shouldn't be spent in the first place? That's what they ARE saying.
"Did it occur to you that the protesters are saying that the money shouldn't be spent in the first place? That's what they ARE saying."
No they're not. They're not saying anything like that. Ask them how many of them want the drastic cuts in defense spending necessary for fiscal responsibility. Ask them how many of them want their parents to not have SS or Medicare. They'll talk about how we shouldn't have earmarks and pork barrel spending and completely ignore the 98% of the budget whose price tag they hate but whose benefits they wouldn't dare give up.
This was not a libertarian or Grover Norquist protest. This was a pure anti-Obama protest made by people who would howl if you actually made the deep spending cuts and tax increases necessary to balance the federal budget. And that's why they're mocked.
Yes, ask me. You can cut defense. You can cut SS. You can cut medicare.
"And have you been reading Sullivan lately? He's been saying exactly this: the tea parties are deeply unserious because they're not remotely interested in providing a solution. The Republican Party has no solutions. Look at their budget proposal and tell me how I'm supposed to take that seriously. Come up with something, then we'll talk."
So, the tea parties are deeply unserious because they haven't come up with a fifteen point plan for solving the deficit, but Obama was serious during his campaign even though his own solution amounts to mere "chicken scratch." Even with Obama's pie-in-the-sky economic forecasts, he's still projecting trillion dollar deficits over the long term as far as the eye can see. Yet the tea party-goers are dismissed as incoherent, performance artists partaking in fatuous pieces of theater. Obama on the other hand gets no rebuke for essentially doing the same thing.
It's an obvious double standard that neither you nor Sullivan can defend.
"So, the tea parties are deeply unserious because they haven't come up with a fifteen point plan for solving the deficit"
No. This is a strawman. They're deeply unserious because not only do they not have the first inclination as to what they'd do to solve the problem, but they're actively opposed to efforts to do so. Namely, defense spending.
"Obama was serious during his campaign even though his own solution amounts to mere "chicken scratch."
What you said was that Obama wasn't following through on his promise to improve programs line-by-line in the budget. I showed examples of him doing exactly that. What did you think that meant? Cutting small things like that is exactly what he was talking about. No, that's not "his solution" for fiscal solvency. But it's one small part of it.
"Even with Obama's pie-in-the-sky economic forecasts, he's still projecting trillion dollar deficits over the long term as far as the eye can see."
Completely incorrect. As I recall the deficit for 2012 is projected at something like $512 billion, and further deficits are at about 3% of GDP, which is widely considered to be sustainable. I don't have the exact numbers in front of me so correct me if I'm wrong.
"Yet the tea party-goers are dismissed as incoherent, performance artists partaking in fatuous pieces of theater. Obama on the other hand gets no rebuke for essentially doing the same thing."
You'd have a point if he were only trimming incredibly minor things. You completely left out the cuts in defense programs. Or the tax increases designed for deficit reduction. Or the health care reform to rein in Medicare. See, he's doing lots of things. The party-goers are doing exactly nothing. If that's a double standard, you need to consult your dictionary.
It is. Go for it. Protest every day if you want. We were just laughing at these protests because, well, they sucked. Ours suck too, mind you.
The one thing I really wanted to see is paper mache puppets. That's one thing you guys do really well, and we won't be fit to be called protesters until we close the paper mache puppet gap.
"Cuts in defense programs were met with absolute outrage from the right, as would raising the payroll tax to help with Social Security and reforming health care to lower Medicare costs...So what exactly is their solution then? "
Not sure why you believe the only two options are cuts in defense and raising taxes in SS/medicare. Why not cut medicare/SS?
(For the record, I also support cuts in defense. Just pointing out that your list of options is incomplete.)
here here!
"Cuts in defense programs were met with absolute outrage from the right, as would raising the payroll tax to help with Social Security and reforming health care to lower Medicare costs.
So what exactly is their solution then? I've yet to see one. "
Oh, gosh, that's a hard one. Let me think. Just a minute. Arrgh. It is right there on the tip of my frontal lobe.
(eye roll)
If the problem is the spending is mainly in entitlements and defense, can anyone think of a solution that doesn't require defense cuts or raising taxes? Hard, I know...
Obviously, the Right has as much right to engage in protest politics as the Left. But of course the First Amendment protects not only the right to engage in such protests but the right to ridicule them and question their motives. I well remember the ridicule which not just the conservative but the "mainstream" media directed at the people who marched against the coming Iraq war in 2003. (And despite being marginalized by the media and by *both* political parties the anti-war marches actually had a *larger* participation than the talk-radio-and-Fox-News-aided Tea Parties. The best estimate I have seen is 300,000 people for the Tea Parties.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/tea-party-nonpartisan-attendance.html
Not terribly impressive when you consider it's only one-tenth of one percent of the population of the US and compare it to attendancce at both the antiwar and immigraton rallies.)
That attendance spread over 700 teaparties is roughly 430 people per tea party. Given that a number of protests where there were media figures (Sean Hannity in Atlanta for example), where the numbers were larger, that means some of the protests were tiny.
Well yeah, there's not 700 major urban centres in the US. Of course some are going to be tiny.
Perhaps the left has not used up its store of vitriol, and still needs to vent.
Perhaps those protesting the spending and tax increases know that the government will raise their taxes next. Where else will the government get the money?
There is no way in the world that any human agency can spend $3 Trillion efficiently and effectively. The sheer size makes it impossible. 535 people (plus staff) cannot plan and supervise the spending of such an amount of money.
"Perhaps those protesting the spending and tax increases know that the government will raise their taxes next."
Or perhaps many of them are the exact same people who cheered on all of Bush's actions for eight years, supported a massive tax cut that ballooned the deficit with no way to pay for it, and supported an incredibly expensive war that wasn't even put on the budget. Perhaps they twice voted for a Vice President who said "deficits don't matter". Perhaps they're only protesting spending because it's not their guys doing the spending. Perhaps they're only wondering where the government will get the money to pay for deficits when their party isn't building up the deficit.
I wonder if that might be the case? Surely Fox News didn't spend weeks of coverage on a protest consisting entirely of Ron Paul supporters?
"There is no way in the world that any human agency can spend $3 Trillion efficiently and effectively."
And it's really amazing how so many of the same people saying this think Reagan, he of the massive deficit spending to finance a massive military buildup, was the greatest president ever. Oh, I'm sure you don't. And if you opposed all of Bush's financial policies at the time, great. But don't even try to tell me very many of the tea party protesters did.
"Or perhaps many of them are the exact same people who cheered on all of Bush's actions for eight years, supported a massive tax cut that ballooned the deficit with no way to pay for it, and supported an incredibly expensive war that wasn't even put on the budget."
Adam, check out this comparison chart of the actual deficits during the Bush years versus the deficits Obama has projected over the next ten years. That spending, incidentally, includes the war spending (which was on the federal budget, just not on the Defense Department budget). If Obama wins a second term, by his administration's own, overly-optimistic assumptions, the deficit won't be as small as Bush's largest deficit in any year of the Obama presidency. It's one thing to argue that the current recession and financial crisis calls for unprecedented deficits now, but how can you argue for huge deficits seven or ten years out, at the same time you are bashing Bush for posting much smaller deficits?
Actually, the reason why Bush's approval ratings were so low was precisely because he spent spent spent.
I know it might seem crazy to you, but 70% of the population are not democrats.
A big reason why Bush lost ~30% of his core supporters is because they were sick of his big government spending. He was all talk about small gov. but refused to make the hard choices and let Congress vote for whatever they wanted in order to pass his other priorities.
And I'm quite certain there is not a tea party protester out there who was happy with how much money Bush spent/authorized across the board.
And I'm also quite certain comparing what Bush spent to comparing what Obama is spending is not even in the same ball park. Bush spends too much, so that's a valid reason for Obama to spend 3 times as much?
