Tea Partying's First Anniversary
Protesters are in the streets. They're waving signs, and chanting loudly. Some appear in outlandish dress, and even more have outlandish slogans written on their signs and banners. But, when you look a little closer, the group is not one, but rather a collection of many groups. These subgroups within the general coalition may agree on a few certain ideals, but they may also disagree on many others, as they may disagree on tactics to right their perceived wrongs. There is a big discussion amongst the groups as to whether working within the existing political two-party establishment is the best way forward (since one party does exist which seems to at least partially share their aims), or whether working outside the whole establishment is better (since supporting that party has led to disappointments in the recent past -- and indeed, could be said to have created much of the situation being protested in the first place). At the fringes of the group there are those whose talk can only be described as "militant," who are advocating violence to achieve their aims.
What I just wrote could describe tomorrow's "first anniversary" Tea Party rallies. Or it could describe a late-1960s anti-war rally. About the only thing these two historical eras have in common is the age of the driving force behind the protests. In other words, don't look now, but the Baby Boomers are back in the streets.
The post-World War II "baby boom" is generally said to be those born between 1946 and 1964. That would make them between 46 and 64 years old now. Take a look, tomorrow, at how many of the Tea Partiers seem to fall within this age segment. While some are undeniably older, and some younger, from what I've seen of these protests, they seem to have a high proportion of Boomers within their ranks. This might explain a little of the "Me Generation" (or, maybe more accurately, "Me-First Generation") outlook they display, on occasion.
Which is interesting to me, because this is the generation that took political advocacy and public protest to new heights (or depths, depending on your point of view). In their college years, they were in the streets marching for many disparate causes (the Vietnam War was merely one of the more prominent of these), and they completely redefined the concept of political protest, introducing the concept of "political theater" to America as a result. Today's Tea Partiers, complete with Revolutionary War dress and all, are merely following in this tradition.
Following it from a different perspective, of course. I would venture to guess that there's not a lot of crossover between the folks who protested in the 1960s and those doing so today (although I admit I'm basing this on nothing but guesswork, and there may well be such a crossover). I think that, instead, the people protesting now were most likely the ones not protesting back then. I think they were the group Richard Nixon referred to at the time as the "silent majority" -- a political ploy on Nixon's part to discredit the protesters, painting them as a small minority of noisy folks who didn't represent mainstream America. Amusingly enough, Harry Reid was quoted recently talking about a "loud minority" who were against the health reform bill -- morphing the previously silent majority into exactly the opposite, and for exactly the same political reason as Nixon (except in reverse). The yin has become yang, in other words.
But, in less Taoist terms (or, perhaps, in more Zen terms), the Tea Party folks have created a swell of support for their movement in the past year, but their biggest strength may also prove to be their biggest weakness. Because the movement is not (although it could become) a true third-party movement, and instead prides itself on being decentralized and not having any one spokesperson who represents its diverse views. But this may limit the impact the Tea Party movement will have in American politics.
Some movements coalesce around a single idea or ideal (as, for instance, the Green Party). Some movements are led by one strong personality (as with Ross Perot or Ralph Nader). The Tea Party doesn't really fit either of these descriptions neatly. In actual fact, defining the Tea Partiers or drawing generalities about them is very hard to do -- again, as a result of their decentralized structure. Now, because many Tea Partiers have a fierce pride in their grassroots nature, this has left somewhat of a leadership vacuum at the top of the movement. Into this void have stepped a few groups who are trying to actively co-opt the Tea Partiers into becoming staunch Republican voters. These groups have staged bus tours and conventions in an attempt to convince the media that they're truly in charge of the entire movement. But, quite simply, they are not. They may have the bankroll to put on splashy media events, but the real strength of the Tea Party movement is, once again, decentralized. State and local Tea Parties -- who act independently of each other -- are the true "base" of the Tea Partiers, and a lot of them are just as annoyed with the Republican Party as they are with the Democratic Party. Many of them, if the Tea Party had never existed, would be either Libertarians or followers of Ron Paul.
This has already led to differences in tactics. While many political newcomer Tea Party candidates rushed to get their names on various ballots as Republicans (in primaries), in an attempt to challenge Republican Party regulars as Tea Party insurgents, most of them have failed in the primaries held so far. But some are having success -- although some candidates (such as Marco Rubio) are previously-established Republican politicians who have taken up the Tea Party banner, and not grassroots candidacies. This will likely continue throughout the primary season, as most "homegrown" candidates fail against Republicans with the party machinery behind them. But that's not to say a few true Tea Party candidates won't win some surprising upsets in Republican primaries.
