Althouse: Tea Partiers.

April 19, 2010

Tea Partiers.

221 comments:

1 – 200 of 221 Newer› Newest»

themightypuck said...: All these pictures remind me of the fact that no one smokes anymore.; 4/19/10, 10:44 AM
Kakashi said...: As a photographer, I must ask you Ann, why did you go with the B+W?; 4/19/10, 10:55 AM
kathleen said...: are you trying to be the diane arbus of the tea party movement? I'd be highly irritated to end up in one of these pretentious photo essays. If these people are anything like me -- and, oh yeah, they are -- they'd rather be doing something else.; 4/19/10, 10:59 AM
AllenS said...: I'll bet there's a lot of veterans in that group.; 4/19/10, 11:06 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Its interesting (at least to me) that the people that used to profess that there was more to people than skin color are now all skin deep.; 4/19/10, 11:09 AM
Palladian said...: Terrorists!!!! Call Janet Renapolitano!; 4/19/10, 11:11 AM
Wince said...: I'd be highly irritated to end up in one of these pretentious photo essays.

Is that first woman sneering at Althouse?

Must be a blonde thing.; 4/19/10, 11:14 AM
MadisonMan said...: I think those Scott Walker stickers crystallize what I find a little off-putting about the Tea Party: that the Republican Party is trying to turn the Tea Party into some sort of Republican Party offshoot.

The Republican Party is part and parcel of the problem and it bears a boatload of responsibility for the US (and various states) being in the fiscal mess it's in right now.; 4/19/10, 11:15 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: How in the world did you get these crazed anarchists to be still and calm while you snapped their pictures?; 4/19/10, 11:17 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Mad Man:

You are a tad jealous that your party did not co-opt the Tea Party first.; 4/19/10, 11:19 AM
Alex said...: I see Klansmen, racists, Stormtrooopers.; 4/19/10, 11:19 AM
Scott M said...: But...gasp...they're so whitebread!!!! They must teh racists.; 4/19/10, 11:21 AM
Peter V. Bella said...: Looks like people at a Fourth of July celebration. Some dangerous people.; 4/19/10, 11:22 AM
Alex said...: BTW, I'm sure it's racist when most TP are white in a town where 99% of the people are white. Who knew liberals were anti-representation? What are they supposed to import minorities from other cities so that the particular protest looks "more like America"?; 4/19/10, 11:23 AM
MadisonMan said...: You are a tad jealous that your party did not co-opt the Tea Party first.

Members of the Tea Party are destined to be disappointed by the Republican Party when Republicans ascend to power.

Perhaps Democrats will be more disappointed, but there will be plenty of disappointment to go around.; 4/19/10, 11:30 AM
Alex said...: MadisonMan - the key is for TP to hold the GOP's feet to the fire when they get into power. No dissolving the protests until we see massive change.; 4/19/10, 11:31 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: I'll take that as a yes. :)

wv: micala = reminds me Baron Mikal Sucluna, the bad guy wrestler died this weekend.; 4/19/10, 11:36 AM
jeff said...: "Members of the Tea Party are destined to be disappointed by the Republican Party when Republicans ascend to power."

Have you not been paying attention? Are you under the impression that they would supporting unsustainable budgets if only the Republicans were in charge? How do you think Obama got elected in the first place?; 4/19/10, 11:37 AM
Anonymous said...: "A bunch of Tim McVeigh-wannabe terrorist child killers." - Bill Clinton.

"Seditionists who should be arrested, tried and hung." - Joe Klein.; 4/19/10, 11:37 AM
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...: I think those Scott Walker stickers crystallize what I find a little off-putting about the Tea Party

In reality, Walker is the first fiscally sane politician that Wisconsin has produced in more than a generation. It's hardly surprising that the tea party would find common ground with him.; 4/19/10, 11:37 AM
Anonymous said...: "The key is for TP to hold the GOP's feet to the fire when they get into power. No dissolving the protests until we see massive change."

A very astute comment.

There are some pseudo-Republicans (Romney, McCain, Graham) who will not survive the Tea Party tsunami.; 4/19/10, 11:38 AM
themightypuck said...: Haha. Feet to the fire indeed. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. People can change of course. But I doubt it. That said, I'm still not sure what the Tea Party is actually advocating. Is it just "throw the bums out?"; 4/19/10, 11:39 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Members of the Tea Party are destined to be disappointed by the Republican Party when Republicans ascend to power.

Possible but with a two party system the choices are a bit limited.; 4/19/10, 11:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Soaring up the Amazon Bestseller List: The Manchurian President - Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Scoailsits and Other Anti-American Extremists.

Not by Joe Klein (he of "sedition" accusation fame) but authored by Aaron Klein.; 4/19/10, 11:43 AM
MamaM said...: "If these people are anything like me -- and, oh yeah, they are -- they'd rather be doing something else."

Along with pretentious in the Highly Irritating P's category, add presumption and projection.; 4/19/10, 11:44 AM
Anonymous said...: "Members of the Tea Party are destined to be disappointed by the Republican Party when Republicans ascend to power."

That is, of course, true. It is also beside the point. We were disappointed by John McCain, Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Duke Cunningham, Mitt Romney.

So we helped boot them out.

Being a "Republican" isn't going to protect a politician from what is coming on November 2.

Tea Party activists will watch what they do, not what they say, or the labels attached to them. They will watch what laws are voted for, and hold both Democrats and Repbulicans to account.; 4/19/10, 11:46 AM
ricpic said...: MM, the Tea Partiers have been explicit about not supporting RINOs. Their home will be in the Republican Party ONLY if the Republicans return to conservatism. Tea Partiers are no one's front group.; 4/19/10, 11:49 AM
Unknown said...: Look at that guy in the first photo with the sign that says, "Vote Vote".

Clearly dangerous.

kathleen said...

are you trying to be the diane arbus of the tea party movement? I'd be highly irritated to end up in one of these pretentious photo essays. If these people are anything like me...

I highly doubt it.

MadisonMan said...

You are a tad jealous that your party did not co-opt the Tea Party first.

Members of the Tea Party are destined to be disappointed by the Republican Party when Republicans ascend to power.

Considering how many Republican politicians have been booed at Tea Parties, the one most disappointed may well be you.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"Seditionists who should be arrested, tried and hung." - Joe Klein.

Pictures are hung, people are hanged. The Lefties don't even have a good command of the language.; 4/19/10, 11:51 AM
Triangle Man said...: I like the idea of less intrusive government and low taxes (and/or efficient spending), but how is the Tea Party supposed to achieve that? Is it by getting fiscally responsible Republican candidates onto the ballot, or Independents? What if the fiscal conservatives aren't sufficiently aligned on social issues?; 4/19/10, 11:59 AM
Triangle Man said...: Pictures are hung, people are hanged.

Well, according to Meade...; 4/19/10, 12:00 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: What if the fiscal conservatives aren't sufficiently aligned on social issues?

I'm not seeing a whole lot of social issues being raised at tea party rallys.; 4/19/10, 12:07 PM
Anonymous said...: "I'm not seeing a whole lot of social issues being raised at tea party rallys."

That's because these social issues are traditionally used only as wedge issues to divide groups and keep the governing elite (which includes both Republicrats and Democrats) in power.

Tea Party strategy has been well thought out well in advance. And the proof of that is that the elite media usuals cannot discern the strategy.