Adam, you're being disingenuous:
"supported a massive tax cut that ballooned the deficit with no way to pay for it"
---Bush's tax cuts did not cause the deficit. It was the spending, not the cuts. His cuts kept the economy strong, and gave people jobs.
"Perhaps they're only wondering where the government will get the money to pay for deficits when their party isn't building up the deficit."
---Adam, plenty of people were upset with Bush's spending. Sean Hannity was leading the charge on those criticisms for years. And when David Brooks declared approvingly that Bush was "redfining" conservatism to meld it with spending, it was the death knell; anytime Brooks agrees with a measure, you know its wrong.
"And it's really amazing how so many of the same people saying this think Reagan, he of the massive deficit spending to finance a massive military buildup, was the greatest president ever."
---First, straw man. Not every Reagan supporter liked that method.
Be that as it may, Reagan's plan was two fold: destroy stagflation and topple the commies. He knew that, financially, the commies couldn't keep up with the U.S. (remember, liberals, socialism is a failed economic system) if we just spent them militarily into oblivion, and that's what he did. He also knew that when communism fell, they could cut the spending (which is why military bases started closing in the 1990s) back to normal levels.
He also knew the taxes were killing American enterprise and that businesses needed freedom to maneuver if the sour 1970s economy could recover.
and Obama's proposing bringing taxes back in line with (drum roll please) Reagan.
And a tax cut for 95% of Americans; after all, we do want the economy to recover.
Reagan also faced a Democratic Congress that refused to cut spending on entitlements or, well, anything, really. They would fund his ideas but not unfund any others, and, as we have checks and balances, there wasn't a whole lot he as the executive could do to stop Congressional overspending on things he considered wasteful. I'm not one of those people who thinks that Reagan was the Perfect President or some kind of pan-Conservative saint, but I've heard the argument about his running up deficits because of defense spending, without any acknowledgment of the role of divided government to let it go unchallenged yet again.
Reagan wasn't the greatest President ever - that'd be George Washington, probably. Reagan might make the top 10, but that'd largely be because he did some things right(the Cold War, most notably), and the other 41 provide a fairly low level of competition. Seriously, with such heroes of idiocy as Lyndon Johnson and Andrew Jackson on the list, being one of the better Presidents is not all that hard a task.
And for what it's worth, I've opposed Bush's fiscal policies from the beginning. I can't speak to the Tea Party attendees, but I know I'm not the only one, either.
I didn't hear Garafalo say that the Tea Party protesters shouldn't be allowed to voice their dissent... she just had a needlessly reductive view of their personal politics. The video clip sets up a pretty blatant false dichotomy... she said some dismissive things about right wing protesters, not keeping them from protesting, in the present but seems concerned about the right to protest, not the right to be free from derision, in the clips from 2003. In the earlier interview she's not reacting to the idea of celebrities being mocked, she's reacting to the notion that dissent should be curtailed in the aftermath of September 11th and the ensuing nationalism the country experienced.
"Whether the topic is war or taxes, telling honest citizens to shut up and do what the government tells them is not the act of a sound democratic society."
Who said that?? While a person can draw all sorts of connections between the tea parties and the anti-war protests, I've yet to hear a single significant liberal say that these protests shouldn't occur or that the protesters should simply shut up. Rather, on the left there's a mix of substantive critique and mocking. Janeane Garafalo calling them a bunch of racists is ridiculous and serves to shut off debate but it's pretty far, in substance and intent, from the words you've shoved into her mouth.
I'm more confused by your assertion that these people don't have voices in Congress. Aside from the obvious Ron Paul connections, the scattershot approach to policy the Republican members of Congress have offered since Obama's election serves as a pretty effective mirror of the disparate viewpoints on display at these protests.
"she said some dismissive things about right wing protesters, not keeping them from protesting, in the present but seems concerned about the right to protest, not the right to be free from derision"
Goes both ways. Yes, the R's who spent too much have apparently gotten religon. But the D's aren't clean here either. Many of them campaigned in 2006 and 2008, most notably Obama himself, against the Bush deficits. Yet their budgets it indefinitely.
Your point about freedom from derision applies to the Democrats too.
"Many of them campaigned in 2006 and 2008, most notably Obama himself, against the Bush deficits. Yet their budgets it indefinitely."
I'm pretty sure there's a massive difference between running a huge deficit during normal economic conditions and running one during a huge recession to try to pull out of it. And again, you're completely wrong on the "indefinite" part.
But the R's haven't "gotten religion". If a Republican won in 2012 and had the same deficits you wouldn't hear a peep outside of the fringe right. After all, Republican leaders' policies pretty much all lead to larger deficits than Obama's does. They're protesting because it's not their guy doing it, plain and simple.
The CBO estimates the Obama's plan will be a little over $600 billion in 2012 and grow to $1.2 trillion in 2019, well beyond the current economic crisis. His own OMB budget has it at $800 billion in ten years. Note that the CBO has historically been more accurate than OMB.
"They're protesting because it's not their guy doing it, plain and simple."
And you're defending it because it is your guy, plain and simple.
"Not terribly impressive when you consider it's only one-tenth of one percent of the population of the US and compare it to attendancce at both the antiwar and immigraton rallies."
Weekend protest vs the middle of a workday. Think about it.
And adults vs children. Look at any large leftist protests and you see hordes of college age kids who have never had to earn a living, support a family or run any sort of business in their lives.
And look at all those shifty minorities in those leftist protests. Why, they're probably just looking for a handout.
These tea parties on the other hand, 100% lily white! Full of hard-working Real Americans. Just like the Palin rallies (and many of the exact same people).
Does anyone know what Adam is talking about?
Absolutely not true. I saw a photo of a black-guy waiving a "Black People against Obama" sign. So there was at least one minority at one of the protests.
"Does anyone know what Adam is talking about?"
I'm sure you do, but I'll break it down anyway.
See, ed was saying that unlike anti-war protests, these tax parties were full of Responsible Adults With Families. Maybe even small business owners. You know, those Real Americans. The kind that vote Republican because that's what Responsible Adults do.
I was pointing out in response that, like pretty much every Republican rally or event, the crowd was also just about 100% white. Because Republicans are pretty much entirely the party of white married Christians. Which used to be over 50% of the country but now is not.
My first part was a parody of the language your types often use with regards to non-whites. You know, the whole welfare queen thing. Those non-Real Americans that vote for the libs.
Also, I pointed out that if you compared the attendees at Palin rallies and tea parties, you'd find many of the same people. I don't think this is really very controversial.
Did that clear it up for you?
He's lost the argument so he's playing the race card. Pitiful.
Yeah, got it. You were engaging in cartoonish stereotypes. Thanks for clearing that up.
"Yeah, got it. You were engaging in cartoonish stereotypes. Thanks for clearing that up."
Um, yes actually. That was the intent of the post. Because a line like "Look at any large leftist protests and you see hordes of college age kids who have never had to earn a living, support a family or run any sort of business in their lives" is full of cartoonish stereotypes. So my intent was to mock that by offering the opposing set of cartoonish stereotypes, in hopes that you'd realize how off-base both of them are.
Adam is now trying hilariously to turn his idiotic race-card playing into some sort of pseudo-hipster "ironic" statement.
It's miserable to see that this passes as intellectualism on the left. Truly pitiful.
Mmm. Adams smells like a bigot, folks. Let him clear his name against the charge as we sit back and scrutinize his efforts to do so, picking apart his every protest of innocence.
Have fun, Adam. I doubt you will find that sort of thing any more fair than conservatives and libertarians do when directed at them.
Adam,
Garofalo's is well within the standard response to the Tea Parties by the Left. They are entitled to their criticism of them, but the vehemence of the response is telling us something- they are, in fact, worried that quite a few tax payers themselves might not be on the same page as the Obama Administration as far the coming deficits are concerned.