Win or lose, the second round of tactics is going to get more interesting. Because that's where Tea Partiers will have to decide whether to back a real third-party candidate (which could possibly act as a spoiler, resulting in a Democratic win), or fall in line behind the Republican nominee. In states with Tea Party winners (like Rubio, in Florida), the Republican loser will have to decide whether to mount a third-party challenge themselves (as Charlie Crist is reportedly considering), in the hopes of a Lieberman-like win in the general election.
It all comes down to a question of "working within the system" or "working outside the system" -- the same choice faced in the 1960s by the Lefty protesters. Working within the system is a long, hard slog which is all-but-guaranteed to lead you to disappointments and compromises; but working outside the establishment rarely gets your goals even partly achieved, and could in fact work against your advantage to assure election for someone diametrically opposed to your views (instead of slightly-supportive of your views). On a personal level, it comes down to whether you think "both parties are now equally as bad" or whether you think one party is redeemable, with an injection of new blood. It's a very similar quandary to what a lot of Ralph Nader supporters felt in 2000. Some of the more-organized Tea Partiers are working very hard "within the system" of the Republican Party, down at the precinct-chairman level, and they may wind up having more of an impact on the Republican Party as a whole than any of the other Tea Party factions.
As for the widespread impact of the Tea Partiers on American politics, we won't know the answer to this question for a few years yet, meaning we now have nothing but sheer speculation to go on. Looking back at the Left in the 1960s and 1970s shows a mixed record of achievement. The Left back then was just as all-over-the-map as the Tea Partiers are now -- especially when it came down to priorities and tactics. Was the highest priority ending the war? Civil rights? Destroying the system? Ending poverty? Black power? Feminism? Environmentalism? Should we storm the barricades of the 1968 Democratic Convention, or should we work within the system? Should we run for office? Or should we just go form a commune in Northern California or Oregon? Should we be Gandhi-like and MLK-like in our non-violent tactics, or should we embrace violence and join the Weather Underground? There was a lot to choose from, back then, and a lot of very heated arguments about which was the superior choice. Just as there is today, within the Tea Party movement.
But don't forget that the Lefties did score some important conceptual victories, both within and outside of the political system. Democrats held Congress for a generation after the 1960s, and they investigated some abuses and improved a lot of laws -- issues which would never have gotten any attention without a few people screaming about them in the streets. Some of the old "radicals" even got elected to Congress themselves (and some are even still there). Outside the system, immense changes in the way America thought about itself happened as well, from squarely facing the monstrous injustices of institutionalized American racism, all the way down to everyone recycling things today without a second thought for the hippies who pushed the idea originally.
I would venture to guess that the Tea Party will likely never coalesce into a viable third official political party in America (or even a "second party" if the Republican Party crumbles as a result). The odds are too long, and without a change in their pride in being so decentralized, it's likely they'll never get that organized and cohesive. I see it much more likely that the Tea Partiers essentially "purge" the Republican Party of moderates, deep thinkers, elitists, and "big tent" Republicans; and thus win the intra-party struggle for control of the party machinery. If enough Republican candidates win in November with nominal Tea Party support, this could lead to overreaching by the new Republican/Tea Party core (misreading their own popularity with the general public), which could drive moderate voters away in the next election round. But that's pretty far into the future to be crystal-ball gazing, I do admit.
Again, though, no matter what electoral success they may achieve, or how they ultimately influence the Republican Party in the future, the Tea Partiers are definitely already having an effect on the political discussion. Poll after poll shows Tea Partiers have support from a lot bigger slice of the public many on the Left want to admit. Call it roughly one-third of poll respondents these days have a positive view of the Tea Party. That's a lot more than just a fringe of people out there waving signs and screaming lunacies. And that, I have to say, is an impressive achievement in one year's time.