They're playing by the old rules.; 4/19/10, 12:11 PM
victoria said...: OMG!!! I just had an "Aha" moment.

themightypuck said, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." Wow. Too true. This isn't anything new (the Tea Partiers) and they are just a flash in the pan. They will accomplish nothing in November and will only further weaken the Republican Party. You want to get us fiscal conservative, socially liberal leaning people on your side, this isn't the way. All I see is middle aged white people, angry at a black president, trying the populist thing. The spokespeople for the groups, the Beck's and the Hannity's and the Sarah Palin's of the world are not populists, they are as rich and removed from them as the politcos are.

You can't govern from the far right or far left. You have to govern from the middle. The Tea Partiers are not the middle.

Vicki From Pasadena; 4/19/10, 12:15 PM
Too many jims said...: Prof Althouse,

You should be ashamed of yourself. Your deliberate choice to frame the picture in this manner is clearly intended to mislead your readers into believing those attending the rally are patriotic people who love their country. Do you have any idea if the people sitting near the flag actually like the flag? Furthermore, your de-colorizing the picture is an illegal attempt by a blogger to reframe an issue (see the Wikipedia entry for the case: New Ham v. The Strawman). I can't believe that the good taxpayers of Wisconsin are letting you get all that money and use their technology/wifi/whatever the heck you are using to post this crap.

As I said, I am offended. To demonostrate my level of being offended, I will return on a regular basis to look at your blog and comment. I trust your abject apology with be forthcoming.; 4/19/10, 12:19 PM
Meade said...: New "Hussein" Ham said...
"A bunch of Tim McVeigh-wannabe terrorist child killers." - Bill Clinton.

Where did Bill Clinton say that?; 4/19/10, 12:20 PM
Opus One Media said...: Try as I might I can't find a minority.; 4/19/10, 12:20 PM
ricpic said...: To be white is to be racist.

--The Wit and Wisdom of Vicki; 4/19/10, 12:23 PM
Anonymous said...: All I see is middle aged white people

I believe you.

For future reference, a populist is not necessarily someone who isn't rich; it's someone who an look at these pictures and see individuals.; 4/19/10, 12:28 PM
Anonymous said...: For the benefit of any academic pseudointellectuals who are monitoring this site for deviationism, I would like to disassociate myself as strongly as possible from the guy who said 與其爭取不可能得到的東西. I do not agree that 與其爭取不可能得到的東西, no one I know thinks that 與其爭取不可能得到的東西, and i for one am shocked and saddened that anyone would say 與其爭取不可能得到的東西 here.; 4/19/10, 12:31 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Vicky- Did you foresee the recent Republican victories in VA, NJ and MA? Or are you usually wrong?; 4/19/10, 12:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Ha ha, they're all old people! And just like Timothy McVeigh, except, you know, old.; 4/19/10, 12:33 PM
ricpic said...: Too much starch in the laundry, Campuzano.; 4/19/10, 12:33 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: All I see is middle aged white people, angry at a black president.

Since liberals view everything through a racial lens I'm hardly surprised.; 4/19/10, 12:42 PM
Rialby said...: Why do people keep calling this "populism"? I was always taught that populism descended from a belief in social conservatism and fiscal liberalism? Wouldn't the tea party movement represent the exact opposite of at least one of those core tenets?

Tea Partyism is, as far as I know, not even focused on social issues. It is a movement rooted in fiscal conservatism. Please correct me where I may have erred.; 4/19/10, 12:48 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: Why the portable chairs? That man has a sock on one foot but not the other. Know what that means? Prosthetic leg. I don't care what you see, what I see is a veteran who sacrificed for his country and who's become alarmed with undisciplined government. But then, I'm presumptuous and often wrong.; 4/19/10, 12:57 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Hoosier Daddy wrote: I'm not seeing a whole lot of social issues being raised at tea party rallys.

Tea Party movement leaders may not be pushing the social issues, but at least some social conservatives are trying to get in with the Tea Party movement. Take a closer look at this photo.

Yesterday, I heard a couple of conservative talk radio hosts doing their best to frame the Tea Party movement as an anti-liberal movement, and they transitioned from limited government to opposition to abortion to the culture war very easily.; 4/19/10, 12:57 PM
Palladian said...: "All I see is middle aged white people, angry at a black president."

Racist.

I'm not joking, either.

racism |ˈrāˌsizəm| noun

the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

• prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief

You're a racist, Vicki.; 4/19/10, 1:00 PM
Fred4Pres said...: I find white tea boring. Black tea is better.

But I prefer green tea.; 4/19/10, 1:03 PM
Palladian said...: "Try as I might I can't find a minority."

That's what happens when you're a wealthy person on Long Island, Harry.; 4/19/10, 1:03 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Rialby, populism has no fiscal agenda. It's more a style of politics rather than a set of governing principles.

Wikipedia offers some background.

The populist movements in the late 20th century tended to be fiscally conservative. Think Ross Perot. To some extent, Jesse Ventura could be described as having run a populist campaign for Minnesota governor. In the campaign, he mixed fiscal conservativism (mostly) with social liberalism.; 4/19/10, 1:04 PM
Fen said...: Victoria: All I see is middle aged white people, angry at a black president

I dont think the Tea Party would take you Victoria. You're a racist, plain and simple. You view everything through the prism of skin color.

For most Americans, skin color is as relevant as hair color. The post-racial Ameerica Obama promised is not the be found on the Left.; 4/19/10, 1:14 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Tea Party movement leaders may not be pushing the social issues, but at least some social conservatives are trying to get in with the Tea Party movement.

I don't doubt it but social issues don't seem to be the overriding factor at the rallys. I seem to recall the movement getting its main impetus when TARP was passed and the subsequent spending spree and not because of abortion, gay marriage, etc.; 4/19/10, 1:14 PM
Alex said...: It seems that most TP are telling the social conservatives to take a hike. This movement is about fiscal conservatism and will NOT be co-opted by any fringe group.; 4/19/10, 1:15 PM
chickelit said...: Peter Hoh wrote: Tea Party movement leaders may not be pushing the social issues, but at least some social conservatives are trying to get in with the Tea Party movement. Take a closer look at this photo.

Peter: take another look at what Althouse wrote here regarding that truck and the Tea Party.
I don't think it is factual to insinuate that the Tea Party organizers invited that truck. As Althouse points out, it would probably show up at a pro-choice rally- so whose side does it make them on?
The truck and its proponents stand on their own merits, distinct from the Tea Party people.

I realize from reading and following your comments that you are rather anti-Tea Party, but you don't have to resort to smearing, unless you're on board with Garage Mahal's new tactics.; 4/19/10, 1:18 PM
Caroline said...: Members of the Tea Party are destined to be disappointed by the Republican Party when Republicans ascend to power.

I agree with the implication that the Repubs are not going to be a magic cure. And it would disappoint me if the Tea Party fades away if Repubs gain control of congress in Nov.

The pressure on all politicians to be fiscally responsible needs to be kept up. Complacency and apathy are what got us into this economic mess in the first place.; 4/19/10, 1:19 PM
Alex said...: The point is that TP can put real pressure on Republicans, whereas Democrats are just enemies who sneer at the TP.; 4/19/10, 1:20 PM
garage mahal said...: I smeared someone? Where?; 4/19/10, 1:21 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Gee, what a diverse crowd.

Yup. Democrats take power, right wingers freak out. An old story.; 4/19/10, 1:22 PM
chickelit said...: GM wrote: I smeared someone? Where?

:); 4/19/10, 1:26 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Gee, what a diverse crowd.

Did you say the same thing when about those anti-war rallies back in the Bush years? Pretty monochromatic crowd then too.; 4/19/10, 1:27 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Or the complete lack of diversity in the pro-gay marriage crowd.

