Tea Party and the Occupy Movement

[Hober Mallow]

I have tea partiers in my family. When the subject of politics comes up, the discussion invariably boils down to how much debt Obama has given us and how Obama is taxing businesses to death. The fact that the majority of our debt came from previous administrations and that the majority of the largest U.S. corporations pay literally nothing in taxes simply falls upon deaf ears.

[Hemodoc]

I have tea partiers in my family. When the subject of politics comes up, the discussion invariably boils down to how much debt Obama has given us and how Obama is taxing businesses to death. The fact that the majority of our debt came from previous administrations and that the majority of the largest U.S. corporations pay literally nothing in taxes simply falls upon deaf ears.

Let me see, the total national debt after over 200 year was around 10 trillion when he took office. Today, it is nearly 16 trillion and another 1 trillion in the next year while he is still in office. While he was running for office, he accused Bush of being unpatriotic for his 8.9 trillion deficit. I guess he and Biden have a new definition of patriotism today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUPZJDBJI84

I call that an abomination.

[Gerald Lively]

The National Debt (not the deficit) was run up by none other than George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.

[Hemodoc]

The National Debt (not the deficit) was run up by none other than George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.

No one is disputing that. However, what about what Obama is doing pushing the rate of debt accumulation through the ceiling? Who says I approve of that as well.

In any case, it is Bush's fault.

[Hemodoc]

There appears to be great confusion about what the Tea Party is. There is no central organization, although there are hundreds of local and national organizations claiming an affiliation with the Tea Party. It is not a political party such as the GOP and DEMs that have a central national organization and central leaders.

The Tea Party movement has caucuses in the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States.[14] The Tea Party movement has no central leadership, but is composed of a loose affiliation of national and local groups that determine their own platforms and agendas. The Tea Party movement has been cited as an example of grassroots political activity, although it has also been described as an example of astroturfing.[15]

The Tea Party's most noted national figures include Republican politicians such as Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul, Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, Eric Cantor, and Michele Bachmann, with the elder Paul described by some as the "intellectual godfather" of the movement.[16][17] The Tea Party movement is not a national political party; polls show that most Tea Partiers consider themselves to be Republicans,[18][19] and the movement's supporters have tended to endorse Republican candidates.[20] Commentators including Gallup editor-in-chief Frank Newport have suggested that the movement is not a new political group, but simply a rebranding of traditional Republican candidates and policies.[18][21][22] An October 2010 Washington Post canvass of local Tea Party organizers found 87% saying "dissatisfaction with mainstream Republican Party leaders" was "an important factor in the support the group has received so far".[23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

[Gerald Lively]

. . .  and Global Warming is a Leftist plot.

[galvo]

. . .  and Global Warming is a Leftist plot.

Certainly is! As people presently in Europe will attest.

[Hemodoc]

.

[Hober Mallow]

The National Debt (not the deficit) was run up by none other than George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.

No one is disputing that. However, what about what Obama is doing pushing the rate of debt accumulation through the ceiling? Who says I approve of that as well.

In any case, it is Bush's fault.

Spending growth is way down under Obama.

[cariad]

I have a sickening story about a follower of the GOP to relate.

Yesterday my kids went to Madison with their summer program (AKA the best child care facility in all the world).

The older kids toured Camp Randall while the younger kids went to the Madison Children's Museum, then all the kids went on a state capitol tour. As the older kids were walking up to the capitol, they passed anti-Walker protestors. A man went up to my son and his two best friends and said "They hate Scott Walker" to which my son's friend J said "We do, too." Then this lunatic starts chanting anti-Obama crap in their faces. THEY ARE NINE YEARS OLD. B and J, the two teachers, both male, tried to reason with him, one of them said that they were just kids and couldn't even vote and to leave them alone, to which he got louder and started shouting that they should tell their parents what they learned that day. B herded the kids away from this guy as quickly as possible. They were on public property. Oh, and did I mention THEY ARE NINE.

So, Aidan did tell me what he learned and I am passing it along: He took away from that experience that if these are the people that support the Republican party, grown men who will taunt and harass nine-year-olds who are just walking through public property to get to an educational event, then he wants nothing whatsoever to do with Republicans or their candidates. Well done, random loser! I'm sure those three boys have learned that lesson for life!

