A Democrat official in New Hampshire says that the Tea Partiers are out of their minds. Well, the feeling is mutual, I’m sure. I don’t have an idea why this guy, and Pelosi, and the other Democrats trying to denigrate these people think that this is going to tamp down the anger at them. And according to Rasmussen, if they’re crazy, there are an awful lot of crazy folks out there, including a lot of Democrats. And note the huge opinion gap between political elites and the rest of us. All this is going to do is get people to sharpen up their pitchforks even more.
[Update a few minutes later]
Michael Barone says that the public isn’t as stupid as the political elites would like to believe:
Many of the sneering comments about the participants in last week’s hundreds of tea parties across the nation were premised on the idea that these people didn’t know much about public policy. The hostile CNN reporter (Rush Limbaugh might call her an infobabe) who told tea party attendants that they were going to get tax rebates was an example of that. It was also an example of the condescension of so many in the media: ordinary people should be satisfied with getting a few extra bucks now and shouldn’t worry about the long-term effects of huge increases in government spending and government debt. As I wrote last, the idolators who attended Obama events last year seemed entranced by the candidate’s persona, while the tea party participants seemed preoccupied with serious issues of long-term public policy. Which side was more intellectually serious?
We’ll see how long he can continue to skate on charisma alone. Because that’s about all he has.
[Update late morning]
More Tea Party thoughts:
What we found most striking about the tea party we attended, and those that we observed taking place elsewhere, is how it departed from the normal partisan atmosphere one comes to expect at political rallies. Those in attendance were for the most part not political activists, and most did not come to support one party or oppose another, though certainly there was an emphasis on limited government that once was, and must become again, the rallying cry of the Republican Party.
We say once because during the presidency of George W. Bush, Republicans in Washington abandoned their economic principles. Spending rose and the earmark culture flourished. As has often been said, Republicans went to Washington to drain the swamp, but instead joined the alligators.
Thus, the furious reaction by many on the left to the tea parties. They hoped, they believed that fiscal conservatism was a spent force, that conservatives had lost the credibility and even the will to be fiscally responsible. After bringing America dramatically closer to the European economic model of state control in three short months, with only fawning approval from the mainstream media, suddenly from out of nowhere came demonstrations of mass opposition to the Obama program. Left wing activists, flush with triumph, could only ask with great annoyance: How could the “failed” policies of the past eight years suddenly have such popular support?
They fail to recognize that the tea parties are not Republican forums for Bush nostalgia. They are expressions of frustration with the government’s failure to live within its means, as the rest of us must. Hundreds of billions of dollars in Bush administration debt are being chased by trillions of dollars of Obama administration debt. The pundits care only about political scorekeeping, so they simply are not equipped to understand the honest-to-goodness, enough-is-enough exasperation of the tea parties.
The fact that the tea parties represent a grassroots movement only perplexes the cynics further, because Obama’s election to the presidency has been marketed as the apotheosis of grassroots populism. It is as if the true believers of ever-expanding government have actually convinced themselves that only hedge fund managers on Wall Street could possibly oppose the government takeover of the private sector. Of course, they’ve also convinced themselves that a federal government unable to balance its budget — or even to finish its budget on time — year after year is somehow going to introduce sound accounting to the private sector.
Rand yesterday:
I didn’t see any rage. What are you referring to? I saw peaceful protests, with people dancing and cheering to Ted Nugent.
Rand today:
I don’t have an idea why this guy, and Pelosi, and the other Democrats trying to denigrate these people think that this is going to tamp down the anger at them.
“Dancing and cheering” is how the tea baggers express anger?
We’ll see how long he can continue to skate on charisma alone. Because that’s about all he has.
One thing he doesn’t have is credible opposition. He has a GOP that doubled the debt on its watch and can’t think of anything that they’d do differently, and a fringe (e.g. our host) who aren’t sure whether even wildly popular policies like the Clean Air Act are legitimate.
“Dancing and cheering” is how the tea baggers express anger?
If you ever have the incivility to use that ugly term on this site again, you will be banned. It’s something that I rarely do, but I’ve had it with these vile insults of people who are simply expressing their political views.
Yes, “dancing and cheering” at a protest is one way of showing their anger. The main way was taking time away from a productive life to protest something, a rare or unheard-of thing for them, unlike the left, which does it for a living, often with government subsidy (e.g., ACORN).
Add one more thing these “clingers” want to hang on to: their hard-earned income.
Jim says: One thing he doesn’t have is credible opposition. He has a GOP that doubled the debt on its watch
And how many more doubles are necessary?
As for dancing and cheering…maybe they liked Nugent?
If you ever have the incivility to use that ugly term on this site again, you will be banned.
Sorry, I thought that was the term that the movement was using. What do tea party attendees want to be called?
I always thinl “t–b–ing” is what “liberals” do with Oabam. Metaphorically speaking, of course.
Sorry, I thought that was the term that the movement was using. What do tea party attendees want to be called?
No, it’s the childish and obscene name that Anderson Cooper came up with. I don’t know what they want to be called, but it’s not that.
http://www.reference.com/search?q=Tea+bagging
Jim,
You sorry sack of sh*t.
F’ off. With the internet, you have NO excuse to use terms whose meaning you don’t know.
And you can be as disingenuous as you want in your denials, but the ready availability of information means that a reasonable person would have known the meaning of a term before using it.
again, F’ off.
And Mr. Simberg, ban this old gray head if you must, but spare this post.
Jim, ask yourself, what is the difference between rage and anger? There is a difference. Rand of yesterday is consistent with Rand of today.
One thing he doesn’t have is credible opposition. He has a GOP that doubled the debt on its watch and can’t think of anything that they’d do differently, and a fringe (e.g. our host) who aren’t sure whether even wildly popular policies like the Clean Air Act are legitimate.