Funny how Alpha is silent about them.; 4/19/10, 1:29 PM
Brian said...: @garage:
I smeared someone? Where?

On the Bill Clinton-Tea Party thread, you basically said someone who regularly reads Althouse and Instapundit, is only doing it to read the latest outrage and get angry at the government/Obama/Dems, so only domestic terrorists could possibly like doing it.

Which is puzzling garage, since you post here a lot.

@Vicki:
You can't govern from the far right or far left. You have to govern from the middle. The Tea Partiers are not the middle.

They're definitely middle class. Even the MSM has conceded that one.; 4/19/10, 1:30 PM
chickelit said...: Alpha wrote: Yup. Democrats take power, right wingers freak out. An old story.

They took power alright- but where is their vision to lead?

If BHO is the the new JFK, what is his vision?
What exactly is his new frontier?
What is he pretending to do besides to manage decline?; 4/19/10, 1:33 PM
garage mahal said...: On the Bill Clinton-Tea Party thread, you basically said someone who regularly reads Althouse and Instapundit, is only doing it to read the latest outrage and get angry at the government/Obama/Dems, so only domestic terrorists could possibly like doing it

I just said they like to drive the narrative.; 4/19/10, 1:43 PM
Peter Hoh said...: El Pollo Real wrote: I don't think it is factual to insinuate that the Tea Party organizers invited that truck.

Look a little harder at what I wrote. I did not suggest that Tea Party organizers invited that truck.

You're overreaching. I reject your insinuation that I'm using smear tactics.

Am I a Tea Party skeptic? You bet. Have I engaged in name-calling? No.; 4/19/10, 1:43 PM
reader_iam said...: Peter, of course there are a mixture of people with different views (not to mention people with a mixture of different views) involved in the Tea Party movement. Are there people disputing that (from the moderate to right side, that is)? I'm not really seeing that, myself.

Certainly there are people who are saying the fundamental, organizing and unifying principal of the movement is fiscal in nature(with the concept of "smaller, more limited" government embedded in that), as opposed to being focused on so-con issues. But that's not the same thing as denying that the tea parties are attracting people whose views differ in areas other than the fiscal, which it seems to me one can infer from you're saying. Is this just a communication disconnect?

One of the most interesting things, to me at least, about the tea party movement is precisely the emerging coalition between members of the right, independents and moderates (both Dem and GOP versions), and that--at least so far--other issues aside from the core fiscal, limited government one are markedly playing second fiddle. This strikes me as fundamentally different than what was playing out for at least a couple of decades prior to the last year.; 4/19/10, 1:46 PM
Triangle Man said...: The truck and its proponents stand on their own merits, distinct from the Tea Party people.

That's fine for protests/rallies in April, but everyone is going to have to get together and elect someone in November.; 4/19/10, 1:49 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: Two observations

1. Black and white photos seem to give you more clarity. You see more, or maybe different, details when in black and white as opposed to color. There seems to be more of a story behind the black and white images.

2. Viki from Pasadena never fails to come through as racist and narrow minded. She is so self unaware that it would be funny if it weren't the scary mindset of the left. The left that wants to pigeon hole anyone who doesn't agree with them and walk in lockstep with them as racist, terrorists, knuckle dragging goobers. Their willingness to suppress free speech, freedoms and their complete disdain for everyone who isn't just like themselves is palpable and really quite disgusting.; 4/19/10, 1:51 PM
reader_iam said...: I'm a poll skeptic and I don't know anything about the methodology etc. used for the POLITICO/TargetPoint poll cited in the linked Politico article. That said, the results of that poll tends to dovetail with what I've observed and discussions I've had with people in the tea party movement and with those sympathetic to it, even if they don't attend rallies.

For what it's worth... .; 4/19/10, 1:56 PM
chickelit said...: Peter Hoh wrote: Look a little harder at what I wrote. I did not suggest that Tea Party organizers invited that truck.

Well here's what you wrote at 12:57(again):

Tea Party movement leaders may not be pushing the social issues, but at least some social conservatives are trying to get in with the Tea Party movement. Take a closer look at this photo. with a link to a photo of the crowd with the truck. If you meant to draw our attention to the crowd and not the truck, then I was wrong, but I don't think you meant that. I think you know exactly what you were doing and it was cheap and dishonest.; 4/19/10, 1:56 PM
Rialby said...: BTW, don't know if you knew this but Hunter S Thompson faked his own death and is now appearing at the tea parties. See above.; 4/19/10, 2:04 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Pollo, the photo illustrates my point that anti-abortion activists are trying to take advantage of the Tea Party movement.

What I wrote: Tea Party movement leaders may not be pushing the social issues, but at least some social conservatives are trying to get in with the Tea Party movement.

Nothing in that says that I think the Tea Party is anti-abortion or socially conservative.

Likewise my point about the guys on the radio. They have their political position, and they were doing their best to try to convince people that the Tea Party movement dovetailed nicely with their agenda. Notice that I'm not suggesting that they speak for the Tea Party movement.

I just read through the thread about that photo. People really think that Althouse is trying to suggest that the people standing on the square are endorsing the truck that is stopped behind them? Seriously?

When you get upset at something like that, it's like you're trying to be offended.; 4/19/10, 2:06 PM
reader_iam said...: I'm not trying to attack Peter, here. I've been familiar with his comments here--and, significantly, elsewhere--for years. I suspect (and I hope he will correct me if I'm wrong) is that he is somewhat in "once-bitten, twice shy" mode, because--I think it's fair to say--he was largely sympathetic to and supportive of certain fundamental conservative principles, only to have those shoved aside in favor of culture wars and litmus tests over social issues. And he may worry that if if a battle again emerged between forces for fiscal conservatism and forces for social conservatism, the latter would win out in terms of where the energy would go. (It's hard to argue, for example, that at various points during the Bush administration that's not EXACTLY what happened, after all.); 4/19/10, 2:11 PM
AllenS said...: Peter,

The Althouse Woman said this: "How could anyone think the people in the foreground are responsible for a truck that goes by in the background?"

[emphasis added]

She does not say "stopped behind them"; 4/19/10, 2:17 PM
Phil 314 said...: Vicki;
More racist rallies here, middle aged racist here, west coast and MASKED racists here, and yes, racists rallying in Washington DC here.

Gosh, they're eveywhere!; 4/19/10, 2:20 PM
Palladian said...: That's not a very diverse crowd, c3. I think you're right, they must be racists!; 4/19/10, 2:22 PM
Phil 314 said...: PS Vicki

Not a racist; 4/19/10, 2:23 PM
Kirby Olson said...: MSNBC had some pollster on from Pew who said that 82% of America is against government take-over of the economy, and are furious about what's happened thus far.; 4/19/10, 2:24 PM
Sloanasaurus said...: Obviously the only thing missing from the pictures are the white hoods, burning crosses, Lynching nooses, beatings, goose stepping automatons, etc...; 4/19/10, 2:25 PM
Sloanasaurus said...: I read recently that the Tea Party movement reminded them of the Perot movement in 1992. I have to admit as a young voter then (age 24), I was greatly drawn to Perot's simple fiscal message and ended up voting for him despite his goofy outbursts towards the end of the campaign.

The Tea Party will be much longer lasting because it is not tied to an individual (Perot).