Think about that for a minute: one year ago, the first Tea Party was about to happen. A remark by a cable news guy spurred "tax day" protests around the country. Instead of being a one-off event, this grew into a movement. True, the movement has many parts (some of which are truly odious), and these disparate subgroups can't seem to agree on a whole lot, but that hasn't stopped its explosive growth in popularity. Few other political movements spring into being this spontaneously and then grow in such a fashion -- at least not without someone bankrolling them from behind the shadows or without a charismatic leader-figure out there drawing them in. In the Tea Party's case, both of these have now happened to some extent (groups like the Tea Party Express, or spokespeople like Sarah Palin), but both of these were Johnny-come-latelies (Sarah-come-lately?) to the party, and not originators of the movement itself.
Republicans are getting pretty nervous about the upcoming fight in the Senate over Wall Street reform, because they know that fighting hard for Wall Street bankers and hedge fund managers is not exactly going to endear them to the Tea Party crowds. Republicans in Washington (those that have already won general elections, in other words) are actually pretty nervous about fully embracing the Tea Partiers, but they've also watched as anyone in the Republican establishment who expresses concern over diminishing the Republican Party's broader appeal with voters gets driven out of the tent by the purists. Privately, it's hard not to believe that some Republicans are downright terrified at what the Tea Party could do to the Republican Party's future. But, if this is true, they're not exactly saying so publicly.
Will the Tea Party be seen by political historians as a movement that swelled, crested, and waned -- but got some things done and some changes made as a result; or will they be seen as a real third party, one who perhaps replaces a fractured party which then shrivels and dies, leaving a different two-party alignment for the future of American politics? Or will the Tea Party itself melt away when the economy gets better, and people are less angry about Washington; or will it perhaps even destroy itself through factionalism and infighting, thus marginalizing the whole movement? The only thing certain at this point is that it is simply too early to tell.
One way or another, though, the Tea Party's future prospects are likely to hinge on whether their decentralized nature turns out to be their strongest point, or their weakest. Not having visible leaders and not being in agreement about policies and tactics makes the Tea Party pretty hard to pin down, either way. If they can use this nebulous nature to infiltrate the Republican Party ranks and stage a takeover, then it will have proven to be the Tea Party's strongest point. But if decentralization means the Tea Party devolves (once the rallies are over and the banners are put away until the next march) into even more of what seems to be an ongoing leadership struggle between differing groups with differing goals and tactics, who can't agree on much among themselves (other than defining what they're against, like Obamacare); then they're going to have a hard time having much of a long-term political impact, and instead may soon disillusion their own followers by such disorganization and infighting. In either case, though, 2010 will be an interesting second year to watch the Tea Party movement's evolution.
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
-- Chris Weigant
Great commentary, CW...
But you miss one central point...
You elaborate quite eloquently about how the Tea Party is a threat to the GOP...
Yet, you forget one single telling point.
The majority of the Tea Party are not Republicans, but rather Democrats and Independents..
Therefore, if any Party is threatened by the a Tea Party surge, it's not the GOP, but rather the Democratic Party..
For it is the Democrats who count on the independents to fill out their ranks..
If Democrats lose 20% of their base, and ALL of the support from the Independents, it won't be the GOP who is crying in the Fruit Loops on 3 Nov 2010...
I await the anticipated response.. :D
Michale......
"The majority of the Tea Party are not Republicans, but rather Democrats and Independents."
Chris, according to the right-wing site Newsmax this is incorrect.
Michale -
I think you're going to have to provide a citation to back up that one. And, please, a three-way breakdown, Dem, Ind, and GOP.
Osborne -
Ah, that's the poll I was looking for:
"The national breakdown of the Tea Party composition is 57 percent Republican, 28 percent Independent and 13 percent Democrat."
Thanks!
-CW
Re: "at least not without someone bankrolling them from behind the shadows . . . In the Tea Party's case, . . . [this has] now happened to some extent (groups like the Tea Party Express . . .), . . . Johnny-come-latelies . . . to the party, and not originators of the movement itself."
(Sorry, I'm trying to deemphasize the part of that quote having to do with personalities and focus on the bankrollers.)
I was under the impression that the tea partiers were bein astroturfed almost from the very beginning by money-bag organizations led by the likes of Trent Lott and other former Republican congressional leadership. I think some rich right-wing groups were happy to be silent partners of the teabaggers. Do I misremember?
Shirley, thanx for the correction..
I must have been looking at an older listings..
40% are Democrats or Independents.
The mistake, however, does nothing to lessen my point. It actually increases the validity of my point.
