"White Male Liberty Patriot Bingo,"

[kalm]

Let's play!

In the Tea Party narrative, victory at the polls means a new American revolution, one that will "take our country back" from everyone they disapprove of. But what they don't realize is, there's a catch: This is America, and we have an entrenched oligarchical system in place that insulates us all from any meaningful political change. The Tea Party today is being pitched in the media as this great threat to the GOP; in reality, the Tea Party is the GOP. What few elements of the movement aren't yet under the control of the Republican Party soon will be, and even if a few genuine Tea Party candidates sneak through, it's only a matter of time before the uprising as a whole gets castrated, just like every grass-roots movement does in this country. Its leaders will be bought off and sucked into the two-party bureaucracy, where its platform will be whittled down until the only things left are those that the GOP's campaign contributors want anyway: top-bracket tax breaks, free trade and financial deregulation...

So how does a group of billionaire businessmen and corporations get a bunch of broke Middle American white people to lobby for lower taxes for the rich and deregulation of Wall Street? That turns out to be easy. Beneath the surface, the Tea Party is little more than a weird and disorderly mob, a federation of distinct and often competing strains of conservatism that have been unable to coalesce around a leader of their own choosing. Its rallies include not only hardcore libertarians left over from the original Ron Paul "Tea Parties," but gun-rights advocates, fundamentalist Christians, pseudomilitia types like the Oath Keepers (a group of law- enforcement and military professionals who have vowed to disobey "unconstitutional" orders) and mainstream Republicans who have simply lost faith in their party. It's a mistake to cast the Tea Party as anything like a unified, cohesive movement — which makes them easy prey for the very people they should be aiming their pitchforks at. A loose definition of the Tea Party might be millions of pissed-off white people sent chasing after Mexicans on Medicaid by the handful of banks and investment firms who advertise on Fox and CNBC...

The individuals in the Tea Party may come from very different walks of life, but most of them have a few things in common. After nearly a year of talking with Tea Party members from Nevada to New Jersey, I can count on one hand the key elements I expect to hear in nearly every interview. One: Every single one of them was that exceptional Republican who did protest the spending in the Bush years, and not one of them is the hypocrite who only took to the streets when a black Democratic president launched an emergency stimulus program. ("Not me — I was protesting!" is a common exclamation.) Two: Each and every one of them is the only person in America who has ever read the Constitution or watched Schoolhouse Rock. (Here they have guidance from Armey, who explains that the problem with "people who do not cherish America the way we do" is that "they did not read the Federalist Papers.") Three: They are all furious at the implication that race is a factor in their political views — despite the fact that they blame the financial crisis on poor black homeowners, spend months on end engrossed by reports about how the New Black Panthers want to kill "cracker babies," support politicians who think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was an overreach of government power, tried to enact South African-style immigration laws in Arizona and obsess over Charlie Rangel, ACORN and Barack Obama's birth certificate. Four: In fact, some of their best friends are black! (Reporters in Kentucky invented a game called "White Male Liberty Patriot Bingo," checking off a box every time a Tea Partier mentions a black friend.) And five: Everyone who disagrees with them is a radical leftist who hates America.

It would be inaccurate to say the Tea Partiers are racists. What they are, in truth, are narcissists. They're completely blind to how offensive the very nature of their rhetoric is to the rest of the country. I'm an ordinary middle-aged guy who pays taxes and lives in the suburbs with his wife and dog — and I'm a radical communist? I don't love my country? I'm a redcoat? Fuck you! These are the kinds of thoughts that go through your head as you listen to Tea Partiers expound at awesome length upon their cultural victimhood, surrounded as they are by America-haters like you and me or, in the case of foreign-born president Barack Obama, people who are literally not Americans in the way they are.

It's not like the Tea Partiers hate black people. It's just that they're shockingly willing to believe the appalling horseshit fantasy about how white people in the age of Obama are some kind of oppressed minority. That may not be racism, but it is incredibly, earth-shatteringly stupid.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/10/03-0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Bronco]

Fla. man denies cocaine found in buttocks is his


Associated Press ^ | Oct. 4, 2010

BRADENTON, Fla. (AP) -- When sheriff's deputies allegedly discovered a bags of marijuana and cocaine between a man's buttocks, they said he gave a quick explanation. Manatee County deputies said Raymond Stanley Roberts told them "The white stuff is not mine, but the weed is."