I would love to see a debate between a tea party member and a democrat to see which one better espouses the views of the founding fathers.; 4/19/10, 2:32 PM
Lincolntf said...: Gotta love how "getting involved" is the highest calling when the Dems want something, but is tantamount to terrorism when they don't.
The Lib professional protesters who have spent years making up things to protest against must be so pissed that they picked the wrong side. Finally a critical mass of Americans is willing to speak up and it's AGAINST the simple-minded Leftism that spawned the "anti-war" hate rallies of recent years.
Come November, the Liberal tears will be aged just right, and I expect that they'll be delicious.; 4/19/10, 2:39 PM
Brian said...: MSNBC had some pollster on from Pew who said that 82% of America is against government take-over of the economy, and are furious about what's happened thus far.

If everybody's racist, is that the same as nobody's racist?

I just said they like to drive the narrative.

Thank Gaia liberals don't like to drive the narrative.; 4/19/10, 2:40 PM
former law student said...: BTW, I'm sure it's racist when most TP are white in a town where 99% of the people are white

Are we still in Madison? Because Madison is only 82% white, according to the Bureau of the Census.

Today is Patriots' Day, as marked by the 114th running of the Boston Marathon. Where are the Tea Partiers today? The NE Tea Partiers should be out in force.; 4/19/10, 2:57 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Here's a funny best-of. (scary!)

http://tinyurl.com/y6y8nh7
Bill Clinton hates these people. They are violent and they should "shut up".; 4/19/10, 3:02 PM
former law student said...: The Tea Party will be much longer lasting because it is not tied to an individual (Perot).

The Tea Party will last longer because it stands against things, not for things as Perot's party did. Perot's agenda would be anathema to today's Tea Partiers.; 4/19/10, 3:03 PM
Alex said...: FLS - the TP only stands against things? What about the "Contract From America"? I bet you didn't read it.; 4/19/10, 3:06 PM
Lincolntf said...: "The NE Tea Partiers should be out in force."

They are, but they're at Fenway. In fact, a couple of them just texted me pics of themselves with the ladies from the 2010 Olympic hockey team. Looks like they're having a blast. I so wish I was there.; 4/19/10, 3:10 PM
Peter Hoh said...: FLS, where do you see the split between Perot and the Tea Party? I think there's a lot of crossover.; 4/19/10, 3:14 PM
Original Mike said...: FLS - Yes, in the liberal's mind standing for smaller government is standing against government.; 4/19/10, 3:17 PM
Lincolntf said...: FLS, I don't think you paid any attention during the campaign. Being "against things" was the only platform Chicago Jeebus had.
He hated Bush, he hated money, he hated the Constitution, etc.
All conservatives want is a return to sanity, and they're gonna get it. While Obama is cementing his place in American history as the worst President ever, we're making plans for the future.
He'll soon lose his House majority and then we'll see what he's really made of. I expect spasms of petulance, more Gates-style expressions of racial insularity, and more attacks on individuals who publicly note his failures.; 4/19/10, 3:18 PM
Alex said...: Original Mike - no matter what we say about it, we're all just closet anarchists. This is what they say on lefty blogs. We can't possibly convince them otherwise. We're anarchists.; 4/19/10, 3:20 PM
Original Mike said...: FLS said: "Perot's agenda would be anathema to today's Tea Partiers."

Can you eloborate? Not disagreeing, just don't know what you mean.; 4/19/10, 3:21 PM
Original Mike said...: I don't feel like an anarchist.; 4/19/10, 3:28 PM
Alex said...: Original Mike - no matter what you say the left knows we are all anarchists. Remember Alinsky.; 4/19/10, 3:31 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Allen, I'm not sure I get your point.

I assumed that the truck was stopped when the photo was taken. I haven't bothered to analyze the truck photo enough to tell if the truck was waiting to make a left or if it was moving forward when the photo was snapped.

Does it matter?

Reader, I'm not sure that social conservatives got a heck of a lot out of the Bush administration, other than a couple of Justices who may or may not make a difference in a future ruling that might make social conservatives happy.

Fiscal conservatives didn't get much, either. The moneyed interests got what they wanted. Tax cuts and increased spending.

Big Pharma got a massive drug spending bill that was favorable to their interests. They responded by hiring the people who helped get the bill through congress. No one protested.

Here in Minnesota, we had a law that required that any stadium tax needed to pass a voter referendum. The county commissioners went around that requirement. Instead of taking their tax hike to the voters, they asked the legislature to change the law. They did, and Governor No-New-Taxes signed the bill, paving the way for the stadium tax.

And no one protested.; 4/19/10, 3:34 PM
Turtledove said...: You know it really doesn't matter if we Tea Party people are black or white or old or young. All that matters is there are growing numbers of us and WE VOTE. I'll tell you the thing that Tea Party all have in common - they don't like Obama's policies and they won't be voting for him. They all don't like their democratic congressional representatives and they won't be voting for them. That is what is worrying the media, the President and all you people who were dumb enough to believe what Obama said in the 2008 campaign.; 4/19/10, 3:35 PM
chickelit said...: FLS wrote: The Tea Party will last longer because it stands against things, not for things as Perot's party did.

I stand for keeping my high-deductible health insurance however: The president actually denounced high-deductible insurance and greater consumer cost sharing as "not real insurance." Both the House and Senate versions of health reform reduce co-payments and all but eliminate policies with high-deductibles.

But go ahead, keep on painting plus as minus and minus as plus; keep on painting opposition to unwarranted change as a negative.; 4/19/10, 3:39 PM
Original Mike said...: Peter - Everything has a beginning.; 4/19/10, 3:40 PM
Original Mike said...: I stand for keeping my high-deductible health insurance

Probably THE worst aspect of the health care bill.; 4/19/10, 3:43 PM
MamaM said...: "... can you imagine fifty people a day,I said fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement." (Arlo G); 4/19/10, 3:50 PM
reader_iam said...: No, I don't think they did either. I was thinking focus and efforts, as opposed to results.; 4/19/10, 3:57 PM
Kirby Olson said...: The Tea Party is just an outgrowth of The Little Red Hen which opens:

Once there was a Little Red Hen who lived in a barnyard with her three chicks and a Duck, a Pig, and a Cat...

She asks them to help her plant the seeds,cut the wheat, go to the miller, make the dough, and bake the bread, but the Duck, the Pig, and the Cat will not, but at the end, when she's done, they're very eager to eat the bread!

"No you won't," said the Little Red Hen.

"You wouldn't help me plant the seeds, cut the wheat, go to the miller, make the dough or bake the bread. Now my three chicks and I will eat this bread ourselves!"

And that's just what they did.

The Little Red Hen: A First Little Golden Book, 1981.

I think copies of this book should be distributed to the media and to people going to Tea Parties so that they have a clear simple narrative as to what they're about.

It beats Mao's Little Red Book that SDS was passing around and redistributing in the 1960s. Obama and bill Ayers might not agree, but this story is the Protestant Work Ethic in 200 words or less.

It should be the Bible of the Tea Party.; 4/19/10, 4:00 PM
Lincolntf said...: Kirby, the Tea Partiers don't need simple narratives or printed handouts from their "leaders". We're the people who already know how the real world works. Leave the fairy tales to the navel gazers and career ignorami on the Left.; 4/19/10, 4:14 PM
themightypuck said...: @turtledove. Voting is great if there is someone to vote for. Government in the USA needs radical fixes that are going to be difficult in our current two party system. There will be no mandate. Politicians will still be owned by lobbies. The Republicans and Democrats are in a death spiral right now with neither side trusting the other enough for any real change. Luckily we are a rich country with a lot of talent. Plus things aren't all that bad notwithstanding the doomsayers.; 4/19/10, 4:23 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: You can see why Clinton is so worried.; 4/19/10, 4:25 PM
Turtledove said...: "Kirby, the Tea Partiers don't need simple narratives or printed handouts from their "leaders". We're the people who already know how the real world works. Leave the fairy tales to the navel gazers and career ignorami on the Left."

