***
Instapundit: "[This] suggests that complaints from Republican operatives about Tea Party amateurishness and lack of a national organization are wrong. When have those operatives ever achieved a 50% increase in identification in one month?"
१४ एप्रिल, २०१०
24% of Americans now say they're part of the Tea Party movement.
Up from 16% last month. I guess the liberals' strategy of trying to delegitimate the movement as extreme and violent and racist hasn't worked out too well. At some point you're talking about so many people that it's incoherent to characterize them as marginal. Plus you may want to attempt to persuade them... perhaps even by addressing the substance of their criticisms.
Instapundit: "[This] suggests that complaints from Republican operatives about Tea Party amateurishness and lack of a national organization are wrong. When have those operatives ever achieved a 50% increase in identification in one month?"
Instapundit: "[This] suggests that complaints from Republican operatives about Tea Party amateurishness and lack of a national organization are wrong. When have those operatives ever achieved a 50% increase in identification in one month?"
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
९५ टिप्पण्या:
I heard that roughly the same number of people are certain that aliens are breeding with humans and that Saddam launched the 9-11 attacks.
What surprise is it that a 1/4 of our population can be walked off a cliff?
I heard 45% of Democrats believe 9/11 was an inside job.
"What surprise is it that a 1/4 of our population can be walked off a cliff?"
I assume you're speaking of Obama's hard core base here...
Don't forget homophobic and moronic.
Odd that anyone could confuse backing away from a cliff with walking off a cliff but that style of inversion is what we've come to expect.
Who knew there were that many inbred knuckle dragging racist nazi devil monsters in the country?
I guess its harder to demonize a quarter of the country rather than one leader.
What is the substance of the criticism again? "We hate paying taxes. Obama is a socialist. We never made a peep about deficits, as long as the money was being spent in foreign wars."
They should grow up. It's hard to address the substance of a critique that is superficial and willfully ignorant of history... what is the substance of no substance?
"what is the substance of no substance?"
Perfectly describes the Obama candy bar you've been eating.
What surprise is it that a 1/4 of our population can be walked off a cliff?
Not really a surprise. Well over half did that very thing when they voted for President in 2008.
What surprise is it that a 1/4 of our population can be walked off a cliff?
You can get a 10-20% of people to agree with a controversial statement by wording it in such a way that's it reasonable to not dismiss it out of hand.
Like the Saddam question: if you word it "could Saddam Hussein have had something to do with the 9/11 attacks?" then someone who doesn't keep up with the news might agree (you said "could" so that gives you wiggle room). Plus there's the effect that if someone asks a question out of the blue that you haven't given much thought, you may tend to agree rather than disagree. You'd rather agree with the person asking the question, because you assume they know something you don't.
"We never made a peep about deficits, as long as the money was being spent in foreign wars."
You might not remember this but back in 2008 there were a whole lot of conservative Republicans who viewed GWB unfavorably.
Why were so many Republicans so thoroughly unhappy with Bush by the 2nd term? Because he was TOO conservative? HA. It was because he was a big-spending, big-government Republican. I can find you a 100 op-ed pieces at the click of a button that say just that. But you wouldn't read those because you're not interested in the evidence.
We never made a peep about deficits, as long as the money was being spent in foreign wars."
Funny I never heard the left making a peep about illegal wars when Clinton was bombing Serbia, Iraq, and launching Operation Anti-Tylenol in the Sudan.
Then again considering that almost half the income earners either don't pay federal income tax or better yet, get a check from Uncle Sam, I would bet more would be irate if they knew that tidbit of information.
They should grow up. It's hard to address the substance of a critique that is superficial and willfully ignorant of history
LMAO! Have you no sense of irony sir?
They should grow up. It's hard to address the substance of a critique that is superficial and willfully ignorant of history... what is the substance of no substance?
Objecting to the confiscation of your income by hyper-taxation is "superficial?" If controlling your own income is a superficial issue, what issue is substantial?
MM, you seem to have a limitless reverence for the expansion of government and the increase of taxes.