[Willis]

..."They hate Scott Walker" to which my son's friend J said "We do, too."

So where did they learn to "hate" Scott Walker?

And it seems to me that to be really fair-minded that this would have been a good opportunity to teach the children that there ARE random nut-jobs out there (on both ends of the political spectrum) and that an entire class or group of people shouldn't be judged by the behavior of a few individuals. There's been some quite outrageous behavior by some of the Governor's opponents too over the last year or so. Did you even try to give a balanced accounting or are hateful acts only offensive when it's someone you don't like?

 

 

[cariad]

..."They hate Scott Walker" to which my son's friend J said "We do, too."

So where did they learn to "hate" Scott Walker?

From Walker's own actions. My son does not go to school with these other two boys, one goes to Catholic school and one goes to a Montessori. Aidan's school is nearly 80% free-and-reduced lunch which is how poverty is measured within the school system. Seeing his friends there lose access to educational opportunities, seeing teachers he adores lose their jobs, seeing kids lose healthcare which in this house is tantamount to attempted murder. His friend was doing the best he could as a nine-year-old being approached by a stranger. I don't know that the 3rd boy has any opinion on Scott Walker, little J was merely trying to stand up for himself and it was this jerk who used the word hate. How does that guy know that the protestors hate Scott Walker? Did he ask? Perhaps the boys were talking about his policies and his astonishing lack of ethics, and Scott Walker was being used as a stand-in, which is done all the time in speech? [Example: "I love Shakespeare!" Do I mean I love the man or maybe, just maybe, I'm talking about his flipping works and that is obvious to everyone with any English language experience.] Want to nitpick this further, Willis? Cause I have a few things a hell of a lot to get done today.

And it seems to me that to be really fair-minded that this would have been a good opportunity to teach the children that there ARE random nut-jobs out there (on both ends of the political spectrum) and that an entire class or group of people shouldn't be judged by the behavior of a few individuals. There's been some quite outrageous behavior by some of the Governor's opponents too over the last year or so. Did you even try to give a balanced accounting or are hateful acts only offensive when it's someone you don't like?

And it seems to me that you are welcome to raise your own children in your own way and criticize other people's parenting when you are asked for input.

1. I was not there.
2. I don't tell my son how to think.
3. This was alarming behaviour on the part of that idiot and Aidan was shaken by it.
4. I was most concerned with how the adults, B & J, handled it. I give them highest marks.
5. I have not come across 'random nut-jobs' on the left who get in my son's face, I'll cross that bridge if/when I come to it
6. Not everything is defensible, and this was not.
7. THEY ARE NINE.
8. Where do you get off telling me how to talk to my son? Or more accurately, listen to my son?

Since I actually live here and have been to Madison on several protests, do tell me what this 'outrageous behavior' by the Governor's opponents is and how you know it actually happened? Because Fox News says so? My children, my husband, and a few of my friends are the only things sacred to me on this earth. When I want advice on how to discuss something with them from the members here, I ask for it. Otherwise, do feel free to keep those thoughts to yourself.

[willowtreewren]

Cariad, I do hope you could hear my hearty "well said" shout from way down here in Tennessee. Because it is still reverberating in the house!

 

You said it girl!

Aleta

[cariad]

Cariad, I do hope you could hear my hearty "well said" shout from way down here in Tennessee. Because it is still reverberating in the house!

Thanks, Aleta!

I was hoping you'd appreciate that. One thing I do resent is this fantasy that the right and left have an equal number of crazies and that both sets are equally noxious. I have read some wonderful smack downs of the current Republican party, penned by other Republicans. David Frum wrote my favorite. I am not the first member on here who has suggested that the entire GOP has gone off the rails, and I dare say I shall not be the last!

The point that I hope got through to Aidan, and the point I was making in telling this tale, was that this sort of unbecoming behaviour truly undermines the cause that you are trying to promote. Aidan is still at the age where whoever gets the last word is seen as the winner. He felt like this person got the better of him since he was not able to respond. That is just not so. That person made a fool out of himself in front of other adults and made his own party look like ridiculous bullies to impressionable children. Those kids (probably the entire dozen who were there to witness it) will now associate the Republican party with this guy, and that is neither my fault nor my responsibility to undo.