My criticism of the Tea Parties is that they are toothless and leaderless at the moment. There is an opportunity for someone to step into this vacuum and lead, but the question is, who will it be? Demagogues of the worst kind often end up in this role by default, and if this happens here, the Tea Parties will be for naught. This movement is only just beginning. The hikes in taxes at the local levels are only now just beginning, and they are beginning in a falling real estate market. The real tax revolt- one with real teeth- will start as revolts on the local level and spread upward, if they do at all. I expect we will see it, and it is going to get ugly for any politician unable to control government spending.
Obama actually had the correct response to them- he pretended not to know of them. He botched this only in the sense that he started trumpeting truly miniscule budget cuts in an attempt to deflect the momentum of this movement. He and Congress will have to come forward with something far more substantial to stem this. People are deeply pissed off about all the bailouts and the flood of red ink. It is very dangerous politically to end up on the wrong side of this anger.
"Garofalo's is well within the standard response to the Tea Parties by the Left."
I'm going to have to completely disagree with you here. I'm quite sure I read substantially more liberal opinions and blogs than you do. While I'm sure you've seen links saying much the same thing as she did, that was by no means the standard response. The standard response was mockery.
"the vehemence of the response is telling us something- they are, in fact, worried that quite a few tax payers themselves might not be on the same page as the Obama Administration as far the coming deficits are concerned."
I have no idea where you're coming up with "vehemence". The protests were really, really silly and had a bunch of people with really funny signs. The conservative response to a Michael Moore or Code Pink protest isn't "vehement" because they're afraid of them, it's because they're really easy to make fun of. Same here.
But yes, we're all *concerned*. Or something. I would imagine that quite a few taxpayers aren't on the same page as the Obama administration over deficits. Quite a few probably were on the same page as the Bush administration with those same deficits, so forgive me if I can't take them all that seriously when they do a 180 based on who's in power. I would also imagine that the overwhelming majority of them didn't vote for Obama. In fact 47% of the country didn't vote for him. If fully 30% of the country is outraged, ok. That's called the Republican Party. They do outrage for a living.
"My criticism of the Tea Parties is that they are toothless and leaderless at the moment. There is an opportunity for someone to step into this vacuum and lead, but the question is, who will it be?"
You've really hit upon the crux of the issue here. It's fine to be upset about something, but a leader presumably has to actually have, you know, ideas. I don't really see anybody besides Ron Paul on that side who actually does have any ideas. The whole damn party has just decided to be anti-Democrats. Which is a rather bad way to try to regain power.
"This movement is only just beginning. The hikes in taxes at the local levels are only now just beginning, and they are beginning in a falling real estate market. The real tax revolt- one with real teeth- will start as revolts on the local level and spread upward, if they do at all. I expect we will see it, and it is going to get ugly for any politician unable to control government spending."
Stop listening to Glenn Beck. Seriously, it's bad for you. There is no undercurrent of anti-tax sentiment that's going to bubble up and revolt. It's the same people who went crazy over Palin that just really hate Obama and are picking taxes to protest over. Damn near everyone at those rallies already got a tax cut from Obama. We have among the lowest rates among any modern country. For people so concerned about the deficits their children are going to have, you'd think they'd be a little more understanding about the need for increased revenue to fix that and a little less apoplexic about not keeping every dime possible so they can keep buying more and more stuff. What a greedy country.
"He and Congress will have to come forward with something far more substantial to stem this. People are deeply pissed off about all the bailouts and the flood of red ink. It is very dangerous politically to end up on the wrong side of this anger."
They will have to come up with something substantial, I agree. When the recession's over I expect much smaller deficits, and I'll be upset if that doesn't happen. As for your last line, I would remind you that this anger is pretty much entirely among people that under no circumstance would vote for a Democrat. Unless you're suggesting these politicians are going to get shot, I would say they don't really have much to worry about as it comes to being intensely disliked by those who would never support you anyway.
Adam,
Garofalo's rant was mocking the Tea Parties. That is the standard response of the Left, as you admitted. It is human to mock your opponents, and in this case, it is being done vehemently and with a nasty, nasty attitude. If you are unworried by your opponents' actions, or you wish to give that appearance, it is better to ignore them completely- this why Obama made the response he did, even if it was certainly a lie (he couldn't possibly be that uninformed).
And it is doubtful that you read more liberal commentary than I do since it is far and away the majority of my political reading, which is extensive every day. I just don't make a habit of commenting on liberal blogs because the comments are almost always deleted or I am proactively banned.
"It is human to mock your opponents, and in this case, it is being done vehemently and with a nasty, nasty attitude."
Ok, fair enough. What I should have said was that the standard liberal response wasn't with a nasty attitude. It was more along the lines of "wow, look at the crazy people, aren't they funny, what do they think they're accomplishing with tea bags?" And it certainly wasn't calling them racists. I saw some posts with "wow, look at the signs calling him a Kenyan or a monkey, some of these people are kinda deranged". But not like she does there. It's entirely possible we read the same stuff and interpret it differently though.
"If you are unworried by your opponents' actions, or you wish to give that appearance, it is better to ignore them completely"
It's certainly better for Obama to have that response. But liberal blogs aren't designed to have their posts dissected by talking heads. It's meant for liberals to have a community to talk about whatever. And sometimes, that's to make fun of silly things like tea parties and Joe the Plumber and Palin's interviews. I know the other side does the same thing with teleprompters and Obama's speech patterns and Biden's gaffes and Ted Kennedy. It's amusement. Don't read too much into it.
I'm going to have to completely disagree with you here. I'm quite sure I read substantially more liberal opinions and blogs than you do.
Adam, Lauer was calling them "tea-bagging parties" on network TV, for Christ's sake. How much more mainstream does it get?
I'm not understanding your point here. They were widely called teabagging parties pretty much everywhere I saw. Certainly numerous talking heads. That was mostly a mockery of the very poorly-chosen name for the events, in large part egged on by the signs carried by the unwitting urging them to "teabag Obama" or "teabag the liberals".
Was this supposed to be part of that vehement hate shown? I don't get it.
Adam, please, blaming your opponents for the nickname *you* gave to *them?* Do you even believe that?
The Tea Party Protesters took inspiration from the Boston Tea Party, something which, even in today's p.c. age, we still read about in history books. When left wingers derisively called them "tea bagging" and got their left wing media allies to do the same, it was childish, juvenile, and totally from the left's own immaturity on that.
Unless you plan on calling the Boston Tea Party "tea bagging."
I'm sorry Lurker, but teabagging was first mentioned in the posters and e-mail campaigns promoting some tea parties t. I distinctly remember "Let's teabag Obama".
http://www.venturaforums.com/showthread.php?t=685
http://www.wral.com/golo/blogpost/4795689/
Anyway, you can accuse news programs of being juvenile, which tey were, but that is very different from being vitriolic and enraged. Most media saw an opportunity to increase their ratings by getting a few laughs.
Garofalo's reaction is simply not typical at all.
"The whole damn party has just decided to be anti-Democrats. Which is a rather bad way to try to regain power."
Actually, this worked rather well for you side of the aisle...
Obama also botched this with his political hit job disguised as intelligence report---The DHS attack.
I believe she's a comedienne, and she succeeded! Got a laugh out of me.
Maybe she's trying to do a right wing Colbert Report thing, where she's going to be the lefty that can always be laughed at.
Wanting small govt and low taxes is racist though, I suppose that strikes another blow for making sure being called a racist (or sexist or homophobic) never leads to critical introspection on anybody's part, as if college professors hadn't already gotten American society there. Maybe because opposing the One is heresy and/or blasphemy, just like it is for Stewart. I'd expect to see more of it, and since taking it seriously would be exceedingly tedious, laughter would be the healthy response.