You seem to view people who want to control their own lives and exercise ownership of their own incomes and properties as childish and extreme.
Frankly, I can't make much sense out of what you have to say. It seems profound to you. Seems tissue thin to me.
What is it about endlessly expanding government and confiscation of the individual's rights to ownership of their own income and poverty that seems so righteous to you?
I haven't got a clue why you think that your viewpoint is substantive.
Your viewpoint is socialist, perhaps even communist. The Tea Party people are right to seek to defeat you. Your viewpoint is worse than superficial and ahistorical... it's evil.
You want to deprive people of their most essential freedoms... the right to control their own lives, property and incomes.
"We never made a peep about deficits, as long as the money was being spent in foreign wars."
You also might google 'porkbusters.'
This fairy tale that Republican voters only started complaining about fiscal irresponsibility with Obama, is mostly sprung from people who don't actually know any Republicans.
For example, here's a quote from an angry op-ed written at the end of Bush's 2nd term:
The most basic Bush numbers are damning. If increases in government spending matter, then Mr. Bush is worse than any president in recent history. During his first four years in office -- a period during which his party controlled Congress -- he added a whopping $345 billion (in constant dollars) to the federal budget. The only other presidential term that comes close? Mr. Bush's second term. As of November 2008, he had added at least an additional $287 billion on top of that (and the months since then will add significantly to the bill). To put that in perspective, consider that the spendthrift LBJ added a mere $223 billion in total additional outlays in his one full term.
Remember when "billions" of dollars was a scary figure?
The same thing happens in polling. In a past state election here, a pollster on the phone asked questions like "even though you've voted Republican in the past, could you vote for a Democrat?" and "could you vote for a Democrat for State Treasurer who balanced state budgets?"
Well of course, I've voted for Democrats before, and a guy who's been in an administration that balanced budgets is obviously qualified for such a job, Democrat or Republican. In fact, I voted for the guy. But he lost, and it probably had more to do with what was left out of the poll questions: Such as the governor he served under had his own negatives, and likely voters remember these things.
"What is the substance of the criticism again?"
Spending beyond our means.
We never made a peep about deficits, as long as the money was being spent in foreign wars."
Er, no. In 2006, independents and nominal conservatives either sat out the election or voted for Democrats and put them in power. Same in 2008. McCain had to run as an outsider, but it wasn't enough. The Republican brand was tarnished.
Maybe you heard of it?
Unless you live in 100% liberal bubble land (Like certain places in California and New York) it is likely that even if YOU aren't in the Tea Party, you know some one who is or many who are members and supporters.
The experience of most people is that those members aren't wild eyed crazy racist radicals. They generally are the guy at the hardware store, the gas station, bank teller, neighbor, brother, cousin and so on.
When the liberals try to smear all Tea Party people, the public just doesn't see this as their own experience and recognizes a hatchet job when they see one.
What do the Tea Partiers want? Restraint. Enough fiscal restraint to prevent all of us being walked off a cliff. Of course that would mean the end of the gravy train ride on others backs that has become a way of life for SEIU, ACORN, Goldman Sachs, Mau Mauers and pretty much the whole chattering class. And that cannot be! Why it's...RACISSS!!
Montagne Montaigne said... It's hard to address the substance of a critique that is superficial and willfully ignorant of history...
We bow to your expertise in superficiality and ignorance, Monty.
Looks like Monty and HDHouse have tucked tail and run.
MO: Drop vitriolic non-sequitur unsupported by the evidence. Run.
Okay so Tea Party is legit, real, organized. Show us some candidates. How about platforms and ideas beyond "we hate taxes"....? Tea Partiers are spending all their capital and time playing the victim. There is real work to be done according to this 24%-how about doing some. You know what they need?
A community organizer-for reals.
Playing the victim? Really? Tea partiers helped to get a more conservative candidate elected to the Senate in Massachusetts of all places IN ORDER TO STOP HEALTHCARE. Obama and the Democrats didn't care. They didn't listen.
The victims here are all Americans. They need to know it.
Rialby said...