"navel gazers and career ignorami" sums it up so beautifully. You are my hero for the day :); 4/19/10, 4:27 PM
Jeremy said...: Freeman Hunt said..."You can see why Clinton is so worried."

Yeah, he probably can't even sleep at night.

*By the way...where are all the black people?; 4/19/10, 4:28 PM
Jeremy said...: Turtledove said..."Kirby, the Tea Partiers don't need simple narratives or printed handouts from their "leaders"

That's only because so many of them can't read.; 4/19/10, 4:29 PM
mesquito said...: That's only because so many of them can't read.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Geez Louise.; 4/19/10, 4:32 PM
KCFleming said...: Jeremy already forgot he changed his name to Raul.; 4/19/10, 4:42 PM
Jeremy said...: How did they talk the family into letting the tea baggers to exhume Hunter Thompson for this thing? And what's with those shoes?; 4/19/10, 4:43 PM
Jeremy said...: Pogo - Do you EVER actually post a comment relating anything you think?

I swear, you sound like a little kid with his first computer.

Read something.

Thinks about it.

Then post a comment.; 4/19/10, 4:44 PM
Anonymous said...: *By the way...where are all the black people?

Hey Jeremy,9 out of 10 blacks voted for Obama,how many do you expect to see at a Tea Party demonstration?; 4/19/10, 4:46 PM
KCFleming said...: By the time Jeremy/Raul/Michael/LuckyOldson posts, I am certain the thread is dying.

That or his very presence induces a fatal arrhythmia.; 4/19/10, 4:49 PM
garage mahal said...: Iranian clerics blame promiscuous women for earthquakes, and Rush Limbaugh blames volcanoes on health insurance reform. What's this world coming to. The hard right in both countries are coming together. Crazy.; 4/19/10, 4:52 PM
Jeremy said...: Pogo - And once again: No relevance.

Get a life, little man.; 4/19/10, 4:54 PM
KCFleming said...: Obama and other leftists are blissfully unaware of the significant amount of volunteer effort that goes into health care (and any enterprise that is not state-run).

That discretionary effort is what allows things to get done beyond what the rules or plans or algorithms suggest. Without it, processes slow down or grind to a halt.

And that is how the tea partiers can crush national health care. "Work to rule" is a very successful way to monkeywrench the plan. It cannot cannot cannot run without the 'free' time donated to enterprises. When all work is contractual, the only work that gets done is what it says in the contract.

And following the precise letter of the law is impossible, so I say, do it. Watch the mammoth's knees buckle under its bloated weight.; 4/19/10, 4:56 PM
Jeremy said...: NotYourTypicalNewYorker said..."By the way...where are all the black people?"

But, but...I thought the tea baggers represented ALL of America...

And by the way, plenty of white people voted for President Obama...and that exactly how he was elected.

But, hey...you do have Steele.; 4/19/10, 4:57 PM
KCFleming said...: Jeremy: "And once again: No relevance."

Always trust the expert in the field.; 4/19/10, 4:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Just what I thought....nothin'.; 4/19/10, 4:58 PM
Jeremy said...: Pogo - "And that is how the tea partiers can crush national health care."

Yeah, that's gonna happen soon.

As if these idiots all have health care right now and just don't need a break in their rates.

DUH.; 4/19/10, 5:01 PM
Jeremy said...: NotYourTypicalNewYorker - So you think the black voters are responsible for electing President Obama?

If so, you're also Not Your Typical High School Graduate.; 4/19/10, 5:02 PM
Brian said...: That's only because so many of them can't read.

Comrade, I hate to correct you on this blog, but it appears you haven't received the latest talking points from the DNC. We no longer characterize the tea baggers as toothless illiterate hicks, but spoiled, educated ingrates:

Link

Please, we need to keep our message on point!; 4/19/10, 5:06 PM
Brian said...: @garage:
What's this world coming to. The hard right in both countries are coming together. Crazy.

Yeah, and you've got a scientist claiming that the volcanic eruptions are being caused by global warming.

Link

Like you said, crazy.; 4/19/10, 5:12 PM
Republican said...: << social issues don't seem to be the overriding factor at the rallys. >>

Social issues are a big part of the teaparty members. The party is endorsing candidates who are very socially conservative, and there are plenty of signs and shout-outs for God and religion at every rally.

The "overriding factor" at any TP rally is they are "independent" of everything.

The price will be paid by Republicans, who gain NOTHING from the TP 'independence'.

They aren't helping the GOP.; 4/19/10, 5:18 PM
Raul said...: Republican said..."Social issues are a big part of the teaparty members. The party is endorsing candidates who are very socially conservative, and there are plenty of signs and shout-outs for God and religion at every rally."

So you feel God would favor "socially conservative" candidates?

You know, to make sure they hold back on that nasty ol' socialized assistance to those selfish poor, elderly, financially strapped and unhealthy fellow human beings?

What part of the Bible did you ever read that in?; 4/19/10, 5:24 PM
David said...: "why did you go with the B+W?"

The only black she could find?

Scott Walker stickers?

Yeah==those tea partiers should support someone who wants to raise taxes a lot, just to show their diversity.; 4/19/10, 5:26 PM
Republican said...: I want my Republican side, to win.

The TP aren't helping my side win in any way.

They are a well-organized business machine driving a very specific agenda (except when anyone mentions liability).

Or are we still pretending the TPers are all independent "grassroots" types with nothing to gain but more conservatism?; 4/19/10, 5:30 PM
KCFleming said...: "What part of the Bible did you ever read that in?"

It's Jeremy Raul!!

Twice as obnoxious at half the intellect!; 4/19/10, 5:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Ahem Jeremy,you said "where are all the blacks?"

I said 9 out of 10 blacks voted for Obama how many do you expect to see at a Tea Party demonstration?

You won't/can't answer because you and your ilk got nothin' but your racist schtick and it ain't working like ALL of the times before.

Your side got it's big chance and look at what you did with it.You're side is going down big time in less than a year and a half and it stings doesn't it?

Come November,you're going to want to put some ice on that,like Slick Willie said...; 4/19/10, 5:32 PM
David said...: Victoria says:

"All I see is middle aged white people, angry at a black president, trying the populist thing."

Well, Victoria (you ageist racist) I am an OLD white person. I'd be middle aged if I expected to live to 122.

I voted for Obama because the Republicans had spent irresponsibly under Bush. They just could not resist spending us into a hole.

Now Obama and his troops are abandoning the hole and digging us a chasm.

Guess who I'm not voting for next time?

You are the racist here--categorizing people you have never met based their age and skin color. Because of people like you, I am no longer a liberal. That makesw me a racist in your bigoted eyes.; 4/19/10, 5:37 PM
Republican said...: Are there people who could be profiting from stirring a crapload of discontent on all sides?

Follow the money, silly teabaggers. You're being had.; 4/19/10, 5:38 PM
KCFleming said...: Republican is a Moby.; 4/19/10, 5:42 PM
mesquito said...: Presumably Republican has followed the money and will now tell us who is profiting an by how much.; 4/19/10, 5:43 PM
X said...: and he sucks at it; 4/19/10, 5:45 PM
hombre said...: Raul wrote: So you feel God would favor "socially conservative" candidates?

You know, to make sure they hold back on that nasty ol' socialized assistance to those selfish poor, elderly, financially strapped and unhealthy fellow human beings?

What part of the Bible did you ever read that in?

Another peddler of liberal clichés feigning knowledge of, or interest in, God, the Bible and conservatism and the economics of poverty.