"Wanting small govt and low taxes is racist though"
Of course not. One could say that wanting small govt and low taxes while holding signs with lines like "monkey see, monkey spend", "hang Obama high", "impeach the Kenyan" (all of which were spotted) may in fact have racial undertones.
The problem with having these kinds of rallies is that they attract your lunatic fringe. Just like liberal rallies attract the anti-capitalist, 9/11-truther types. It's not representative of the overall audience, and Garofalo is off her rocker. That being said, it does look kinda bad, especially when the other attendees just sit there and shuffle their feet nervously hoping they won't be lumped in with the lunatic next to them instead of actively telling them they're not welcome. That goes for both sides.
But that's a problem with political protests in general. Which is why they're generally not productive.
"Obama's plan: White slavery" is another gem along these lines.
That said, I disagree with JG that the rallys were strictly all about racism. Rather, they were a completely incoherent hodgepodge of randomly selected rightwing grievances.
As a pinko lefty, I thought the teabagging protests were fun, fun, funny. Go to it, Tax-Jabbers! Protest! have fun! It doesn't mean diddly!
Nobody cares, just like nobody cared about the anti-war protests. Teabag your brains out!
Megan-- you need to get a serious grip. Look around-- nobody gives s**t what Garofalo says. You really got your panties in a wad about this one-- over janeane Garofalo? Why don't you go buy yourself a sense of perspective?
Yes, I agree with lebecka, I didn't take them seriously. I absolutely agree with their rights to protest, but they were so comically done, so pedantic in their execution that it was impossible to take them seriously. As a pinko-commie-leftist-new yorkerI think they should do more of this. It only makes them look dumber and alienates them from the mainstream.
And kvelling about Garofalo is akin to me freaking out about something Rush Limbaugh said...only she has a smaller and less regular audience.
Smarter? I doubt that.
[i]It only makes them look dumber and alienates them from the mainstream.[/i]
Yes, that certainly seems to be the case:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics2/51_view_tea_parties_favorably_political_class_strongly_disagrees
well, my attempt at HTML tags was a fail
Seems like the HTML worked fine to me, Colin.
Anyway, Rasmussen is...not exactly the best source to back you up here. His Obama approval spread has consistently been 10-15 points lower than virtually every other poll since the election. He regularly appears on Fox News to discuss his results, and recently polled "capitalism vs socialism".
But let's assume the numbers are accurate. I'm not sure what this is supposed to say. I certainly approve of the tea parties. I even strongly approve! I wish they'd do them as often as possible. And most of my friends lean left but I do know one Limbaugh listener that went.
You'll notice he didn't poll "has your opinion of the Republican party become more or less positive as a result of the tea parties?" That would be the only really relevant question here, and even then among independents. I'm guessing it really wouldn't show much change at all. It's not as though there's a huge wavering class of moderates that are going to be convinced by an economic policy that's nothing but tax cuts, more tax cuts, and spending freezes. Because they've had that choice offered to them for a long time now.
The Tea Parties were not run for the benefit of the GOP. The actual relevant question is "has your opinion of government spending, taxes, and deficits changed as a result of the tea parties?"
"The Tea Parties were not run for the benefit of the GOP."
Absolutely wrong. Do a poll of people with signs. They were pretty much entirely run for the benefit of the GOP. Or did you honestly think Fox News gave it wall-to-wall coverage just because they thought it was a newsworthy libertarian event instead of a massive anti-Democrat protest?
The problem you have is, the Republican party *is* the anti-Democrat party. That's their entire platform.
"The actual relevant question is "has your opinion of government spending, taxes, and deficits changed as a result of the tea parties?"
That would be another relevant question to ask, you're right. Certainly not the only one. I would imagine you would see very little impact there as well. Although it would be funny to do a poll of the attendees and compare that to their view on government spending and deficits two years ago.
[Replying to Adam]
"Run for the benefit of the GOP" is not a falsifiable statement. "Run by the GOP" they weren't. At least not the ones I stumbled into (yes, multiple!) running errands the evening of the 15th in Frisco, TX. In fact they weren't run at all. I might not even tell them from a typical charity car wash if it weren't for everybody honking. If this isn't grassroot, I don't know what is.
...Max...,
Ok, fair enough. I wasn't going with the astroturf line, so I guess that was poorly worded. What I meant is that the participants and certainly the organizers in large part share if nothing else a strong dislike of Democrats and Obama in particular. This would tend to make one think (and I do) that the vast majority of attendees were Republicans. I suppose there was a contingent of Paul supporters and a smattering of libertarianesque third parties, but by in large the atmosphere I saw reminded me of nothing so much as a Palin rally. But mine (ATL) was the largest and best-organized (Hannity was there!), so I suppose I might not have gotten the most accurate view.
the vast majority of attendees were Republicans. I suppose there was a contingent of Paul supporters and a smattering of libertarianesque third parties
You don't understand, do you? There was a bunch of people with makeshift signs -- I saw exactly one that mentioned Obama by name, it was held by a 6-7 yr. old girl and, given the clumsy wording (something about "spending my money is just rude"), probably authored and made by same. They were waving to the [honking] traffic and generally behaved as they would during a charity action except a bit more constrained. I imagine they didn't feel very comfortable "politically protesting", despite the obvious raving approval of the passers-by.
What Republicans? What Libertarians? It was a freaking PTA meeting for all I could see... Those "70% who think adults are in power now" are nowhere to be seen 'round here.
"Obama's projected deficits outpace Dubya's for the next decade."
There's a darn good possibility that that will happen. But then, President Obama is trying to recover from the mismanagement of the W administration.
A few years ago the company I worked for was the subject of a hostile takeover. I was very, very close to losing my job. So, for the next year I avoided "unnecessary" expenditures. Basically, if it wasn't a mortgage payment, car payment, or food, money was not spent on it. After that year, I noticed things starting falling to pieces around my house, and the car started having problems. I had neglected the basic maintenance of my property, and was looking at costly repairs.
It took a couple of years of drastically increased spending to repair the broken objects and bring the maintenance back to where they should have been.
I was foolish with my property - W was foolish with the country.
Had he done the wise thing and NOT cut taxes (at least not as drastically) while fighting two wars (one foolish) and increasing spending, while letting the kids (bankers) run apescat all over the place, the country would not be in such bad fiscal shape. He and his ilk had 8 years to strengthen the country - and he failed miserably. It will take time and resources to repair the financial sector, the country's infrastructure, and to help keep some industrial sectors solvent. At least now we have grownups in charge who are capable of making hard decisions, and wise enough to make them well.
"There's a darn good possibility that [Obama's deficits will outpace W's] will happen. But then, President Obama is trying to recover from the mismanagement of the W administration."
And let the "Don't blame Obama for his mistakes because everything is W's fault" meme begin.
Right, that meme is totally unfair. Everybody knows about the magical reset button that is pressed every time a new president is invested.
You mean the 2001 recession and 9/11 *were* all Bill Clinton's fault?
@Megan McArdle
Am I being a hypocrite by association or something? I never said the 2001 recession was Bush's fault, but I feel you've just thrown me into a bag of people who did say it.
If you want to place blame one administration for the 2001 recession, yes, it would be largely Clinton's fault. Even though, unlike with Obama, the peak of economic activity that preceded the 2001 recession was 3 months into Bush's presidency.
Now we are 3 months into the Obama's presidency and 1 year and 4 months into the current recession. Blaming Obama for this would require causation to go backwards in time, so I think it's fair to say that, for a good while, blaming Obama requires a modicum of bad faith.
About 9/11, I don't really know how fair is it to attribute responsability to any administration. If you insist on doing it, it depends on whether you believe what Bill Clinton is saying here.