Looks like Monty and HDHouse have tucked tail and run"
naw. we are just waiting for an enlightened defense. having heard and read none, we (I) moved on.
At some point you're talking about so many people that it's incoherent to characterize them as marginal
... as HDH, Montaigne and cylinder have all helpfully demonstrated, in this very thread.
Althouse: "I guess the liberals' strategy of trying to delegitimate the movement as extreme and violent and racist hasn't worked out too well."
I shouldn't be surprised that the liberal comment went for the simple, there are plenty of stupid people tack. It is a reasonable way to go, but there was comedy gold just sitting there to be mined. All that is required is the usual divorce from reality. Try this for example:
Now that the press has accurately described the TEA party as racist, the rest of the (abundant) racists in the country now have a club to join. This alone accounts for the increase.
Come on you guys, at least put some creativity into the crazy!
Can anyone put up anything besides
"we are real and we are not racist?"
Tea partiers, you are mad, we get it,
what next?
Gotta tell you HD--I havent taken you seriously since you mistook "ebonics" for "eugenics."
On another note, it remains to be seen if the Republicans can make something of the current environment--the only thing saving the dems right now is the ineptness of the republicans and their "leadership". I do not believe the republican leadership believes their profilgacy and pork led to their defeat. It may be the republicans are looking more like the whigs of the mid 19th century.
Interesting times ahead.
Real movements are not organized. That's what makes them scary. If government policy is so odious that people spontaneously take to the streets and protest, then the government ought to see that as a clue that it really fucked up.
Master Cyl: wait and see; evolving movements are always interesting. May fizzle to nothing or may result in a new party. too new to know.
"naw. we are just waiting for an enlightened defense. having heard and read none, we (I) moved on."
Brilliant. Keep moving.
roger j -it will be interesting, the big story waiting to happen is weather tea can become part of the big R machine.
uh..whether
Rasmussen is a conservative organization with their polls slanted in a conservative way. It's just like the Fox News "Polls". Slanted far to the right.
Bull
Vicki from Pasadena
Can anyone put up anything besides
"we are real and we are not racist?"
We would like some assurance that our representatives appreciate the scope and the magnitude of the problem, and start presenting realistic plans for addressing it - preferably plans that do not require immense sacrifices of liberty.
How about delegitimize instead?
In the context of the poll question, I wonder what being part of the Tea Party movement means. Note that 4% of Tea Party members (self-identified) think the Country is moving in the right direction!
Some of the commenters that are here only to ridicule the Tea Party, I'd like to ask you a question. Are you happy with the current deficit spending?
WV: hotion
A ho in motion.
Master Cyl--no need to correct typos on my behalf--this is a blog not a publishing firm! Re the substance of your post, I dont personally think the Republican party has a clue nor the ability to harness the energy of the current TP movement. Gonna be interesting in November.
Victoria--when in doubt attack the pollster and buttress your argument with their track record (oh wait). Mentioning Fox News is a proven technique as well. The notion of ad hominem argumentation must be new to you.
And just how has Rasmussen done in calling elections?
What surprise is it that a 1/4 of our population can be walked off a cliff?
The Sixties are over House. Maybe you should stop reliving your long gone misguided youth. Stop smoking the funny weed or ingesting LSD. It does funny things to your brain.
WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE WE CUT????????????????????????????
Defense? Ha.
Social Security. HA ha.
Corporate Welfare? Never.
I know... food stamps and foreign aid. Too bad they represent 0.01 percent of the budget.
Cutting spending! But no new taxes, and don't cut anything I like.
And you wonder why people think the tea party is a joke. And the suspicion that "spending" is code... for something else. Something like Reagan's welfare queens in Cadillacs... something about class, and race.
Real movements are not organized. That's what makes them scary. If government policy is so odious that people spontaneously take to the streets and protest, then the government ought to see that as a clue that it really fucked up.