Perhaps one organization is not so good.  We might all consider that thought.

Yes!

[glitter]

One thing I do resent is this fantasy that the right and left have an equal number of crazies and that both sets are equally noxious.

OH I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY!! there are WAYYYYY more crazies on the LEFT!!!     

 

[cariad]

One thing I do resent is this fantasy that the right and left have an equal number of crazies and that both sets are equally noxious.

OH I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY!! there are WAYYYYY more crazies on the LEFT!!!     

Well played, glitter, well played.

[Willis]

When I want advice on how to discuss something with them from the members here, I ask for it. Otherwise, do feel free to keep those thoughts to yourself.

This is obviously a political thread on a public forum.

You posted publically on this political thread about an incident involving a confrontation between a man and some children. By the way that story was related it turned into a political statement. The story could have easily been related--in a non-political thread--without the political overtones that weren't really relevant to the point of an adult verbally abusing children. If the story had been told in that way it's likely everyone would have been sympathetic because such behavior is indeed inappropriate for any adult.

However, by turning it into a political diatribe against Republicans generally you basically implied that all Republicans are creeps and child abusers. Now maybe you actually believe that, but I hope not.

 

[jbeany]

ENOUGH. 
Political commentary is welcome.  This is devolving rapidly from that.

Willis, personal attacks are not welcome here.  The following is leaning too far over that line towards a personal attack on cariad and her parenting.

 Did you even try to give a balanced accounting or are hateful acts only offensive when it's someone you don't like?
 

Everyone either resumes discussing the idiocy that is our political system without personal jabs, or this thread will be locked.

jbeany, Moderator

[cariad]

Everyone either resumes discussing the idiocy that is our political system without personal jabs, or this thread will be locked.

jbeany, Moderator

Thank you, jbeany, and I apologise for my part in the deterioration of this discussion.

This is obviously a political thread on a public forum.

My story had a mention of Obama and protestors. This is a public forum with rules, posting in this discussion does not mean anything goes when it comes to replies.

You posted publically on this political thread about an incident involving a confrontation between a man and some children. By the way that story was related it turned into a political statement. The story could have easily been related--in a non-political thread--without the political overtones that weren't really relevant to the point of an adult verbally abusing children. If the story had been told in that way it's likely everyone would have been sympathetic because such behavior is indeed inappropriate for any adult.

However, by turning it into a political diatribe against Republicans generally you basically implied that all Republicans are creeps and child abusers. Now maybe you actually believe that, but I hope not.

 

If you had chosen to respond this way initially, fine, I can work with this. It strikes me as more than a bit controlling to tell me how to relate experiences from my own life and where to post them on this forum, and I can assure you that that story would have been written in the same way no matter where on this forum I chose to place it. I feel I chose the most appropriate place but moderators are always at liberty to move posts if one of them disagrees.

If you truly, truly believe that my story was trying to make ALL Republicans out to be "creeps and child abusers" then I offer my sincere apologies to the Republicans on this forum. I am having a hard time believing that you did not see this as a story about reversal of intention, but only you would know so I'll take you at your word. You seem to be the only one who took it that way, but it's entirely possible that others were scared off when you insinuated that I failed as a mother because I did not respond as you think you would have. I can say without fear of contradiction that I know Aidan better than anyone on this forum, and quite likely better than anyone on this planet. Aidan gave the account, not me (again, I wasn't there), I was merely helping him process the episode. On here, I was processing the episode myself - it's not fun to see your child rattled and feeling like he missed an opportunity to defend not only his own beliefs but the beliefs of his parents. But of course, I do believe that that individual did more harm than good to his own cause. I also seem him as a symptom of the GOP's biggest problem, that's it's been hijacked by paranoid extremists.

I am continually amazed at what Republicans will tolerate within their own party. I think this confrontation begs the larger question: When are the sane Republicans going to rise up and wrestle their own party back from the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and Sarah Palin? Because eventually the GOP will be back in power, and for the sake of this country I certainly hope when that day comes that they are not still taking their cues from these self-serving, exploitative narcissists.