The GOP can stand to lose a few to the TP. The DP can't afford to lose ANY Dem or Independent to the TP.
The Tea Party will be worse for the Democratic Party than it will be for the Republican Party.
I think some rich right-wing groups were happy to be silent partners of the teabaggers. Do I misremember?
I don't believe you do..
Philosophically and ideologically, the Tea Party is MUCH closer to the GOP than it is to the Democratic Party..
That is why I say that the Tea Party is a bigger threat to the DP than to the GOP..
(as an aside... For those of ya'all who like the sexual connotations of "tea bagging", ya'all should be absolutely giddy by the "DP" designation to signify the Democratic Party. It's actually even MORE apropos... :D)
But, regardless of the rosy picture being painted for Democrats, the mid-terms are going to be a rout... :D
And I, for one, could NOT be happier..
Not because I have any real love for the GOP...
But, dammit, the Democrats don't DESERVE to be in charge..
When they went against the majority of Americans and said, "Screw you, we're going to do what's best for our Party and to hell with the country and to hell with you!!!", Democrats proved beyond ANY doubt that they are simply incapable of REAL leadership..
Call it wish-casting (and it probably is) but Democrats do not DESERVE to stay in power.
It's really that simple..
Michale.....
I was under the impression that the tea party started in 2008 as a fundraiser for the Ron Paul campaign and was later hijacked by the current tea baggers with serious help from Fox News.
Too bad really. Though I don't agree with much of Ron Paul's platform, he was at least consistent in his rhetoric and his followers can intelligently argue their points. The usurpers on the other hand seem to rarely utter more than a few sentences with out a serious face palm moment.
Though I don't agree with much of Ron Paul's platform, he was at least consistent in his rhetoric and his followers can intelligently argue their points.
As opposed to say, Democrats who'se ONLY "intelligent" response to the Tea Party is to infiltrate and make obscene and racist remarks???
Is that the kind of "intelligently argued points" you are referring to, BB?? :D
On another note, I was just was reading several articles about a Romney/Palin match-up in 2012..
I have to admit, the ticket does have a LOT of ziiinggg to it. :D
It's a sure bet to beat the Obama/Biden ticket. Even if Obama did the smart thing and jettison'ed Biden and put Hillary on the ticket, I don't think they could beat Romney/Palin..
The campaign slogans write themselves..
"Romeny/Palin. Howz that Hopey Changey thang working for ya'all??"
and
"Romney/Palin. THIS is what elections are for, Mr President!"
It's gonna be fun... :D
Michale.....
As opposed to say, Democrats who'se ONLY "intelligent" response to the Tea Party is to infiltrate and make obscene and racist remarks???
Still on that silly all democrats speak as one BS?
Palin is not running for anything except her personal fortune to which she is doing a very good job. She quit the governorship mid-stream. No higher political office for her...
Still on that silly all democrats speak as one BS?
So, you agree with me that such acts by Democrats is beyond the pale, no??
Palin is not running for anything except her personal fortune
Assumes facts not in evidence..
to which she is doing a very good job.
Yea, she always seems to do a good job no matter what she tries..
She quit the governorship mid-stream.
Considering the hell and the expense that the Hysterical (and not so Hysterical) Left was putting the State of Alaska thru, she did the best thing for her state.
AS A GOOD GOVERNOR SHOULD...
No higher political office for her...
Wanna put some quatloos on that?? :D
In for a penny, in for a pound, I always say.. :D
Michale.....
"The mistake, however, does nothing to lessen my point. It actually increases the validity of my point."
Chris, isn't it amazing how quickly the Samsara of Wacky incorporates new, contradictory information into the paranoid universe? The human mind is an awesome thing, capable of constructing whole new realities out of thin air.
*partially cross-posted at huffpo*
funny you should mention the crist-rubio primary, because the tea-party reaction to sb-6 (and crist's veto thereof) proves your point about the movement being decentralized.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/04/13/1576509/vetoing-teacher-bill-might-aid.html
after crist's veto, many people are seriously considering switching parties to vote in the primary, myself among them.
as a matter of fact, it would be very smart of the national GOP if they start running Crist for POTUS right now; he's the only R I can think of who would have a serious chance of beating Obama in 2012.
So, you agree with me that such acts by Democrats is beyond the pale, no??