Read recent history. Learn about the New Left- the so called progressives. They were not organized, they felt government policy was odious, they took to the streets to protest- many times in a spontaneous manner. They got organized. They are the Democratic Party today. All because the government- the Democrats at the time- fucked up.
ahhhh Peter...I don't supposed you were on the force in Chicago in 1968...one of those who enjoy the frivolity? ya'betcha
Well Monty--I am not a participant in the TP movement (that sounded bad), but to your point: you are correct that the ability to control discretionary spending is very limited as most spending is mandated by continuing programs.
This will come as a shock to you, but I do advocate a considerably more limited defense budget--Inasmuch as (not sure) some 60 percent are personnel costs, we should cut back our forces considerably--pull out of NATO and let the Euros figure out what they are going to do; pull out of Korea--they can take care of themselves. In short I advocate a much reduced force posture for the US.
It is entitlements that wreak havoc on the budget, and to that end, I personally advocate for eliminating social security and medicare (good libertarian that I am). Eliminate all subsidies and public funding of higher education and agricultural subsidies.
I am also a realist and am aware that none of this is going to happen. But there are ways to reduce spending; its just that the political class on both sides of the aisle dont have the stones (or ovaries) to do it.
Sofaking: "We would like some assurance that our representatives appreciate the scope and the magnitude of the problem, and start presenting realistic plans for addressing it - preferably plans that do not require immense sacrifices of liberty."
This summarizes the narcissism of the TP movement -- every Representative in Congress got there by garnering the most votes in their district. Same for Senators.
The fact that your candidate did not win does not make those who did illegitimate, or that if they vote for a bill you oppose that they are (as one earlier commenter put it) evil.
Too often the tea party rallies come off as a group temper tantrum.
The beauty of the tea party is that we are amateurs and poorly organized. We are not Republicans, we are people who want to tear down big government. Not by any means necessary. Not yet anyway. 8)
The amusing thing to me is how much time progressives spend trying to define us negatively to discredit the movement. What a foolish approach!
Cogent progressives would listen to what the tea party folks are saying. I do not think we have common ground frankly, but at least they could get the message that they are going too fast to slip any of their agenda past us. They have awakened the sleeping giant. Their best bet would be to see if they can wait till the giant goes back to his nap.
Realistically, the giant will sleep after his work is done and progressives are scheming out of office rather than in. But those smart enough to listen may be able to tone it down enough to save their career. May being the operative word.
Trey
Trey
I propose we cut the department of education and give the money back to the states. The department would need a staff of 50 to measure the outcome of what the states are doing, collect the ideas that work, and distribute them to the states. The annual budget would be a million annually tops.
I propose we cut the government b'crats keeping us from accessing our own oil and gas. Ditto with the impediments to building refineries.
I propose we cut welfare by 50%.
I propose we cut foreign aid by
50%.
I propose we cut the medicaid drug plan entirely.
I propose we cut fannie and freddie completely.
Those are some nice cuts to start with.
Trey
AllenS said...
Are you happy with the current deficit spending?
Montagne Montaigne said...
WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE WE CUT????????????????????????????
Defense? Ha.
Social Security. HA ha.
Corporate Welfare? Never.
I'll take that answer that yes, yes you like the current deficit spending.
Monty--between TMink and I we have proposed quite a few areas where it is possible to cut expenditures--and you would find me in full agreement on the question of what you call "coporate welfare" whatever you mean by that.
so any thoughts as to our proposals?
I propose we cut the department of education and give the money back to the states.
I've suggested that before as well. The problem is that if you cut the Dept., the money that funds it will just get siphoned off to someplace else in the Bureaucracy.
Seriously, who wants the Dept. Of Education to exist anyway? I asked that last time around, and no one say they did. I think it exists just because it's there. True Bureaucracy in action.
Given that support for the Continental cause during the American Revolution was never more than 33%, no wonder the usual suspects are running scared, but out of steam. All their talking points are refuted with ridiculous ease.
As to what gets cut, the current insolvency of Social Security and Medicare will lead to a demand by the generations now in the labor pool to be cut - and it will happen.