Yawn.; 4/19/10, 5:47 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Republican is a Moby.

I have known that for sometime Pogo.

Only a dimwit Moby would name himself Republican.; 4/19/10, 5:50 PM
Alex said...: I'm a moby on bad days, but ya'll knew that. Today is a good day - I took me meds.; 4/19/10, 5:52 PM
former law student said...: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=roo0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=_aIFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1347%2C18080

Perot favors abortion rights, including federal funding for women who can't afford it; sex education in schools, including condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS; increased taxes on the wealthy to balance the budget (in 1992!), cutting home mortgage interest deductions, increasing Social Security taxes on the wealthy, and taking steps towards national health insurance.; 4/19/10, 6:00 PM
former law student said...: Are you under the impression that they would supporting unsustainable budgets if only the Republicans were in charge?

Why not? They stayed home from 2000 to 2008. Not until the black man got elected* did the Tea Parties start.

*Just a convenient short-hand way to mark the event.; 4/19/10, 6:02 PM
Trooper York said...: You know I am getting kind of tired of everyone calling someone who acts under false pretenses a "Moby." We need a new term.

How about we call a "Big Poppy" or a "David Ortiz." You know someone who is getting paid to pretend to be a ballplayer. Just sayn'; 4/19/10, 6:03 PM
former law student said...: Know what that means? Prosthetic leg. I don't care what you see, what I see is a veteran who sacrificed for his country

Could be. Or could be a guy who fell off his motorcycle. Or a diabetic. Those were the explanations for the two amps I worked with. A third possibility is that it was congenital, as with the sister of a schoolmate.; 4/19/10, 6:08 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Yea pile on a guy when hes down Trooper.

Alex is not going to last forever you know.. lets just see what the Yanks do with him then.; 4/19/10, 6:25 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Are you under the impression that they would supporting unsustainable budgets if only the Republicans were in charge?

Why not? They stayed home from 2000 to 2008.

Except of course as a percentage of GDP, the deficit from 2000-2008 was neglible hitting a high of 3.4% in 2004. Now its 10.6% under Obama and going up. Perhaps the Tea Party is the response that when one is in a hole, you stop digging but for a partisan hack like yourself its easier just to cry racism since it requires no thinking.; 4/19/10, 6:41 PM
Beth said...: The Republican Party is part and parcel of the problem and it bears a boatload of responsibility for the US (and various states) being in the fiscal mess it's in right now.

If that were true, wouldn't the Tea Partiers have been marching back in 2007?; 4/19/10, 6:56 PM
Trooper York said...: "Yea pile on a guy when hes down Trooper"

But Lem, Big Poppy is just...a big pile. If you know what I mean.

When Alex starts to flag we will drop his ass.; 4/19/10, 6:57 PM
victoria said...: If the TP doesn't help the Republicans, bring 'em on. They can proliferate all they want. I can't help agreeing with themightypuck again. You have to have someone to vote FOR. It seems funny now, AJ, that Scott Brown is distancing himself from the people that brought him to the party. Not a real tea party victory if the victor does not want to identify himself with them. 2 isolated victories, in New Jersey(Need we say more) and in Virginia (a totally right leaning state) does not an election year make. Talk to me after the mid-terms, lets see how many victories you can get.

Vicki; 4/19/10, 6:59 PM
Ann Althouse said...: Why black and white?

I experiment, tweaking each picture in different ways. Sometimes I like what black and white does.

When does that happen?

1. When the color elements are random or distracting or loud or inconsistent with the mood/theme of the picture.

2. When the shapes and forms are good and you want to give them maximum prominence.

3. Sometimes cutting out the color seems to unify everything.

4. Cutting out the color can give the picture a timeless or historical look or a profundity that works.

I'm drawn to black and white in these pictures as a way of eliminating the casual "picnic" feeling and making things seem more serious and significant.

By the way, my Tea Party pictures are notably neutral. I'm not promoting or criticizing these people with my photographs. I'm observing them and presenting them for what they are. I hope you appreciate that.; 4/19/10, 7:14 PM
Kirby Olson said...: Lincoln, I think the Little Red Hen Story, if redistributed to the media, would then get more people who are now on the fence, into the side of the Tea Partiers.

That's the idea, isn't it?

The people who are there need an ideology that they can export.

I think the Little Red Hen would work nicely. It seems harmless. Everybody can read it (even leftists can probably understand it), and it will go over big.

One problem of course is that corporate capitalism with CEOs doing little of the manual labor and yet deriving massive salaries, doesn't quite fit the Little Red Hen story.

But it does still ask us to think about work ethic, and doing what we can, rather than sitting around and either waiting for an entitlement check, or robbing people, or doing something else that's bad for the country.

We need a more complex version of the story to begin to rein in the giant salaries of the CEOs.

Luther suggested that no one in a corporation should make more than five times anyone else.

I think this makes sense.

But everybody should do some work or else they shouldn't get to share the bread.; 4/19/10, 7:35 PM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: Professor Althouse said...

I hope you appreciate that.

I can't speak for others, but I do.; 4/19/10, 7:44 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: If that were true, wouldn't the Tea Partiers have been marching back in 2007?

I don't know did we have a $1.5 trillion deficit in 2007? Is the GOP responsible for profligate spending when they were in power? Yes. But now the Democrats are in power and are doubling down on spending which we're told was bad when the GOP did it and caused the mess but now its supposed to be good because the Democrats are in charge.

Clearly some folks can't think in relative terms when a deficit is 3% of GDP versus the current 10%.; 4/19/10, 7:46 PM
Beth said...: I don't know did we have a $1.5 trillion deficit in 2007?

We were clearly and thoroughly fucked in 2007. You can come up with all the criteria you want, but anyone who denies that isn't being serious. Bush had checked out, content to let the next sucker take the heat. If the Tea Partiers are right to be upset now, they ought to have been gathering and marching then. They didn't because they were good little conservatives. They might have been disappointed in Bush, but they never bothered to get off the Lazy Boy to do anything about it.; 4/19/10, 9:51 PM
chickelit said...: They might have been disappointed in Bush, but they never bothered to get off the Lazy Boy to do anything about it.

How much of a percentage GDP 3% or 10% should be enough to get a person off their Lazy Boy?

I don't have a Lazy Boy (I have a plain chair from IKEA). I went to the TP rally because of what Obama did to my healthcare.; 4/19/10, 11:29 PM
howzerdo said...: My sense is that the Tea Party has grown recently because of the health care legislation. It isn't a single issue, more of a straw that broke the camel's back.; 4/20/10, 12:01 AM
Beth said...: Pfffft.

3 percent! 10 percent!

The economic crash started while Bush was in office. He lolled about and did pretty much crap about it. You were fine with that. You can play enraged patriot all day long, but until the other political party was in office, you didn't do squat. No signs, no Fox-celebrity bus tours. I'm unimpressed.; 4/20/10, 12:10 AM
reader_iam said...: If the Tea Partiers are right to be upset now, they ought to have been gathering and marching then.

Beth: Are you sure want to sign on to the underlying principle of that sentence you wrote, as you wrote it?

Not snark, Beth: NOT. I'm seriously asking you that question and respectfully requesting that you ask it of yourself.; 4/20/10, 12:24 AM
Beth said...: reader, if you're asking whether I think the TPs are right to be upset now, I don't see the point in questioning that. I'm not opposed to their taking to the streets, I'm just underwhelmed by their principles. It's not like they just suddenly woke up and realized ZOMG! We're spending money we don't have! Our priorities are wrong!