No. Such acts by people are beyond pale. But we are talking about the tea party to which many of their members still can't decide whether Obama is Hitler or Stalin incarnate. Not exactly coming from the moral or intellectual high ground. So, do you have any proof that this is from more than low single digits percentage of democrats?
Assumes facts not in evidence..
I read last week that she has made about $12 million in speaking fees since leaving the governorship. A bit more that being governor pays...
Considering the hell and the expense that the Hysterical (and not so Hysterical) Left was putting the State of Alaska thru, she did the best thing for her state.
You got me there. Sarah Palin leaving Alaska was the best thing for the state. Not exactly a solid recommendation for higher office though...
Wanna put some quatloos on that?? :D
As many as you wish. She would not even survive the primary season and I can't see anyone adding that albatross to their campaign after the wonders she did for John McCain.
Plus Tina Fey is back on Saturday night live...
@Shirley,
Chris, isn't it amazing how quickly the Samsara of Wacky incorporates new, contradictory information into the paranoid universe? The human mind is an awesome thing, capable of constructing whole new realities out of thin air.
Thank you for your concession that you have no logical or rational response and must therefore resort to childish and immature personal attacks.
Your concession of my superiority is appreciated, albeit irrelevant.
nypoet,
as a matter of fact, it would be very smart of the national GOP if they start running Crist for POTUS right now; he's the only R I can think of who would have a serious chance of beating Obama in 2012.
Oh come now...
Joey Buttafuco would have a serious chance of beating Obama in 2012...
Obama is no longer an "unknown" anymore... He has proven himself to be quite incompetent as a leader..
In the here and now, Sarah Palin could beat Obama for President..
That may change in the next 2+ years...
Then again, it may not...
Michale.....
But getting back to the Tea Party and the Left's fear/hatred of same..
http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/uploads/teapartytravesty.pdf
That's an in depth analysis of how the Left Wing MSM has treated the Tea Party movement.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
-Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
Michale.....
No. Such acts by people are beyond pale.
So, we are agreed... Such acts by people, in this case, Leftist/Democrat/Liberal people, are beyond the pale..
Common ground.. :D A wonderful thing..
But we are talking about the tea party to which many of their members still can't decide whether Obama is Hitler or Stalin incarnate. Not exactly coming from the moral or intellectual high ground.
Yea, Yea, Yea.. And they also hurl racial and sexist slurs too.. Funny though..
None of it is ever documented...
Besides, how do you know that those are REALLY Tea Party members doing it and not the Leftist/Democrat/Liberal infiltrators?? Hmmmmmmmm??? :D
Regardless, ya'all on the Left said much MUCH worse about Bush...
Why so sensitive all of the sudden?? :D
So, do you have any proof that this is from more than low single digits percentage of democrats?
There have been several articles from places like CT and OR where Democrats have stated their intentions to "infiltrate" Tea Party gatherings and spout off racial and gay-bashing slurs and the like..
Honestly, seriously.. If one has to jump into gay bashing and racial slurs and espouse the virtues of the Nazis and Hitler to support one's agenda... Wouldn't you agree that SUCH an agenda deserves NO support??? Hmmmmm????
I read last week that she has made about $12 million in speaking fees since leaving the governorship. A bit more that being governor pays...
That doesn't mean she is doing it for the money, which is what you stated...
You got me there. Sarah Palin leaving Alaska was the best thing for the state. Not exactly a solid recommendation for higher office though...
No, Sarah Palin stopping all the expense caused by the Hysterical (and not so Hysterical) Left wing garbage was the best thing that Sarah Palin could do for Alaska..
At least we agree that Sarah Palin acted as a good Governor should..
More common ground.. :D
As many as you wish. She would not even survive the primary season and I can't see anyone adding that albatross to their campaign after the wonders she did for John McCain.
John McCain had his own problems, not the least of which was the consummate con-man that was Barack Obama. All Hope and Change and ZERO substance..
Plus Tina Fey is back on Saturday night live...
Maybe it's just me, but I doubt that Fey will influence the election much. Of course, all those on the Left just eat all that garbage up.. Which is why the country is in the shape it's in now..
Michale.....
Technical note...
Hay CW, the comment numbers seem screwy..
On the front page, it says this commentary has 16 comments. But in the commentary, it says there is only 15 comments..
I have noticed a couple instances of that throughout the day..
Just a heads up...
Michale.....