As to defense, the "centrist", "pragmatic" Clinton administration already cut that by 40%. But, by all means, let's cut some of the Cabinet departments that were created as political favors - HHS, HUD, Education, Energy, and Transportation, not to mention regulatory bureaucracies like the EPA
Monty--there are even more suggestinons for trimming the beast. You challenged us to make cuts culminating in a derisive HA HA HA--your turn to comment on budget cuts.
As I had stated in a previous post, there was no COLA this year for Social Security and VA compensation. That was a step in the right direction. And, as I had stated before, can you imagine the outrage from the left if Bush or the Republicans had done this? Even without the COLAs the deficit is outrageously out of control.
AllenS--indeed there were no COLAs for my VA comp and social security--I was in such financial straits I actually had to go out and take a part time position--the shame--imagine a retiree taking care of him or herself--and AARP was nowhere to be seen.
Montagne-
Oooooh looky the dems have a plan!
Kerrey, a 1992 presidential candidate and now president of The New School in New York City, says panels such as the Bowles-Simpson commission can help to create that scenario.
"What you could get is support among the populace for the exceptionally unpopular things you need to do to solve this problem," he says.
Bowles has been in touch with Microsoft's Steve Ballmer about creating a deficit-reduction video game that would enable anyone with a computer to take a stab at balancing the budget, much like the 1994 commission did.
Updated for 2010, Kerrey says, such a game could "go viral."
[USA Today]
From the same article:
Under Obama's budget plan, the USA's debt in 2020 would be nearly the size of the entire economy then. Interest costs would be $900 billion, five times today's level.
[...]
A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll in late March found that nearly two-thirds disapproved of Obama's handling of the deficit.
Nearly 80% said it would be very important in their votes for Congress this fall.
But I'm glad that Obama has hired Clinton's guy Bowles to get on it.
First response-they need help from somewhere outside their "pool of experts" so-
video game it is!
WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE WE CUT????????????????????????????
Defense? Ha.
Social Security. HA ha.
Corporate Welfare? Never.
I know... food stamps and foreign aid. Too bad they represent 0.01 percent of the budget.
You know Monty, you'd have a bit more credibility if you actually provided some facts to your rantings.
If you look here you will see that we could very well cut the defense budget back to 2000 levels and I agree with Roger that we should do so by allowing our 'allies' to start providng for their own defense.
Now, that leaves another $2-3 trillion. in spending that we can start slashing away at. Sorry but I didn't see a 'corporate welfare' category when perusing the budget although that might be the Obama bailouts so yes I suggest we cut those too.
Also Monty, one reason many folks are bitching about paying income taxes is due to the fact that many other folks don't which means I have to pay a higher proportion.
As I have consistently said before. I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes but I resent having to pay someone else's share too.
Well the other thing is the audacity.
Social Security-Democrats
Medicare- Democrats
When you go to federalbudget.com you can see that with interest those two ideas alone take up the largest part of the debt and that-
The Department of Health and Human Services-outspent the Department of Defense in -
2007
2008
a near tie in 2009
is budgeted in 2010 to outspend the Department of Defense by-more than 200 billion if I'm reading the graph correctly.
So under these circumstances let's do the Obama Health Care Plan.
It's deceitful to say this a grassroots movement when there is a major network (Fox) devoting resources to promoting it.
Not to mention the funding from major corporations seeking to block legislative initiatives.
I propose Tea Partiers ask for an appraisal and audit of all the assets owned by the federal government so that we know just where we are financially. The current US balance sheet available on the web includes only cash and cash equivalents as government assets. Real estate, and the assets of government sponsored enterprises, such as TVA, VA, USPS, and who knows what other property holding government entities there are, are not included. The federal government owns the majority of real estate in most states west of the Mississippi. Once we know what we have, then we will know how to go forward with a recovery plan.
BTW, military retirees not only did not get a COLA this year, their withholding was increased, and so they actually took a cut in 2010.
From the poll:
"Eighty percent (80%) in the Tea Party movement are white. "
Oh look here is one "cost savings" move the Democrats did lately-
TriCare has sent out a notices to military and military veterans-
Good deal-your health care plan is unchanged!