“Wildly popular” doesn’t mean legitimate. This is one of the subtle differences between a democracy and a republic. We have the latter. Further, I don’t see a lot of evidence that most people take opportunity costs into account. Sure they see the big things like somewhat cleaner air in cities. But they don’t see the many little restrictions imposed by the Clean Air Act or the jobs and opportunities missing because of the Clean Air Act.
As far as the two main parties are concerned, I’ve only voted for a main party candidate twice (since 1987), Clinton for his first term and McCain. Both parties have a long history of putting forth remarkably weak candidates and of advocating policies inimical to my interests.
I thought Jim’s original comment was interesting for several reasons.
There is, of course, the irony of Jim doing that on a post titled “Winning Hearts and Minds”. And that in doing so he illustrates Simberg’s point.
But the most interesting thing is that Jim, who thinks himself well informed, had no idea that the term was not a generally used one but only a vile derogatory one used only by political opponents of the protestors. What does that say about the sources Jim uses? What I wonder is whether, on presented with this point, Jim might consider what else he “knows” that is really the product of vicious political bias.
Well, no, I don’t wonder. I think we know.
I didn’t think the Tea Parties were any big deal, just a bunch of angry old white guys. But the way everyone from Jim to David Axelrod to that Garafolo lady are hyperventilating about these things, they must be having some kind of effect.
I didn’t think the Tea Parties were any big deal, just a bunch of angry old white guys.
You mean like this?
Why did you think that? Did you actually believe James Carville and the MSM? The pictures I’ve seen of them indicate nothing of the kind. Instapundit has shown lots of young women and children at the rallies.
Is it possible Paul was writing “tongue in cheek”?
And Garafalo is a lady? Hmph.
I guess I missed that through the haze of all those racist claims s/he was throwing around.
Hideous glasses on him/her, too.
Paul, meet Katrina Pierson. Jim should grovel at her feet and beg forgiveness.
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/20/janeane-garafolo-meet-katrina-pierson/
the term was not a generally used one but only a vile derogatory one used only by political opponents of the protestors
That just isn’t true. Fox called on viewers to “T-B the White House”. There’s a “T-B Obama” blog and Twitter feed (and even t-shirts). Some protesters held signs saying “T-B the Liberal Dems”.
Paul, meet Katrina Pierson. Jim should grovel at her feet and beg forgiveness.
Why, exactly?
Because she’s the living antithesis to everything you believe. She explains clearly why your belief in big government is wrong. Did you watch her?
As much as I disagree with Jim and think he is a complete idiot I believe we should cut him some slack on his use of a tea bag term. It is possible that while typing the post it did not occur to him the truly negative aspect of the term. He probably did mean it to be condescending but I do not believe he was using it as a sexual reference.
Jim – To make it perfectly clear, using the term you did, in the way you did would be the same as using the “N” word when referring to a black man. Words are words but the meaning behind them has led to many deaths. Be very careful and concise when you speak (or type) because your influence could go farther then you think.
Jim:
“Fox called on viewers to ‘T-B the White House.’”
I say this is a falsehood which Jim should either substantiate or retract. FOX certainly took advantage of the tea parties to boost ratings and very likely the crowd count at a handful of venues, but even FOX understood that the movement favors neither of the two political parties, as evidenced by the rejection, in many instances, of Republican office-holders who tried to horn in on events. Furthermore, people can point all they like at Dick Armey and his Freedom Works (or whatever it is) outfit as the organizers of the movement. But, if asked who he might be, the great majority of participants at the rallies would have responded to that question with a blank stare.
My prediction would be: if the Obamabots keep up the insults, and the party in power continues to be seen as undermining the economy and our national security, there’s no guarantee that all future gatherings will be quite as ecumenical as what we’ve seen.
Sad to say despite the derisive comment by the NH Dem pol, NH will continue to elect Democrats. The moonbat infestation from MA has overwhelmed the NH culture.
“Why did you think that? Did you actually believe James Carville and the MSM? ”
Yes Rand, not having followed the story closely, as a matter of fact I did. Even Glenn Reynolds was apologizing for their small scale, suggesting that most of the people who would attend such a thing still have jobs and have to show up to work instead.
But after David Axelrod’s remarks and the venom directed at the Tea Parties by Jim, my impression has changed from this being retired people with stock portfolios venting steam to something that is starting to get attention. You know, the first they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win. This thing has climbed from Stage 1 through Stage 2 clear on to Stage 3.
I guess I was attempting irony, that if the Left could leave things at Stage 1 or early Stage 2, they would be ahead of the game. But I guess they can’t. The fact that you have Jim on this page, and American Spectator has this Mathews fellow or whatever his name trolling over there means that what you and others or doing has gone to Stage 3 — they are fighting you Rand.
Bill:
Because she’s the living antithesis to everything you believe. She explains clearly why your belief in big government is wrong. Did you watch her?
Yes, I watched her. She is an admirable person, but her personal experience hardly settles the question of how large or small our government should be. Listening to her you would get the idea that the big issue motivating the tea party protests was lazy people on welfare. But in fact welfare rolls are way down from the 1980s.
danae:
I say this is a falsehood which Jim should either substantiate or retract.
Go to YouTube and search for video 3mwbR9gYc7Q — about 2 minutes in.
Or video Uz4Z1pvCUbo — 2:50 in.
Jim, Jim, Jim, we are not all as witless as you might think.
If you’ll review both videos you referenced, you’ll find that Griff Jenkins merely reported that FOX had learned that many people were suggesting that teabags be mailed to the White House. He also stated in each video that teabags mailed to the White House would not be delivered.