Bashi,
The usurpers on the other hand seem to rarely utter more than a few sentences with out a serious face palm moment.
Sorry, but apparently you are wrong in this assessment.
A New York Times/CBS survey finds Tea Party backers are more educated than the general population. The percentage who attended college is five points higher, eight for graduates and four for post-graduate students.
Perhaps it's your political biases that are coloring your assessments of the Tea Party.
Michale.....
I was under the impression that the tea party started in 2008 as a fundraiser for the Ron Paul campaign and was later hijacked by the current tea baggers with serious help from Fox News.
Actually, the "Tea Party" began further back then that.
On September 23rd 2003, a politician and his supporters gathered in Boston and the politician gave this speech.
“230 years ago, right here in Boston, 50 dedicated patriots known as the Sons of Liberty boarded three ships in Boston Harbor to protest a government more concerned with monied interests than its own people. Those 50 patriots believed that they had the power and the duty to change their government…
Today, once again, we stand here in Boston as patriots--and we stand with more than 410,000 other patriots across this nation who have joined our campaign, and countless millions more who share our values.
We stand here as Americans, once again willing to take action to restore a government of the people...
We stand at a critical moment in American history. Either we come together and take action now to restore a politics of participation and a politics of the people, or we allow the Washington insiders and the special interests to continue to make the back room deals that are destroying people's faith in our government.”
That pretty much sounds like the current Tea Party movement, eh?? :D
Oh, yea.. Forgot to mention.
The politician who gave that speech was Howard Dean... :D
Iddn't THAT ironic, eh? :D
"I love it when a plan comes together"
-Hannibal Smith, THE A-TEAM
Michale.....
All my opinions about tea party members are from video snippets in the media. Photos from rallies of members holding signs and posts in forums. There are intelligent people in the tea party movement. Most that I have encountered are hold overs from the Ron Paul for president campaign. The ones joining later seem to be the more Glen Beck/fox news watching types, and they are the ones who provide the face palms and hilariously misspelled signs. I've seen face palm video snippets come from network news, BBC, DW, FOX, CNN and of course the internet. Hardly a "liberal media" bias. As to MSNBC, I don't watch that station, don't have much of an opinion of them. From what little I've seen they don't seem to be Liberal or conservative but very pro-president.
There are definite loonies in the Tea Party I have seen way too much proof to deny. But what I find strange is your attitude that a few wacko liberals stand for the entire democratic party and yet the tea party and republican party get a free pass for the same situation. That is why I say People rather than anyone specifically. I have no control over in individual who prescribes to the more wacky of the left. They do not represent me and I don't represent them. Sometimes we vote for the same candidate.
The tea party movement may have earlier roots but did not get the publicity to really take off until it became part of the Ron Paul Campaign...
All my opinions about tea party members are from video snippets in the media.
A media that, as I have shown is extremely biased against the Teap Party..
So, I do apologize.. It wasn't your biases but rather the media bias that was being displayed..
There are intelligent people in the tea party movement. Most that I have encountered are hold overs from the Ron Paul for president campaign.
Can you cite some examples... That seems to be a very blanket statement to make..
There are definite loonies in the Tea Party I have seen way too much proof to deny.
A situation not completely confined to the Tea Party, I am sure you will agree...
But what I find strange is your attitude that a few wacko liberals stand for the entire democratic party and yet the tea party and republican party get a free pass for the same situation.
Because the "wacko" liberals that I cite have the complete backing of their organizations. The Teacher's Union in Oregon is on record as completely supporting the actions of said "wacko"..
So, while it's true that there are "wacko"s in all groups, it would seem that the "wacko" liberals that want to attack the Tea Party group are much more prevalent and said "wacko-ness" (it's a word, I looked it up :D) is actually part and parcel of the whole group...
If I didn't have a playlist, I would have thought those liberal groups were actually right-wing groups.. :D
"Your good and your evil use the same methods to achieve the same goals."
-Yarnek, STAR TREK, The Savage Curtain
Michale.....
Here is the "un-biased" reporting on the Tea Party movement from the MSM..
NBC Reporter To Black Man At Tea Party: "Have You Ever Felt Uncomfortable?"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/04/16/nbc_reporter_to_black_man_at_tea_party_have_you_ever_felt_uncomfortable.html
:^/
It's no wonder ya'all see the Tea Party in the manner ya see it...
Michale.....
OK, first off, I love Tina Fey for making glasses sexy for women again. Just had to say that, a propos of absolutely nothing.
Michale (and everyone) --
There's a bug I haven't been able to fix between the comment numbers (which include trackbacks and pingbacks) on the front page, and the numbers on the page itself (which counts only valid comments). This is why the commnet numbers sometimes are higher on the front page. I'm working on it...
BashiBazouk -
OK, I have to admit my own ignorance: what's a "face palm"?
And, I have to admit, you scored a definite hit below the water line on Michale there -- why is it that Michale considers any radical, wacky, extremist position as a solid, respectable Lefty position; when he refuses to use this same level of "BS-filter" on Republicans and right-wingers? Good question indeed....
Michale -
I saw that NBC interview, and actually thought the black Tea Partier held his own fairly well -- I liked his responses that "These are my people," and "I am an American!"
But the story which followed it was incredibly slanted towards the right-wing view of the universe, I have to say. No mention of the tax breaks Obama was responsible for, and no mention of the fact that taxes are at a 60-year low (these are FACTS, not opinions). And every right-wing framing device was employed. I personally belive that Brian Williams uses the NBC Nightly News as a sort of balance to what MSNBC puts out, and leans pretty consistently to the right as a result.
But, I have to admit, it doesn't do any harm to Williams or NBC in the ratings game (as they regularly beat out ABC and CBS).
One thing I did notice in all the Tea Party coverage was that there seemed to be a lot less Tea Partiers than there were a year ago. Has this wave already crested? Hmmm....
-CW
Chris-
A Face Palm is a a gesture used as an expression of embarrassment or disbelief. Something I get just about every time Sarah Palin opens her mouth.
OK, I have to admit my own ignorance: what's a "face palm"?
Ever watch NCIS??
I think that's what a "face palm" is, except to the face rather than to the back of the head..
I might be wrong. :D
why is it that Michale considers any radical, wacky, extremist position as a solid, respectable Lefty position;
When it is the position of an entire otherwise respectable Lefty organization. Like a Teacher's Union.
In the two examples I provided, the "wackos" in question were supported by their respective Teacher's Unions..
Now it's my turn to ask the same question to ya'all..
Why do ya'all write off the entire Tea Party movement because of the actions of a few..
When you look at the core issues, they are POPULIST in nature..
I saw that NBC interview, and actually thought the black Tea Partier held his own fairly well -- I liked his responses that "These are my people," and "I am an American!"
Yea, Tea Party people really are more intelligent than most activists.. :D (oooooo I am gonna burn for that one.. :D)
But my point was to illustrate the complete and utter bias that the MSM has against the Tea Party movement..
One thing I did notice in all the Tea Party coverage was that there seemed to be a lot less Tea Partiers than there were a year ago. Has this wave already crested? Hmmm....
Doubtful. More likely the calm before the storm..
But one thing I have always noticed.. There are never (or hardly ever) any arrests or violence associated with Tea Party rallies..
Can't say the same about Left Wing shindigs...
Michale.....
A Face Palm is a a gesture used as an expression of embarrassment or disbelief.
See!?? I was wrong again.. :D
Something I get just about every time Sarah Palin opens her mouth.
Wow.. You really must hate her.
I wonder how she got to be the most popular governor in the country in a state that has a very unique set of governing issues and circumstances..
So, on the one hand, we have your antipathy towards her and on the other hand, we have her obvious, many and varied accomplishments...
Hmmmmmmmm Decisions, decisions... :D
Michale.....
OK, first off, I love Tina Fey for making glasses sexy for women again. Just had to say that, a propos of absolutely nothing.
Since Fey is mocking (er... I mean "impersonating") Sarah Palin, shouldn't the credit for making glasses for women sexy again go to Palin and not Fey??
Hmmmmmmmmm??? :D
Michale.....
Michale -
Um, no. Tina Fey made glasses sexy years before anyone outside Wasilla had ever heard of Palin.
Nice try, though.
-CW
Um, no. Tina Fey made glasses sexy years before anyone outside Wasilla had ever heard of Palin.
Nice try, though.
Did she??
I didn't know anyone ever HEARD of Tina Fey before she began mocking... er.. ridiculing...er.. I mean impersonating Sarah Palin... :D
But I have never been a fan of SNL, so that might be it...
Michale......