At least now we have grownups in charge who are capable of making hard decisions, and wise enough to make them well.
Do I laugh or cry at this point?
I think crying would be the appropriate response, considering 65-70% of the country agrees with the point. You're in a deep hole indeed.
Yep, math was never a strong point with liberal arts majors :(
Amusingly enough, I'm actually a math major. And I've seen quite a few polls with a question about whether they approve of Obama's plans on the economy. They trend pretty well with his overall approval rating, which is as I said, Rasmussen aside.
Actually, Max, most engineering, physics and math majors lean liberal.
Nimed, you must be still in college. I'm a [looong ago] physics major with 25 years in engineering -- lefties are few and far between in my circle.
I wish I was in college. Then again, I've been out for 12 years, not 25. Perhaps it's a generational thing.
Simply put, the hard science majors I know are mostly liberals, and some libertarians (they are on the rise!). No conservatives, at least not out of the closet. Which is not surprising, given the persistent anti-intelectual tendencies of the conservative movement.
I happily concede that most people differ from conventional liberal or libertarian position on some topics, and none is as militant as you are. Fortunately.
Max, the funeral is over. I cried the day this moron was put in charge.
For that matter, I cried much earlier, when the choices have solidified. I've been paying taxes for 14 years before I got the right to vote and the very first election, I've got no one to vote for!
It's just that particular meme "we the left are the adults of the bunch" leaves me speechless. Must have something to do with starting out from a country the likes of them have already wrecked.
Max, the way I see it, no matter Obama does, the left will always say that was the perfect choice. It's realluy quite sad, I see absol;utely no dissent over his childish actions and mistakes thus far.
I mean, during the election, the willful blindess was bad, but I figured the blinders would come off after inauguration day.
But when his first act in office is to 1) stifle any dissent like a schoolboy by stamping his foot and yelling "I won" and 2) attacking Rush Limbaugh out of nowhere like a petty dictator fearing dissent, and NO ONE ON THE LEFT smacked him down, I realized we're living in bizarro world.
"I think crying would be the appropriate response, considering 65-70% of the country agrees with the point. You're in a deep hole indeed."
Don't confuse the right thing to do with the most popular thing to do. Goes for both R's and D's (Iraq War vote comes to mind).
The ultimate effectiveness measure for these t-parties will be how the economy weathers the next five years. If it prospers, these rallies will fade away or be marginalized. If the inflation monster comes roaring back in two to three years, the sentiments will grow from the politically active conservatives and libertarians to the independents as well.
The W administration did not cause the current economic crisis.
The W administration was not mismanaged.
The tax cuts kept the economy going.
The war did not cause the current recession.
Increasing spending will not repair the economy. It has and will continue to lengthen the recession.
W was not foolish with the country.
The economy only failed when the democrats had control of the purse strings.
Obama is immature, and his administration is as well.
There's a darn good possibility that that will happen. But then, President Obama is trying to recover from the mismanagement of the W administration.
How does massively increasing the budget count as "recovery" from someone who... massively increased the budget?
It's called Keynesian principles. Which I know you disagree with, but that's the logic.
See, sometimes it's good to run a deficit (when you're in a recession), and sometimes it's very bad (when you're not). Bush did the wrong thing, and now we're in circumstances that require doing that same thing but for better ends.
I do love the Republican logic though. "See, we did exactly the opposite of what we said we'd do, so now you're supposed to do what we said we would do for us because we're not capable of doing it ourselves when we're in power." The voters didn't elect the small government party, I regret to inform you. Maybe you should work on convincing them that you're that party, and convince them that you have the better economic policy.
No, seriously, do that. That's the only way you're going to get elected again.
I'll bet dollars to doughnuts Adam thinks The New Deal ended the depression instead of making it worse.
But hey, ignore those old unemployment numbers and poverty. Remember only what democrats tell you.
Basic, I don't have the time or interest to bother with an ideologue like yourself. We both think each other is in an echo chamber. There's no point. Just go about your business and let me talk to those here who are worth talking to.
Adam, if you spent your time only talking to those worth talking to you, you'd never talk to yourself (/snark)
Adam, do you seriously believe the New Deal ended, and did not worsen, the Great Depression?
The only way the R's will get back into power is when the D's faulter. Whether that's two years from now or two decades no one knows. Tie goes to the incumbent.
Regarding who is going to lead the opposition in the future, it will take a few years for someone to emerge. All of the current national leaders are stained from supporting the Bush deficits.
However, it only takes one person with a history of budget integrity to swoop into power. Someone like Governor Sanford has the credibilty to carry off a feat like this. But he'll need help. No one can touch Obama if the economy is recovering, even if it's just a weak rebound.
Tell that the Bush the Elder. He won a war, but a recovery underway in 1992 in November had simply come to late and too weak.
I do love the Republican logic though. "See, we did exactly the opposite of what we said we'd do, so now you're supposed to do what we said we would do for us because we're not capable of doing it ourselves when we're in power."
Oh, you're right about that. That's why there's a substantial anti-Republican undercurrent in the Tea Parties, though you'd never know it from the news coverage. If the Republicans don't somehow shore up their small-government credibility we may see the birth of a viable third party to take their place. I know Democrats think the drubbing the Republicans took in the last few cycles is related to the war, but nobody I know who used to support them and has since stopped left because if the war. It had more to do with feeling betrayed over the spending. You expect more spending on the military during a war, but spending on everything went up by a whole hell of a lot.
It's why I'm not a Republican any more. When people ask I say I'm a conservative independent.
The problem is that Obama is increasing spending by incredibly huge amounts and doing so in ways that aren't stimulative. To stimulate a recovery, spending must temporary. Increasing the size or scope of government programs isn't temporary. Even Obama admitted that he was using the crisis to enact items from his agenda. Items that he won't cancel once the recession is over.
So the protestors don't want to decrease military spending, they want to NOT increase all the other spending that is in the massive stimulus and budget bills. Spending that is over and above the already inflacted budget from Bush. One reason why Republicans lost Congress in 2006 is that conservatives were getting tired of Republicans spending like Demeocrats. Well, the Democrats have raised the bar and now even more people are unhappy with the out of control spending.
Obama maybe raising taxes on the "rich" right now, but someone is eventually going to have to pay the piper on this unprecedent increase in government debt and the rich won't have enough money to do so, so eventually, taxes will be raised on more than just the rich.
"The problem is that Obama is increasing spending by incredibly huge amounts"
Going to need a cite on this. Considering the war spending is actually on budget as opposed to Bush's budgets, the increase in spending is actually fairly small.
"To stimulate a recovery, spending must (be) temporary."
The money in the stimulus is by definition temporary. There's a certain amount appropriated by Congress, it gets spent on stuff, and when the money runs out no more of it is spent. It's not like sunsetting tax cuts (to give a random example), where you put it in the budget one year and assume it'll never be taken out. This was a one-time spending bill.
"Items that he won't cancel once the recession is over."
Correct. Because stuff like health care and green energy incentives were in the works long before the economy crashed. The point is that investments in these now save money in the long run. Or haven't you seen the spiraling Medicare predictions?
"So the protestors don't want to decrease military spending"
Yes, I'm aware. Which is highly disingenuous as anyone concerned with their children's deficits would support massive defense cuts. It's by far the most bloated part of our budget.
"they want to NOT increase all the other spending that is in the massive stimulus and budget bills."
So they're protesting a one-time stimulus bill and one-time TARP rescue that already passed? If they don't want another stimulus or bank bailout next year, great. They can oppose that all they want. I'm pretty sure they'll get their wish. I'm not sure what other spending increasing they're actually opposing though.
"One reason why Republicans lost Congress in 2006 is that conservatives were getting tired of Republicans spending like Demeocrats."
This doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. Republicans were mad at spending (they weren't), so they...voted for Democrats? Stayed home and let the Democrats take over, since they figured it couldn't get any worse? I find this an extremely unlikely argument. Republicans lost Congress because they were involved in several highly unpopular situations like Terri Schiavo and Mark Foley, and because of the very unpopular war. You're completely off-base.
"Well, the Democrats have raised the bar and now even more people are unhappy with the out of control spending."
If by "even more", you mean that Republicans are now unhappy that weren't unhappy until January 20. I guess that's true. I find it very hard to believe that Obama doing exactly what he campaigned and promised has turned off the people that voted for exactly that.
"Obama maybe raising taxes on the "rich" right now, but someone is eventually going to have to pay the piper on this unprecedent increase in government debt and the rich won't have enough money to do so, so eventually, taxes will be raised on more than just the rich."
Really? You sure about that? The rich paid upwards of 50% under Reagan. They paid over 90% in the 50s. I'm pretty sure they could go a lot higher than 39%, not that Obama's proposing that. Oh, and let's not forget the 15% rate most of the actual really rich people pay on most of their income. That could certainly be doubled. All those corporate loopholes? There's plenty of places to find revenue.
But I do enjoy the logic that they're out there protesting potential future policies nobody's proposed that may or may not get enacted many years down the road, because they just *know* Democrats are out to take all their money.
they're out protesting the bailouts and the destruction of the economy through fake stimulus packages.
But hey, whatever you and Olbermann want to believe.
I'm surprised no one brought up that hit job DHS report yet, so I will.
The report was a hit job put out by Obama to frame the right wing protesters as potentially violent extremists without proof. Something which Garofolo and Olbermann and Rosegen (sp?) have picked up on quite nicely.
Hmm... Ok. So, why don't you also mention the January DHS report about left-wing extremists?
Because unlike the right wing hit job, the left wing one contained facts and figures and specific rationale for its arguments, instead of mere conjecture.
Yeap, that must be it.
Um, considering that Obama was (unless you are HARDCORE into conspiracies) not the President nor even necessarily the Democratic candidate, the report having been drafted before then, while it may suggest a Liberal (do remember your capitals, people... not you in particular, Lurker, but the distinction has been slipping of late) bias in the higher eschelons of the DHS, as the report was repeatedly shot down for the very language that angered people, it hardly speaks of an Obama-directed conspiracy to throw red paint on the protest movement.
That wasn't the point. Do you consider the January one to be justified? Or was that a "hit job" too?
Do you think presidents go around personally ordering DHS reports as "hit jobs"?
I don't know why people swallow such ludicrous stories. Parroting should have a lower limit, and that would be above repeating expressions like "the DHS report was an Obama hit job".
I have yet to see anyone actually give a viable link or even reference seeing a copy of said report, so, until that time...
also I was speaking against the whole notion of "the DHS report was an Obama hit job" FTR
also apologize for spelling on "echelon"
Nimed, this is a man petty enough to go after Limbaugh. Do you really think using the instruments of government to frame opinion about the Tea Party protests is above him?
Lurker posted a similar reply. Scroll down for the link of the DHS January report.
Take this one on eco-terrorism ( a left-wing movement) here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/12251436/DHS-Eco-Terrorism-in-US-2008
1) Unlike a blanketing of all left wing groups, this focuses only on one left wing type: eco-nuts.
2) it names specific groups , and states which groups (here ALF and ELF) it considers most active.
3) it gives the organization histories of concerned groups.
4) It shows how group leaders in the past have been imprisoned, and how their philosophy leads to terrorism
5) It names specific primary targets and secondary targets of the groups
6) It gives an overview of the structure of the organizations and their inter-network connectedness, including PETA to ALF and ELF
7) It quotes relevant Congressional testimony on ecomilitancy
it shows the crime statistics related to recent ecoterrorism
9) it shows the specific types of terrorist activities (e.g. monkeywrenching) and sabotage these groups engage in, alerting people to the M.O., including specific crimes of assault, blackmail, and firebombing.
10) It shows charts and graphs of recent activity
11) It names Specific persons as organizaers and leaders and gives background information and pictures of them.
12) It is 40pp., with footnotes citing sources.
I could go on, but you get the point. This is a highly detailed report that is for the non-specialist to read to get an overview of ecoterrorism. This is an unclassified report given to both law enforcement and the media to educate them on left wing eco threats.
None of those 12 elements I mentioned are anywhere present in the right wing report, nor is it based on any larger classified report (it does not allude to any).
the differences are night and day.
here is a link, in contrast to the right wing hit job:http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/hsa-rightwing-extremism-09-04-07.pdf
The report wasn't a report but conjecture and hypothesis. Agencies don't release these things unless they have facts to back them up...or unless a Chicago political machine wants to frame the coming right wing protesters as violent extremists without proof.
Nimed, what January report are you referencing? I just gave an example of a different left wing report.
Neal and Lurker, you can look at the January report here.
Now, I've taken a look at the right-wing report, and I find it pretty baffling that anybody thinks this is an Obama "hit job". I was surprised that someone even thinks about the tea parties.
Lurker's link of the report came from Michelle Malkin's blog. So I went there, and found the original post, named "Confirmed: The Obama DHS hit job on conservatives is real".
Ok, that settles the question why everybody is using the expression "hit job".
She cites and cites from the report, and, going into a victimization shtick, associates it with the Tea Parties. The association is completely of her doing. Absolutely nowhere in the report are the Tea Parties ever mentioned. But, of course, Malkin reads it all between the lines. How is the association done?
Writing like a true paranoid, Malkin boldly states there are no coincidences. Thus, she confidently concludes, a report from the Department of Homeland Security targets the tea parties, citing as supporting evidence a post of one blog nobody heard of, comparing the tea parties to the Weather Underground.
By the way, the blog in question, named CobaltVA, thanked Malkin for the publicity. Obviously, Malkin cited this blog because she couldn't find something a little bit more solid or mainstream.
This story does a good job on demonstrating on how Malkin and others, both on the left and the right, rely on the complete absence of a critical stance on the part of the reader audience.
Nimed, thanks for being reasonable on this. Bear with me, I have a lot of points to make.
First, this report is from 2001, not 2009.
Second this isn't a DHS report, but a U.S Department of Energy report--granted, DHS did not exist in 2001, but the FBI and CIA and NSA did, and this is not their handiwork.
Third, this report gives the then-recent history of left wing attacks in the U.S. and abroad :
---see, for example, pp.10-11, talking about Black group Stream of Knowledge and their then-current building of an arsenal). pp.12-13 talks about then-recent activities of NALF.
--------pp.13 details ideological spies---recent spies for former communist nations arrested, who spied mostly based on their beliefs in communism.
-------p. 15 details Cuban spies as recent as 3 years pre-report.
--------p. 18 talks about financial terrorism in London by the left just 2 years before the report
-------p.22 shows the then-current state of european left-wing terroist groups---including their recent rocket atatcks (!).
The difference being the right wing report of 2009 has absolutely none of these distinctions amongst groups, recent histories, and ideologies; its a scant 8 pages of "overview" without citation or proof, lumping everyone together, and naming a few disperate attacks as part of some "movement."
So, again, we have the differences of night and day between the reports. Left wing terrorist assertions are proven by fact and detail, right wing terrorists are just assumed (without proof) to be there, and are all the same.
Now, I know you're not buying the whole "hit job" idea, but here's my take: law enforcement and major news organizations both monitor DHS reports for obvious reasons. Both need to frame current situations in light of what DHS might now about a particular group. If a group calling itself National liberation Front (made up name) moves in next door, and you look them up on DHS and find them to be a terrorist threat, a reporter or police officer woudl investigate. If the report states they are not a threat, no or little investigation.
However, those reports need to be based on facts. The DHS right wing report admits it is not based on facts, but conjecture and unproven hypotheses. That's not a report, that's just spitballing. But a government report isn't about spitballing, unless it isn't meant to be a report at all.