However there was a special footnote-while every other "kid" in America gets to stay on their parents health care plan until they are 26-there is a "special" exemption for the US military.
The rule does not apply-so don't send your kids to us!
Somehow the Democrats while requiring that rule of every other insurance plan in America managed to not give that same benefit to their employees-the US military.
The military are truly "second class citizens" when Democrats are in charge.
Alpha cites a poll suggesting 80 percent of the tea partiers are white--not too bad considering that only about 12 percent of the population of the US is black. Hispanics are a separate category of course and may self identify with a particular melanine content test.
I am not clear what your statistic means, other than you do not appear to realize what the racial composition of the US is. Go to factfinder.census.gov and you can make the appropriate determinations.
From the poll:
"Eighty percent (80%) in the Tea Party movement are white. "
According to Wiki, white people make up about 80% of the US so by that figure, the Tea Party is representational of the nation.
AL:
"From the poll:
Eighty percent (80%) in the Tea Party movement are white. "
Pretty damning stuff;-)
National health care reform, which could be signed into law this week, has a key new benefit for families that will not apply to military families enrolled in the Tricare health insurance program.
A key expansion of benefits in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, HR 3590, is a requirement for health insurers to cover unmarried children up to the age of 26 who are carried on the policy of a parent.
This change, like the rest of the bill, does not apply to Tricare, according to Defense Department and congressional sources.
ArmyTimes.com
Good one Democrats!
I am interested, Alpha, in what ethnic groups do you consider "white." Be aware that the US census, post 1990 considers Hispanics to be a cultural and not a racial group. As any latino could tell you, me included, that Hispanics come in all shades of color. I hope you are not so racist to consider all hispanics to be non-white. Were that the case you would be confusing the concept of race (a bullshit category to start with) with cultural identification.
No, House, unfortunately I was not on the force in 1968. But I was there and saw how and who started the riots. I was also smart enough to leave before the stupidity started.
Also, recently many of the so called leaders have come out and stated that their main goal was to start a riot, damage property, and in general create havoc and chaos in the city. statute of limitations is long over for conspiriacy.
Peter: Within our more liberal commentors, HD could be considered their equivalent of Joe Biden. As is obvious from the coherence and originality of his comments, ya betcha.
white people make up about 80% of the US so by that figure, the Tea Party is representational of the nation.
That presumes that Tea Party demographics are evenly distributed across the country.
If there are more Tea Party members in states with proportionally higher non-white populations, however -- such as the deep South -- then non-whites are underrepresented in the Tea Party. Similarly, if there are more Tea Party members in states with disproportionately low non-white populations -- like the Dakotas -- then non-whites are over-represented. I think I said that right.
Not that it makes a difference. A citizen is a citizen is a citizen. White or non-white.
(Sometimes I write things just to distract myself from work).
Hoosier Daddy said...
"According to Wiki, white people make up about 80% of the US so by that figure, the Tea Party is representational of the nation."
An alternative explanation is that the 20% left over have no idea what they are. It would fit the tea party demographic.
An alternative explanation is that the 20% left over have no idea what they are. It would fit the tea party demographic.
Well yeah that would make perfect sense to a moron like yourself.
That presumes that Tea Party demographics are evenly distributed across the country.
It also presumes that the racial makeup of the Tea Party is relevent to begin with :-) I mean I honestly don't recall anyone decrying the lack of diversity in the weekly anti-war protests, or of ANSWER or Code Pink. Yet when a protest movement springs up over massive government spending and yet another unaffordable entitlement program suddenly we're counting the number of white faces as if that means anything.
Then again to the liberal ideology that sees race in everything, I suppose it has to mean something.
"Eighty percent (80%) in the Tea Party movement are white. "
And what percentage of the U.S. are white?...hm?
Yeah,that's just what I thought.
From the poll:
"Eighty percent (80%) in the Tea Party movement are white."
You have every right to hate whitey, Alpha, and I have every right to hate you for hating whitey, you horrible lefty freak.