Here is the article I mentioned by David Frum, who by the way lost his job for making these sorts of statements. http://nymag.com/print/?/news/politics/conservatives-david-frum-2011-11/

It is intelligently written and has some great analysis on how the GOP has reached this point where the inmates are running the asylum. Here is but one small excerpt from this exceptional piece:

The list of tea-party candidates reads like the early history of the U.S. space program, a series of humiliating fizzles and explosions that never achieved liftoff. A political movement that never took governing seriously was exploited by a succession of political entrepreneurs uninterested in governing—but all too interested in merchandising. Much as viewers tune in to American Idol to laugh at the inept, borderline dysfunctional early auditions, these tea-party champions provide a ghoulish type of news entertainment each time they reveal that they know nothing about public affairs and have never attempted to learn. But Cain’s gaffe on Libya or Perry’s brain freeze on the Department of Energy are not only indicators of bad leadership. They are indicators of a crisis of followership. The tea party never demanded knowledge or concern for governance, and so of course it never got them.

[KarenInWA]

"I am continually amazed at what Republicans will tolerate within their own party. I think this confrontation begs the larger question: When are the sane Republicans going to rise up and wrestle their own party back from the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and Sarah Palin? Because eventually the GOP will be back in power, and for the sake of this country I certainly hope when that day comes that they are not still taking their cues from these self-serving, exploitative narcissists. "

Amen, cariad!

I don't have much to add to that at this moment, as I am at work, but I just wanted to say you stated that perfectly and I couldn't have chosen better words to say it myself. Thank you!

KarenInWA

[jbeany]

I have to agree.  I've always been an Independent.  I like having two intelligent sides arguing about the best possible solutions.  It hasn't been happening lately.  I admit that the left has always had its share of wing nuts, but they aren't the major movers and shakers in the Democratic party right now.  That doesn't seem to be true for the Republicans.  Last election, I didn't think McCain was a horrible choice until he went with Palin for a running mate.  This time, Romney has had to push his own ideology so far to the right to appeal to the biggest influences in his party that he stopped seeming like a reasonable candidate to me.  The infighting in the Republican party made him take positions I don't think he would have if he didn't have to pander to the extreme right.  If he was still the Republican he was as governor, I'd have had a real decision to make.  Watching him insist he's going to repeal a health care act based on his own has ended that option for me.

[YLGuy]

I have to agree.  I've always been an Independent.  I like having two intelligent sides arguing about the best possible solutions.  It hasn't been happening lately.  I admit that the left has always had its share of wing nuts, but they aren't the major movers and shakers in the Democratic party right now.  That doesn't seem to be true for the Republicans.  Last election, I didn't think McCain was a horrible choice until he went with Palin for a running mate.  This time, Romney has had to push his own ideology so far to the right to appeal to the biggest influences in his party that he stopped seeming like a reasonable candidate to me.  The infighting in the Republican party made him take positions I don't think he would have if he didn't have to pander to the extreme right.  If he was still the Republican he was as governor, I'd have had a real decision to make.  Watching him insist he's going to repeal a health care act based on his own has ended that option for me.

[MooseMom]

I am a very strong advocate of what is known as a "loyal opposition", and I don't see the Tea Party as "loyal".

I would like to think that it is the media's coverage of the Tea Party that has come to define the current state of the GOP, that true republicans are more thoughtful and "deep" than those who merely start yelling "Freedom and Liberty" in answer to tough questions they cannot grasp.

I heartily resent Mitch McConnell's (sp?) assertion years ago that his party's number one priority was to make our democratically elected President a one-termer.  That was the most traitorous, disloyal, despicable thing I've heard a political leader ever say, and I will never, ever forgive him for that.  That comment set the tone for this do-nothing Congress, and said congress has done more to hurt our nation than anything else.  All because of pandering to the damned Tea Party.  I want so much to believe that his remarks are not indicative of the entire GOP way of thinking, so Willis, if you could spend the time disabusing me of that notion, I would be grateful.  I don't like believing this way.

I do understand the clamour for "smaller government".  I do understand that the left/Democrats have the reputation of making government bigger and bigger, and I personally am not a fan of that.  I am for efficient government, smart government, targetted government.  I know that government can become corrupt.  Congresspeople can be corrupt, but we have to have a Congress because that's what the Constitution demands.  I am happy to see more state and local control.  We have always debated the role of a centralized government; this current debate is nothing new.  I don't think that everything the Tea Party is demanding is completely idiotic, but I do not like their uncompromising tone.  Our Constitution is based on the concept of compromise, and because of that, I see the Tea Party not as patriots but instead as disloyal.

But that's just me.

[cariad]

Thanks so much for taking the time (at work no less!) to give me such a flattering compliment, Karen.

I do understand the clamour for "smaller government".  I do understand that the left/Democrats have the reputation of making government bigger and bigger, and I personally am not a fan of that.  I am for efficient government, smart government, targetted government.  I know that government can become corrupt.  Congresspeople can be corrupt, but we have to have a Congress because that's what the Constitution demands.  I am happy to see more state and local control.  We have always debated the role of a centralized government; this current debate is nothing new. 

As I've mentioned earlier, I am reading the seminal work The Gift by Mauss. I am almost finished and when I was at the boys' gymnastics, thrilled to find this passage and found it quite similar to what you've said above.

Then we need better care of the individual's life, health and education, his family and future. We need more good faith, sympathy and generosity in the contracts of hire and service, rents and sale of the necessities of life. And we have to find the means of limiting the fruits of speculation and usury. Meanwhile, the individual must work and be made to rely more upon himself than upon others. From another angle he must defend his group's interest as well as his own. Communism and too much generosity is as harmful to him and society as the selfishness of our contemporaries or the individualism of our laws. .... The life of the monk and the life of Shylock are both to be avoided. This new morality will consist of a happy medium between the ideal and the real.

I nearly stood up and cheered. I think I'm probably one of the more liberal members in this discussion, yet I too want "efficient government, smart government, targeted government'. What separates me from the tea party is that I still want government. And for the country to act as a country, not a loose collection of fiefdoms in no-win competition with one another. Strong centralization of certain areas of public life will ensure greater fairness and stability, possibly even lower cost, and I am all for that.

[Willis]

What separates me from the tea party is that I still want government. And for the country to act as a country, not a loose collection of fiefdoms in no-win competition with one another. Strong centralization of certain areas of public life will ensure greater fairness and stability, possibly even lower cost, and I am all for that.

First let me say that in my earlier posts it was never my intention to make personal attacks. I thought I was just asking some pointed questions that deserved some serious consideration. It's not my style to just be a bomb-thrower in forum threads. But to anyone offended all I can say is that I wasn't trying to offend you.

Now concerning the post above. This shows how differently people can look at the same things and see something SO different! I'm not a Tea Party person and have never attended a political rally of any kind. But it never seemed to me that the Tea Party folks were (or are) clamoring for anarchy. Rather, they want the government to be run by a more strict interpretation of the US Constitution than is currently in vogue by both parties. And that is not advocating anarchy even if one disagrees with that position.

And as for centralization insuring "greater fairness and stability"... to me it seems that greater centralization limits choices and makes things LESS fair and LESS stable. If California passes laws or implements taxes that people don't like they can move to Arizona or Texas if they think that gives them better choices. If the Federal government makes the laws all the same then people lose their freedom of choice since they can't get away from bad government decisions. It was the intention (I believe) of the Founding Fathers who came up with the US Constitution that one of the principle designs of our nation was that it WOULD be a collection of various jurisdictions in competition with each other. Now the Civil War proved that the idea can go too far and that a stronger Federal Government has its advantages. And of course the Constitution was not perfect or it wouldn't have been amended 28 times. But I think competition in general is a good thing both in government and business.

I hope you will see that I'm just trying to discuss things from another point of view and that you will consider how there is always more than one way to look at things. Like most opinionated people I find it hard to "see" the other side of things and you may be the same way and think my ideas are crazy. The quote from Mauss seems to be making the point that balance is the key in all things. It's possible that what may seem "fair" to one person may in fact be "unfair" to someone else. So even what's "fair" is not always easy to define. If life was fair I wouldn't be on dialysis...or maybe if life really was fair some of my comrades from the Army would be alive and I'd be buried at the VA Cemetery instead.