Major right wing protests were scheduled for April 15th, and, by most people's memory, there wasn't any known recent right wing protest movement before that in the U.S. So the question for the media and law enforcment became: how do we take these guys? Serious? Jokers? Extremists? Violent? Proof that Obama is above his head? This was new territory that reports didn't have a theme to write on.
Suddenly, a week before said protests, this factless report gets released, which talks about the growing "right wing extremist" movement without proof it is growing? Lumping even so-called "one issue" right wingers (abortion, illegal immigration, same sex marriage) in with the Klan? 8 pages of hypothesis and reaching back more than 13 years for a major event?
Take it this way: the report, being groundless, is useless as a device for law enforcement, as it gives no details on methods, group names, geographic area, etc. But as a propaganda piece, to make right wing protests seem extreme without proof? It's a gold mine.
Given Obama's known pettiness, this is not beneath him. Given his manipulation of the media (often with their acquiescence), this is not beneath him. And given the well-run nature of his campaign, this is not beneath him.
This is not to say that this is some grand conspiracy---I don't think he's plotting this maniacally. But it was a hit job; an attempt to poison the well, to get left-wing media to frame the protests poorly or ignore them as "extremists." NYT, MSNBC, CNN, CBS news etc. all did that masterfully. Rosegan (sp?) had full implicit permission to claim the protests "were not family viewing." I'm not saying Bush and previous presidents haven't probably done the same--used the tools of government for personal propaganda--but I'm saying that is all this was. The right was right to go ape shit over it.
Given this is the only usefulness of the report I can see, that's my conclusion.
Hey Lurker.
A lot of meat in your answer. So, let me start by apologizing and stating our points of agreement.
I really should have checked all the links I posted, and I owe you an apology for messing it up. The report I was referring to is this one, and this is indeed from the DHS and from January 2009. It wouldn't be a serious mistake, but you had the trouble of going through the one I sent quite thoroughly. And it turns out it was much bigger! So, again, I'm very sorry about that.
But it's not that bad - fortunately, most of your basic criticisms remain valid. This January DHS report is much more detailed than its right-wing counterpart, identifying specific left-wing extremist organizations, past actions of these groups, etc. The most recent report describes a much more vague and scattered activity, (e.g. "an increase in anti-Hispanic crimes over the past five years").
So, there are obvious differences in detail between the reports, and the right-wing report came one week before the tea parties. Can we conclude this was an Obama hit-job?
I don't think so. First, according to none other than Fox News, it seems the right-wing report had already been ordered by the Bush administration. I suppose this doesn't mean that the Obama administration could not have manipulated the date in which it came out, for instance anticipating it, which would explain the lack of detail.
But what makes me doubt the hit job theory is that the following: you say that "law enforcement and major news organizations both monitor DHS reports for obvious reasons. Both need to frame current situations in light of what DHS might now about a particular group". I certainly agree about law enforcement. Mainstream media? Not so much.
Most of the DHS reports just aren't considered newsworthy, and are not featured in the mainstream media. The last ones never made it to the news, and present one would be no exception. You might say that this one is different, because it came out shortly before the tea party. But remember this - no one in the MSM originally linked the report to the parties. Apparently, it never occurred to any news outlet to make the connection. This was originally done by right-wing bloggers like Michelle Malkin, and then it spread to Fox News. There was not a peek from the right-wing usual suspects like the Times, CNN, etc. on this prior to the explicit connection made by Malkin on April 14th.
So what I'm saying is, this would have to be either a pretty week or extremely Machiavellian plan on the part of Obama, because it would have to rely on the right-wing blogs picking it up and making news out of it by linking it to the tea parties.
Perhaps I'm being biased on this, but I find it much more likely that Malkin and others saw in this an opportunity for victimization and promotion. Let's not forget that Malkin is probably the prominent blogger more concerned on promoting the parties. And substantively, if you discount the vague epithet of right-wing, there is really not much, if anything, in common between the activities and concerns described in the DHS report and the tea party protests.
As for the "one issue" activists on abortion, illegal immigration and same sex marriage, of course these stances are not, in themselves, extreme, just like an environmentalist or animal rights group is not extreme. It's the methods used to further these causes that may be labeled extremist, like bombing paper factories or abortion clinics. And, I insist, even though these single issues are causes more associated with the right, they were not the reason for the tea party protests
Is Adam SoV byt a different name? Seems like the same mode of non-argument.
No.
I'm coming into the discussion late, and I haven't carefully read all the previous comments, so I apologize if I'm being redundant.
But it seems to me that if people were serious about reducing the size of the Federal monster, they ought to be trying to persuade their State Legislatures to start calling for a Constitutional Convention which could go around Congress and pass a balanced budget amendment and/or an amendment to limit federal non-defense spending to, say, 5% of GNP.
Congress will *never* limit its own power voluntarily.
Here is a criticism of the Tea Parties that is completely on the mark.
Yancey,
I am not sure I agree. The everydayish behavior of the "non-protesting protesters" seems to be the most important feature. I could never identify with in-your-face protesters be they from left or right; when I drove by the local Tea Party event I actually doubled back, parked, and spent my spare 15 minutes mingling with the crowd instead of sorting through the shelves in Half Price Books as I originally intended ;-)
If this keeps repeating, we might actually get some halfway decent candidates on the ballot in 2010 since the big sponsors will finally see them as having a sporting chance of winning the election. I don't expect the current government to be influenced in any way, but perhaps the silent majority will finally see itself in the mirror.
Max,
I don't think it needs to be in your face, but Cooper was right- what is civil disobedience without some actual disobedience? What I saw was all talk (and a bit unconnected to the most important issue at hand- the runaway spending), and no real action. Obviously, you don't have to burn buildings down, but more active protest is going to be needed to have effect. What the movement really needs is leadership, not necessarily from a single individual, but from people willing to walk the talk. I think this is coming, so I am watching things with great interest. As I wrote in my first comment, the more active resistence will come at the level of local taxes first- it is where individuals have the most scope for direct action.
I smell a South Park episode in all this. They'll probably make fun of the protesters (they love pointing out the stupidity of protesters in general) but take huge shots at MSM who resorted to junior high attacks against them.
Great show.
Sigh...
Adam - here is your cite: http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/76998/
Check out the nice graph showing the spending for the next 10 years. That's about 8 years past any likely end of the recession. Oh, and the totals on the Bush side INCLUDE money spent on the war.
Government programs are almost never cut or eliminated. You can pretend like next year Congress can choose to cut them but they won't. Once a program is in place, it's almost impossible to eliminate it.
"Green" energy and government health care spending will NOT save money down the road. Green energy is going to be more expensive than coal. Government health care will be cheaper if the government rations care by refusing treatment for people. That is not likely to happen in the US. Instead, Obama has been promoting more preventive care (which is more expensive), among other things.
The hundreds of billion dollar increases in spending aren't going to defense so talking about cutting the defense budget is moot.
I don't care what you think makes sense but the fact is that many conservatives stayed home in 2006 and 2008 rather than vote for Republicans they didn't like. These conservatives are not Republican loyalists, they're conservatives who felt that the Republican Party was no longer conservative. Others did argue that throwing the election to the Democrats would be worse. But many still chose not to vote.
Believe it or not, there are a lot of conservatives out there who aren't Republican partisans. They are conservatives who want conservative government. They did criticize Bush and the Republican Congress when they spent too much and enacted liberal policies. They are not even more critical of Obama for spending even more and enacting even more liberal policies.
It's interesting to me that there are many Democrats/Liberals out there who can't seem to understand that a lot of conservatives aren't partisan (with respect to political parties). They are driven by their beliefs. Some Republicans are realizing that they need to earn the support of these conservatives if they want to remain in power.