It also presumes that the racial makeup of the Tea Party is relevent to begin with
Oh, I agree, which was the point of the last sentence that I wrote in that post.
A person's political point of view should be judged on the view's merits, not on the person's race.
the racial makeup of the tea party is only relevant to those in the party who are just dying to be thought of as mainstream and representative. the later, the "we stand for everyone" is when they are most dangerous. it is called a self-proclaimed mandate - think faux noise "fair and balanced" (why? because we say so that's why).
besides would you invite someone in your home who wears a hat with tea bags attached to it?
Like the Saddam question: if you word it "could Saddam Hussein have had something to do with the 9/11 attacks?" then someone who doesn't keep up with the news might agree (you said "could" so that gives you wiggle room).
"Could" doesn't just give you wiggle room. "Could" means that you should respond in the affirmative unless it is impossible for the scenario to be true.
E.g., the answer to "could Oswald have really been a patsy" is "yes". But the answer to the question "did Oswald kill JFK" is also "yes". Any statement of fact includes the caveat "based on what we know".
What the heck since we are talking about polling-
Gallup just released their newest weekly approval ratings for Obama.
Here are some interesting results from there most recent findings when contrasted to their last prior results:
Obama's approval number was down from-
51% to 44% among college graduates.
That's a 7% change in one week.
Obama's approval rating for those earning under $2,000 dropped from-
60% to 55%
For those earning $5,000 to $7,499 Obama's approvel drops in one week from-
51% to 41%
For those earning more than $7,500
Obama is up 5%.
Finally for those that identify as "pure independent" Obama's approval rating drops from-
45% to 33%
A full 12% in less than a week.
[The last results are from April 5-11 and are compared to Obama's results from March 29 to April 4]
the racial makeup of the tea party is only relevant to those in the party who are just dying to be thought of as mainstream and representative.
The problem with assuming that a movement has to be racially balanced to be "mainstream" or "representative" is that it cuts both ways. The tea party movement is disproportionately white, and its opponents are disproportionately nonwhite. Ergo, by the logic you're using, your position isn't representative or mainstream either. Neither, for that matter, are Obama supporters or Democratic Party members; both groups have racial makeups significantly different from US demographics.
Alpha, are you a self-hating cracker or a racist?
besides would you invite someone in your home who wears a hat with tea bags attached to it?
Not unless he also brought some scones and jam.
Wow-wee!
If the percentage climbs keeps climbing then in a year or so they might claim the same number of people as voted for the losing ticket of John McCain-Sarah Palin in 2008!!!1!1!1!1!!!1!!!
Who knew there were that many inbred knuckle dragging racist nazi devil monsters in the country?
Oh! Me... me! I did!!1!1!1!!111!1
"Eighty percent (80%) in the Tea Party movement are white. "
And what percentage of the U.S. are white?...hm?
Certainly not 80%, turkey burgler.
Yeah,that's just what I thought.
Fact-free thoughts are worthless (to all but your opposition).
@DBQ, I know they're flowers and not teabags, but the mental imagery of hat and scones and jam reminds me of Mary Poppins! Maybe Miss Poppins is just the practically-perfect-in-every-way, squeaky-clean spokesperson the Tea Party needs!
Certainly not 80%, turkey burgler.
Well 75 is close enough to 80 to take some of the edge off your insult. link.
But I'll grant you that it's trending in the direction you seem to be hoping for. :)
It's got to be closer to 70% by now, and trending downward, as you indicate.
Anything to make uniformity and conformity less defensible. ;-)
I can't wait to be a racial minority. After years of waiting, I finally won't have to listen to blacks and hispanics whine about how their failures are due to the evil white majority anymore.
Revenant said...
I can't wait to be a racial minority. After years of waiting, I finally won't have to listen to blacks and hispanics whine about how their failures are due to the evil white majority anymore."
gosh yes Rev. I'd much rather you wail about being left out and left behind due to your IQ.
I'd much rather you wail about being left out and left behind due to your IQ.
Small chance of that. If you killed the 308,000,000 dumbest people in America I'd still be of above-average intelligence. :)
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा