… and I’m linking to it:
2009 was the year when many journalists concluded they were slow to recognize the anti-government, anti-Obama rage that gave birth to the tea party movement.
2010 is the year when news organizations have decided to prove they get it.
And get it. And get it some more.
Part of the reason is the timeless truth in media that nothing succeeds like excess. But part of the reason is a convergence of incentives for journalists and activists on left and right alike to exaggerate both the influence and exotic traits of the tea-party movement. In fact, there is a word for what poll after poll depicts as a group of largely white, middle-class, middle-aged voters who are aggrieved: Republicans.
The full story, right here.
Q: Is this story too dismissive of the Tea Party movement?
April 22nd, 2010 at 1:37 PM
We all are just giving them too much notoriety….Oops
April 22nd, 2010 at 1:44 PM
Yep but the why might surprise you, cause it has woken up many conservatives like I on how wrong our side has been (Golly if only the left could have a tea party of their own, maybe things could get better), Jonah puts it well, about not being fooled agin:
But I did see something a lot of people, on the left and the right, seemed to have missed: a delayed Bush backlash. One of the more widespread anti-tea party arguments goes like this: Republicans didn’t protest very much when Bush ran up deficits and expanded government, so when Obama does the same thing (albeit on a far grander scale), Republican complaints can’t be sincere.
But partisanship explains only so much, given that the tea partyers are clearly sincere about limited government and fond of GOP bashing. So here’s an alternative explanation: Conservatives don’t want to be fooled again.
For instance, when Bush’s face appeared on the Jumbotron in the arena, the Cincinnati audience applauded. When speakers blasted Bush and the GOP for “losing their way,” the audience applauded even louder.
Going by what I saw in Cincinnati, second to their profound desire to rein in government, the chief attitude driving the 39% of tea partyers who describe themselves as “very conservative” isn’t partisanship, racism or seizing the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia. It’s “we won’t be fooled again.” In the near term, that spells trouble for Democrats. In the long term, that lays down a serious gauntlet for Republicans.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg-20100420,0,4845155.column
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
April 22nd, 2010 at 2:10 PM
Just yesterday I listened to Amy Goodman make very similar charges, when she noted that the media gives too much attention to this movement, while refusing to adequately cover other movements, rallies, and marches, such as those against war or for immigration reform.
In her critique of the corporate media, Goodman also argues that people are hungry for the truth in American, as the media has largely silenced the majority in the country. Furthermore, she notes that the full range of opinions in the country are not adequately covered, when the media mostly only covers the voices of democratic and republican politicians or those of liberal and conservative pundits, which effectively frames and narrows the range of topics considered in the ensuing public debate.
You can watch Amy Goodman’s recent talk at the Commonwealth Club right here:
http://fora.tv/2010/04/10/Democracy_Nows_Amy_Goodman_in_Conversation
April 22nd, 2010 at 2:15 PM
I think it’s hard for people to grasp an idea of financial responsibility when so many American’s don’t show it on their own lives. People become used to the idea of themselves in debt so they didn’t speak up over the last eight years. Now that the cable news channels are talking about it however people start to notice.
Although I will note that Carter and Clintoln did do a better job of managing debt then the presidents that came after them.
http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html
April 22nd, 2010 at 2:42 PM
Well to bring you up to date DS, we don’t want to forget the O:
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
April 22nd, 2010 at 2:45 PM
But what is worst is where we are going:
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/28/obama%E2%80%99s-tripling-of-the-national-debt-in-pictures/
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
April 22nd, 2010 at 2:47 PM
DS check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5yxFtTwDcc
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
April 22nd, 2010 at 2:52 PM
Here’s some other good one’s to better understand how much we are a talking:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at3MNu8BRwQ&feature=related
But to really blow your socks off, check out the unfunded liabilities:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
April 22nd, 2010 at 3:06 PM
Politico leaves out the overwhelming and record level distrust in government, and legitimate gripes that people have with the government. The highest level of distrust in American history.
How can any legitimate observer of America ignore this??
Politico, like many left leaning groups cannot for one instance admit that there are legitimate issues with government behavior. To admit legitimate grievances, would be to allow that Tea Partier’s may be rational after all.
One of the more interesting, and potentially politically disruptive facts is also missing from Politico and others. This is the phenomenon of increased books sales, as people are showing genuine interest in re-discovering the principles upon which this nation was founded.
They are becoming more politically educated via reading history, and the intimate details of government that has never before been so readily available via the Internet.
This mass education process, portends changes we have not envisioned, as we have never had a society that is so educated about government.
What they are discovering is that we have strayed far from the principles of our Founding Fathers, and are asking themselves if this good for America.
Below is a snippet from the Wall Street Journal that sums up clearly, where we started, and where we are now.
“Classical liberals, whose modern counterparts are libertarians and small-government conservatives, believed that the state’s duties should be limited:
(1) to provide for the national defense;
(2) to protect persons and property against force and fraud; and
(3) to provide public goods that {free}markets cannot.
That conception of government and its duties was articulated by the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the U.S. Constitution.
Congressional committees overseeing industries succumb to the allure of campaign contributions, the solicitations of industry lobbyists, and the siren song of experts whose livelihood is beholden to the industry. The interests of industry and government become intertwined and it is regulation that binds those interests together. Business succeeds by getting along with politicians and regulators. And vice-versa through the revolving door.
We call that system not the free-market, but crony capitalism. It owes more to Benito Mussolini than to Adam Smith.”
Can America survive with Crony Capitalism?
Will America tolerate Crony Capitalism?
As the President goes to Wall Street and criticizes the “evil” Republicans about meeting with Goldman Sachs lobbyists, ….. and then quietly he hires folks directly from Goldman Sachs for senior positions in the American government…
… will Politico even notice we are being robbed by both Parties?
April 22nd, 2010 at 3:58 PM
Since 1990, investment firms and their employees have given a staggering $683 BILLION to candidates for Federal elections.
Yep, that is billion with a B.
This does not include state or local elections.
48% to Republicans and 51% to Democrats.
The only group to give more money since 1990; Attorneys.
The Dems are better. No, the Republicans are better.
Keep arguing, I am sure you are winning.
Both parties love it.
I’m sure you’re winning.
April 22nd, 2010 at 4:18 PM
AFY
I made it through your first link, the next two are videos so I shall have to wait until I am out of the accounting office to take a look.
I won’t argue on Obama’s finacial stewertship becuase as far as I can see your data is correct. Although it does include a Bailout (passed under the Bush era but as I am sure you will point out voted for by Obama) and the two war costs which were started in 2001.
My Point was that this reckless spending is by no means a sole democratic issue. But dems in the past have done a better job of deficit management.
April 22nd, 2010 at 4:19 PM
Yes, gentlemen, revolving doors, campaign contributions, mass media and democracy for corporations.
Money is Speech.
Only “speech” is free. The price of being heard is enormous.
April 22nd, 2010 at 7:38 PM
So, Doug, any source for information that doesn’t mesh with what you personally think is automatically “left,” eh?
April 22nd, 2010 at 8:46 PM
Left, right middle. None of the labels really mater much, but this article in Politico misses the bigger points.
We have a lot of people educating themselves about the principles of government today.
I wonder aloud if there are not some long term consequences that us political pundits are missing.
Could we be headed to a Constitutional crisis?
A constitutional Convention?
Could America be headed to an invigorated Liberatrian Party?
How about a tax revolt?
What happens when a government that governs by “the will of the people”, has a no-confidence vote of the people?
This sort of crisis existed in some respects during the 1930’s, and facism, nazism, and communism were the result.
Parties have changed during our history, and this crisis of confidence in government, if not turned around, or worse if those in power continue to game the system so that those on top, stay on top by virtue of their ties to politicians, this situation could get worse.
Get out of the box Sam. These are extraordinary conditions.
April 22nd, 2010 at 9:12 PM
Or, Doug, perhaps none of the above. As past financial crises have led to unexpected political changes, many you noted, this one has a strategic purpose as well. If you have missed the drift, the next episode, produced by the believers in a new world order, will be world government. Enjoy!
April 23rd, 2010 at 8:50 AM
DS we be on the same page as to the culpability of both parties to our current plight.
It must also be recognized that the purse strings of this country start in the House so to correctly place guilt of this unsustainable immoral debt we must also give credit to which party controlled the House during the years the debt went up or down even more so than to which party controlled the executive. When this evaluation is put into the equation, the R’s and the D’s share of the guilt does have a different reflection than just looking at the executive. But without doubt but parties are guilty as sin.
IMHO we need to cut spending across the board, no sacred cows, none!
My dear GHK, to get that World government all they need is a way to tax the world, don’t they;
http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/22/imf-tax-banks-regulation-opinions-contributors-richard-murphy.html?boxes=Homepagechannels
DK, I also think history repeats itself, and looking at what happened in the begining of the 20th century may just be an insight as to what will be happening in the begining of the 21st. So many things appear to be similar. The very sad part of this if true is the amount of people who died & suffered during those years. Only if we could learn from the past!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
April 23rd, 2010 at 9:42 AM
Yes, AFY, the IMF proposal caught my eye as well. I have been focusing on the decades long effort to use the UN as a regulator/taxer of carbon for some time; and just who is behind it.
April 23rd, 2010 at 9:51 AM
Those who know what is best for the rest but most of all what is best for them!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
April 23rd, 2010 at 4:01 PM
AFY, lmao about that Sudetenland thing.