They weren't motivated to protest Bush's spending and priorities, even when they began our slide into deficits, job losses, bank crashes. Hey, keep spending money we don't have on things we like. But oh no!!! Not on that stuff we don't like!

Pffft.; 4/20/10, 12:30 AM
reader_iam said...: No, that's not what I was asking.; 4/20/10, 12:38 AM
Alex said...: You know Beth, I actually called you a centrist Democrat the other week. But I take it back. You're just another left-wing hack.; 4/20/10, 12:45 AM
reader_iam said...: For Alex who, like New[whatever]Ham, fancies translation: A reprise.; 4/20/10, 12:58 AM
reader_iam said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/20/10, 1:10 AM
reader_iam said...: I'm 100 percent sure Beth and I can discuss and disagree, even fight, without your "help," Alex, and thank God for that. Now, "with" your "help"--well, that's a whole 'nother thing. Possibly.; 4/20/10, 1:12 AM
Alex said...: reader - get over yourself. Beth was insulting everyone today.; 4/20/10, 1:29 AM
Revenant said...: They weren't motivated to protest Bush's spending and priorities, even when they began our slide into deficits, job losses, bank crashes.

First of all, pretending that Bush "began" a "slide" into deficits is silly. Look at a history of the US national debt; it has increased every year since the 1950s. We haven't had a real surplus (in the "more revenue than expenses" sense) in a half century, and we've only had a budget surplus for a couple of those years.

Secondly, as a tea party supporter and friend or relative of numerous protest attendees, let me tell you that deficits per se aren't the major motivating factor. The major motivating factor is that the government is spending enormous sums of money on things most of the American people don't want -- Obamacare, bank bailouts, auto company bailouts, mortgage bailouts, et al.

Prior years' deficits didn't particularly raise a red flag because (a) the deficits were either much smaller or (as in WW2) essential to something the public wanted. The current deficits are larger (in terms of GDP) than anything since WW2 and are being used primarily to reward the politically connected for their own greed and stupidity.; 4/20/10, 2:46 AM
Revenant said...: We were clearly and thoroughly fucked in 2007.

The economy was, certainly. But almost all of that $1.5 trillion deficit comes from new spending. It didn't have to exist; you can't blame it on the economy.; 4/20/10, 2:47 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: You were fine with that. You can play enraged patriot all day long, but until the other political party was in office, you didn't do squat. No signs, no Fox-celebrity bus tours. I'm unimpressed.

Yeah Beth, no difference between percentages of GDP its all the same. $200 billion is the same as $1.4 trillion. Actually I could give a shit if you're unimpressed. I can hardly say I'm surprised.; 4/20/10, 6:43 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: If the Tea Partiers are right to be upset now, they ought to have been gathering and marching then.

Hey can I used the same principle with the anti-war protesters whose silence was thunderous when Clinton was bombing the piss out of Serbia? Then bombing Iraq? Where was all the outrage then? Hmmmm? Or is illegal wars ok when your side does it?

Pfffft right back.; 4/20/10, 6:46 AM
Peter Hoh said...: Revenant wrote: The major motivating factor is that the government is spending enormous sums of money on things most of the American people don't want -- Obamacare, bank bailouts, auto company bailouts, mortgage bailouts, et al.

I have a hard time believing that there would be similar protests had President Romney implemented a national version of the health insurance plan he implemented in Mass.

And I have a hard time believing that there would be protests had President McCain made good on his campaign promise to bailout underwater mortgages.

Had either McCain or Romney been elected, I am certain they would have signed on to bank bailouts and auto company bailouts, and there would be no protests like we see today.

FOX News pundits would be telling us that all this was necessary and good, and Rush, et al, would be cheering what they now call the socialist takeover of America.; 4/20/10, 9:16 AM
former law student said...: I don't know did we have a $1.5 trillion deficit in 2007?

No. Bush's largest budget deficit was in his last year: a little over $1.4 trillion when his chickens started coming home to roost. The deficit went up only half a billion in 2006.

From W's first inauguration to Obama's first inauguration, the National Debt went up from $5.7 trillion to $10.6 trillion. Interestingly, the amount raided from Social Security and Medicare went from $2.5 trillion to $4.3 trillion -- whenever Republicans assert that Social Security and Medicare are in trouble realize they did a lot to make it so.; 4/20/10, 9:25 AM
former law student said...: The dollar amounts of the National Debt can be perused at

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np; 4/20/10, 9:29 AM
Brian said...: I have a hard time believing that there would be similar protests had President Romney implemented a national version of the health insurance plan he implemented in Mass.

It's fun playing alternate reality. You're never wrong. So here goes:

Mitt Romney tries to bring Romneycare to America, and run up a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit in his Detroit bailout, and the result is an unusual coalition of protesters (derisively called "patsy-ots") who don't like the mandate to buy health insurance. Of particular note are liberal Democrats who protest this program as a giveaway to Big Insurance because of the subsidies for the poor. Black politicians employ civil rights language, saying they can't abide their brethren working on the Big Insurance plantation.

Republicans are dismissive, saying that the movement is simply a movement of "No," offering nothing constructive. And that they suspect a large part of the problem is bigotry towards a Mormon president.; 4/20/10, 9:31 AM
Alex said...: All you have to do is say "tea party" and the left like Pavlovian dogs start frothing.; 4/20/10, 9:32 AM
former law student said...: First of all, pretending that Bush "began" a "slide" into deficits is silly. Look at a history of the US national debt; it has increased every year since the 1950s.

In terms of dollars, perhaps. The real atrocity is how the National Debt doubled under the reign of Reagan and Bush I: from 1/3 of GDP to 2/3. Ron and GHW believed in Keynesian stimulus back then -- the Tea Partiers should burn them in effigy.

The data presentation is here:

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html; 4/20/10, 9:35 AM
Brian said...: No. Bush's largest budget deficit was in his last year: a little over $1.4 trillion when his chickens started coming home to roost. The deficit went up only half a billion in 2006.

Bush is responsible for that. Also, are the senators who voted for it responsible too? Most of that $1.4 trillion deficit was due to TARP, which our president voted for as a senator.

He could have simply abstained and preserved plausible deniability, saying he had a presidential campaign to run, and that it was going to pass anyway. But symbols matter, and he voted for TARP, which you can only conclude that this was spending that he approved.; 4/20/10, 9:37 AM
Alex said...: FLS - the real atrocity was how the Democrat congress under Tip O'Neil/Wright/Foley couldn't restrain spending.; 4/20/10, 9:37 AM
former law student said...: The current deficits are larger (in terms of GDP) than anything since WW2 and are being used primarily to reward the politically connected for their own greed and stupidity.

Assuming that's true, let's look at the scoreboard:

GOP Administration-years spent running up deficits to reward the politically connected for their own greed and stupidity: 20
Dem Admin-yrs spent running up deficits TRTPCFTOGAS: 1; 4/20/10, 9:41 AM
Alex said...: FLS - yeah let's pretend it's all about the POTUS. Remember we last were in surplus under a GOP Congress. Or did Clinton pass the budget all by himself?; 4/20/10, 9:44 AM
Brian said...: @fls:

You're only looking at the Clinton administration then, because prior to that with Carter and LBJ we ran deficits.

Under that scorecard, then, since Clinton had one year of deficit spending (with a Republican congress), that means for '10 we should turn both houses of congress back over to Republican control, if we want the glory years of the Clinton administration.; 4/20/10, 9:45 AM
former law student said...: prior to that with Carter and LBJ we ran deficits.