Making Jeanine Garofalo reaction pass as representative of the typical liberal response is absurd. This is by a long shot the worst stuff I've seen so far.
I would say that you pretty much have to go out of your way to find rage as a reaction in the left. Selecting Garofalo is kind of like, I don't know, covering the Tea Parties by always showing the guy with the Obama=Hitler poster.
And I can't stand Garofalo anyway; she is one of those people who you really don't want to have on your side. Kind of like Christopher Hitchens with religion. Both rely on building extreme caricatures of their opponents as ignorant, stupid and cruel. As a consequence, both provoke revulsion on reasonable people.
Ops. Sorry, my comment evidently wasn't intended as a reply.
"'Green' energy and government health care spending will NOT save money down the road. Green energy is going to be more expensive than coal."
It worries me how many people believe that "Green" energy will save money and that "Green jobs" will save the economy. "Green" energy will simply be more expensive energy aimed at reducing "pollution". Even if committing to green energy is absolutely the right decision based on a cost/benefit analysis, it will still feel like a huge price increase for energy, as it won't actually improve most people's quality of life compared to now, but only prevent/reduce some expected harm in the future. Green jobs will be similar; most of the examples I see cited are simply jobs aimed at reducing potential externalities that we now more or less ignore (except for real jobs aimed at real energy efficiency measures driven by cost/benefit analysis, but I call those "jobs").
Bottom line is that green energy/jobs are not good news. Either they are painful and ultimately unnecessary adjustments driven by baseless fear of global warming and attendant environmental calamaties, or they are painful and ultimately necessary adjustments driven by an actual threat of global warming and attendant environmental calamaties. Either way, there doesn't seem to be enough despondency when people talk about them.
.
Darn right.
I suppose the 'tea bagging' characterization is a Democratic royalist response to the effort of the organizers to recall the favor of a period when small government and rule by a local rising economic elite held a privileged position in American politics. In Virtual History: Alternatives and Counterfactuals by Niall Ferguson, the chapter on 'British America: What if There Had Been No American Revolution, J. Clark points out that the taxes on the American colonists were low and applied in a rather ambivalent way, careful not to offend the Whig sensibilities of the Americans. The American complaint was treated rather like Moses, Pharaoh's son, was treated as opposed to the way other revolutionaries, e.g. Jesus vs. The High Priest and Romans, were treated. The Republicans are lost, divided over immigration, as the Whigs were divided over slavery, after a fall from power due to lack of deference to their Northern wing if I recall correctly from Storm over Texas by Joel Silbey. They are the Whig party, believers in market discipline, and organizing in some new fashion over liberty, will hopefully return.
Making Jeanine Garofalo reaction pass as representative of the typical liberal response is absurd. This is by a long shot the worst stuff I've seen so far.
I would say that you pretty much have to go out of your way to find rage as a reaction in the left. Selecting Garofalo is kind of like, I don't know, covering the Tea Parties by always showing the guy with the Obama=Hitler poster.
And I can't stand Garofalo anyway; she is one of those people who you really don't want to have on your side. Kind of like Christopher Hitchens with religion. Both rely on building extreme caricatures of their opponents as ignorant, stupid and cruel. As a consequence, both provoke revulsion on reasonable people.
Nimed, its really the left's own fault. Olbermann is the major mouthpiece (on cable TV, that is) of the left at this point, he gives left-wing credibility (oxymoron, I know) to the speakers to whom he gives respect. And Olbermann himself is a nut, calling Bush a fascist and practically licking Nobama's feet.
Note that DailyKos and HuffPo have had similar arguments on this. And the CNN's Roesegan was all but saying the same in her hit job report "Anti-Obama....not fit for family viewing...etc."
Garofalo may be a nut, but she has not been denounced (to my knowledge) by anyone on the left. She, in fact, is celebrated by the left. Similar to the jerks who said "Bush is not my president" for 8 years. That's the problem with the left today: there are no grownups in charge, no one willing to denounce childish behavior and ridiculous rants.
Nimed,
Is Jeanine's rant that far removed from the crud on this page:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/tea-parties
Xmas, 2 differences:
1) no one here is a famous mouthpiece for their cause.
2) crud-wielders regularly get denounced here for crud-dealing.
my misreading, sorry xmas.
To be fair, you could probably make this criticism of the right if you switched out garofalo (sp?). I don't listen to Limbaugh's show, so I may not be a qualified judge, but it seems to me that he makes plenty of crazy statements too. Same thing for Hannity, except the little I see him he isn't making ridiculous statements as much as he's just being a cheerleader without real critical analysis. I guess one difference is that (I think) at least some portion of Limbaugh's/Hannity's on air personality is simply a result of them being "entertainers" and playing to an audience, whereas somebody like Garofalo is actually crazy enough to believe the things she says. Bottom line is each party's center spends too much time catering to fringe elements (at least I hope Olbermann/garofalo are fringe).
That was supposed to be a reply to Lurker. Not sure what happened.
Johnson, I honestly don't agree. Garofalo is literally making a serious us v. evil argument----the right is evil, period. Limbaugh/Hannity are more "this argument is wrong" types, with healthy sarcasm and attacks thrown in.
Like I said, I don't really listen to either of them enough to be a qualified judge, and they certainly don't seem to be as bitter and hateful as Garofalo, but the little I hear them they still don't sound like they're doing anything other than catering to their audiences and making sure they have profitable shows.
Just came back from a anti-agricultural subsidies tea-party. God the crowed was great and numerous. They shouted "I rather give Detroit half the money once that we pay to rich farmers every year".
I also digged the slogan - the Bush years' spending had a negative ROI of -1000... at least the Obama spending has a chance of positive ROI?
But my favorite tea leaf must have been: Our children are obese - why do we reserve food from our rich farmers worth $61 billion per year for them? Why do school lunch subsidies not include fruits and vegetables (or at least not more than 1 percent of overall calories)?
Me loves tea parties - it's just about fiscal responsibility really. They are all libertarians and not cherry pickers - right?
I think that was an attempt at satire.
Because opposing pork 1000X bigger than the old pork is hypocritical. because no one opposed the pork before, right?
If it really were 1000x to before and not 2x - I would agree. As I said - I would further agree if we were fighting the old pork with negative ROI than the new one with potential positive one? Also - protesters do not make it clear who they want to reach - the president, as Megan says, is limited when it comes to spending cuts and is currently attempting to end a wild fire with fire... I am not pro or contra on this one. I too would like to see less spending.
PS RE: because no one opposed the pork before, right?
I can't recall any tea-parties regarding farm subsidies (not when the Republicans introduced them and not when they refused to lower them). "Opposing" and marching the streets are two different things.
If you are anti-war - you probably have marched during Vietnam and Iraq etc. Again - if you were anti-wasteful fiscal policy - my guess is that you would revolt against ongoing spending with certain negative ROI rather than new one that has a potentially positive outcome?
I want to see less spending too but I do feel that the anti-war protesters appeared more genuine to me. The tea drinkers - not so much.
sorry, dude, I'll remember all those stories about cutting spending by conservatives, and then the outrage when Obama decided the way to stave off a recession was to make it longer with a lot more pork differently. Conservattives were getting mad, but Obama pushed them into full outrage.
Like the left: plenty have opposed smaller-scale U.S. military actions (Sarajevo, anyone) but Iraq got them pissed off. Doesn't mean they weren't fighting the other ones simply because the latter got them even angrier.
Love the fact that Megan's new comments policy means that other bloggers aren't allowed to debate her ideas, but right-wing trolls are allowed to abuse legitimate comments with no intervention.
Because...they're conservatives, I guess.
Also love the insistence that dissent is reasonable, coming from the woman who suggested anti-war protesters should be beaten with two-by-fours only 6 short years ago.