GDP grew faster under Carter and LBJ than deficits could increase the National Debt. Not true under Reagan and the Bushes.; 4/20/10, 9:50 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: @fls:
uou're only looking at the Clinton administration then, because prior to that with Carter and LBJ we ran deficits.
.

FLS is just a partisan hack who thinks massive deficit spending is fine and dandy when his side does it. Like Beth, FLS obviously has problems understanding the concept of debt to income ratio. See debt is not so much an issue when earnings are high. Like when I make $100K per year and my debt is $20K. Then when my earnings fall to $50K and my spending and debt outlay double then its a problem but that kind of thinking doesn't come easily to hacks.

As for FLS's insistence of GOP raiding SS, there isnt enough bandwidth to illustrate the idiocy of the statement. I'll count on the ability of those who understand basic actuarial science to see that.; 4/20/10, 9:56 AM
Brian said...: @fls:
Point taken, but the other thing to consider is that during Clinton, the cold war ended. We cut defense spending by reducing the size of the military. And an economic boom occurred with communication technology in cell phones and the internet. Tax revenues increased as a result, which is why for a time we had budget surpluses.

If your argument is that we need to get back to the budget policies of Jimmy Carter, then try that one on the current administration.; 4/20/10, 10:00 AM
Alex said...: Hoosier Daddy - the left can't comprehend that it's impossible to raid an IOU. Oh yeah I forgot, Al Gore said SS was in a lock box.; 4/20/10, 10:02 AM
Beth said...: and are being used primarily to reward the politically connected for their own greed and stupidity.

Well, that never happened under Bush so no wonder the Tea Partiers didn't protest. I'm sure they'd have been out in force if someone had noticed profligate waste and theft on the part of politically connected contractors in Iraq, for example. I take it back, the TPers are all patriots of high principle.; 4/20/10, 10:05 AM
Alex said...: Beth - it's just always Bush, Bush, Bush with you. Or is the Dem-brand acceptable?; 4/20/10, 10:09 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Well, that never happened under Bush so no wonder the Tea Partiers didn't protest.

What is it with liberals and the fact they can't develop an argument without dragging Bush into it? Earth to Beth, Bush is gone get new material. Like I said earlier, where were the anti-war protestors when Clinton was waging his illegal wars? Oh yeah, they didn't care so that means their protests were nothing but partisan hackery. Oh yeah and those anti-war protests were real diverse too. Mmmmhmmm.

See its fun to play that game.

Then again Bush was hardly popular when he left office as was the GOP as the election results of 06 and 08 showed. Hey Beth ever stop and think that was the elections that sent the GOP packing were the protest? I mean thats what we're supposed to do isn't it? Throw the bums out? Oh dear...now that the Dems are in charge and spending even more than the GOP did people are even more outraged and ....gasp....protesting it too!

Before you start accusing people of a lack of principles maybe look in the mirror first.; 4/20/10, 10:14 AM
Original Mike said...: Good grief. When you're in a sinking boat you don't argue about who made the hole. Job One is to plug it. The Tea Partiers are doing yeomen's work. Pissing and moaning "where were they in {fill in the year}" is merely a distraction (and a willful one, at that).; 4/20/10, 10:19 AM
former law student said...: FLS obviously has problems understanding the concept of debt to income ratio.

Really? During the administrations of Reagan and Bush I:

National Debt
-------------
National Income

went from 1/3 to 2/3; 4/20/10, 10:31 AM
Beth said...: Earth to Beth, Bush is gone get new material.

Okay. So everything just began anew, afresh, in 2008. Sure.; 4/20/10, 10:35 AM
former law student said...: Most of that $1.4 trillion deficit was due to TARP

And why did we have to resort to TARP? Because the Gramm-led Congress rammed through non-regulation of toxic assets as a rider to the budget bill in December, 2000. Credit default swaps grew like a tumor during the Bush administration.

I guess it was Clinton's fault for not vetoing the budget bill.; 4/20/10, 10:35 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Okay. So everything just began anew, afresh, in 2008. Sure.

Ok Beth. Never mind the GOP was sent packing in 06 and 08. never mind that Obama won and is now spending even more money than the GOP. No one should complain cause they weren't complaing loud enough 4 years ago, they just voted or stayed home and let the opposition take over.

Got it.; 4/20/10, 10:46 AM
Brian said...: @fls:

Pick your poison FLS. Clinton couldn't veto CDS legislation late in his term? What, was he worried about keeping Hillary politically viable in '04? Were they even thinking that CDS legislation was bad? I can't imagine anyone back in 2000 outside Washington or Wall Street even knew what credit default swaps were.

And what, when Daschle became majority leader of the Senate in '01, they couldn't do anything about it either? Were they not thinking about it either? Or were they simply humming along assuming that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae had it covered?

I mean, I don't give Republicans a pass here either, but the way you've framed the argument, we can only trust Democrats to get ANYTHING right, to the point that they'd get EVERYTHING right if only we could get rid of Republicans. Which is strange, because they control both houses of congress and the White house now.; 4/20/10, 10:48 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Really? During the administrations of Reagan and Bush I:
National Debt
-------------
National Income

went from 1/3 to 2/3

FLS is obviously space/time challenged as we were discussing Bush II and Obama.

I guess it was Clinton's fault for not vetoing the budget bill.

I guess if you're going to argue that it was a bad bill then yeah.; 4/20/10, 10:53 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: I guess it was Clinton's fault for not vetoing the budget bill.

Well don't worry FLS, Clinton doesn't think it's his fault either.

But I have really thought about this a lot. I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch (MER) by Bank of America (BAC), which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill.; 4/20/10, 11:16 AM
chickelit said...: I have a hard time believing that there would be similar protests had President Romney implemented a national version of the health insurance plan he implemented in Mass.

What makes you certain that Romney would have steamrolled a nationalized version of Romneycare through at the national level? At worst he may have just stood aside and let other states experiment with it.; 4/20/10, 11:43 AM
Revenant said...: I have a hard time believing that there would be similar protests [if the Republicans had won]

This is known as the "argument from personal incredulity" fallacy.; 4/20/10, 12:30 PM
Alex said...: This is known as the "argument from personal incredulity" fallacy.

The stuff empires are built on.; 4/20/10, 12:36 PM
Revenant said...: GOP Administration-years spent running up deficits to reward the politically connected for their own greed and stupidity: 20

Dem Admin-yrs spent running up deficits TRTPCFTOGAS: 1

Years in which the budget was controlled by Congress: 222

Years in which the budget was controlled by "the Administration": 0 :); 4/20/10, 12:36 PM
Revenant said...: And why did we have to resort to TARP?

Because Congressmen need campaign contributions.; 4/20/10, 12:37 PM
Revenant said...: Well, that never happened under Bush so no wonder the Tea Partiers didn't protest.

It has always happened to some extent. It has never, in American history, happened to the extent it is now. A trillion dollars in a single year, taken from the productive members of a society to reward society's leeches? Revolting, really.

I'm sure they'd have been out in force if someone had noticed profligate waste and theft on the part of politically connected contractors in Iraq, for example.

Oh, please. Haliburton's entire $8 billion take from the war in Iraq is approximately equal to what Washington has been awarding to favored constituencies each day for the last year and a half. Your logic is akin to telling someone "you didn't complain when the guy grabbed your ass, so why are you whining that he raped you later?".; 4/20/10, 12:51 PM
former law student said...: Clinton couldn't veto CDS legislation late in his term?

Only by vetoing The Budget. At the time it must have seemed like burning down your house to kill a mouse, even though at the time we had the lesson of the failure of Long-Term Capital Management. And who knew Phil Gramm had his head up his ass?; 4/20/10, 1:24 PM