[Ivytalk]

kalm himself is the author of the title screed.

[kalm]

The Tea Party is many things at once, but one way or another, it almost always comes back to a campaign against that unsafe urban hellscape of godless liberalism we call our modern world. Paul's platform is ultimately about turning back the clock, returning America to the moment of her constitutional creation, when the federal bureaucracy was nonexistent and men were free to roam the Midwestern plains strip-mining coal and erecting office buildings without wheelchair access. Some people pick on Paul for his humorously extreme back-to-Hobbesian-nature platform (a Louisville teachers' union worker named Bill Allison follows Paul around in a "NeanderPaul" cave-man costume shouting things like "Abolish all laws!" and "BP just made mistakes!"), but it's clear when you talk to Paul supporters that what they dig most is his implicit promise to turn back time, an idea that in Kentucky has some fairly obvious implications.

[GannonFan]

You know, there are plenty of independent voters out there that are going to end up voting either for Tea Party candidates or GOP (or Dem for that matter) candidates who parrot the fiscal conservative message of the Tea Party. Trying to ignore the overwhelming message coming from the electorate that many in the electorate are concerned with runaway government spending and massive deficits and instead trying to tarnish anything remotely related to the Tea Party, including that fiscal message, as either racist or Neanderthal (or both) is just amazing in it's own right, as well as just being wrong.

The Tea Party and the GOP will win a lot of seats in November not because they were racist (some may be), not because they were backward thinking simpletons (some may be) but because they are preaching restraint in government spending. It's really that simple. All these other arguments trying to escape from that reality, and this thread is a really good example of that head in the sand approach, are just chasing windmills.

[kalm]

You know, there are plenty of independent voters out there that are going to end up voting either for Tea Party candidates or GOP (or Dem for that matter) candidates who parrot the fiscal conservative message of the Tea Party. Trying to ignore the overwhelming message coming from the electorate that many in the electorate are concerned with runaway government spending and massive deficits and instead trying to tarnish anything remotely related to the Tea Party, including that fiscal message, as either racist or Neanderthal (or both) is just amazing in it's own right, as well as just being wrong.
The Tea Party and the GOP will win a lot of seats in November not because they were racist (some may be), not because they were backward thinking simpletons (some may be) but because they are preaching restraint in government spending. It's really that simple. All these other arguments trying to escape from that reality, and this thread is a really good example of that head in the sand approach, are just chasing windmills.

Head in the sand would be lending credence to a movement, heavily funded by monied interests, that fields bat shit crazy candidates who preach that government spending is what caused all of our problems or that cutting that spending will on its own solve our problems.

Will independents vote for Tea Party candidates (some may be), will those tea party candidates get absorbed by the GOP (probably). Will that move the GOP further to the right (yes). Is that really what we need?

[catamount man]

I support a segregated America. Seriously, ask any black person and they will tell you the same thing. Blacks do NOT like us so let's end the charade and bankrupt the race baiting cowards in DC. Talk about a great life. Black parents won't have to worry about some spoiled senator's kid getting his way in school and some hard working white parent won't have to deal with some black kid knocking up his young daughter. I don't see how I can make it any clearer.

[GannonFan]

You know, there are plenty of independent voters out there that are going to end up voting either for Tea Party candidates or GOP (or Dem for that matter) candidates who parrot the fiscal conservative message of the Tea Party. Trying to ignore the overwhelming message coming from the electorate that many in the electorate are concerned with runaway government spending and massive deficits and instead trying to tarnish anything remotely related to the Tea Party, including that fiscal message, as either racist or Neanderthal (or both) is just amazing in it's own right, as well as just being wrong.
The Tea Party and the GOP will win a lot of seats in November not because they were racist (some may be), not because they were backward thinking simpletons (some may be) but because they are preaching restraint in government spending. It's really that simple. All these other arguments trying to escape from that reality, and this thread is a really good example of that head in the sand approach, are just chasing windmills.

Head in the sand would be lending credence to a movement, heavily funded by monied interests, that fields bat **** crazy candidates who preach that government spending is what caused all of our problems or that cutting that spending will on its own solve our problems.

Will independents vote for Tea Party candidates (some may be), will those tea party candidates get absorbed by the GOP (probably). Will that move the GOP further to the right (yes). Is that really what we need?

And again, if you only see the most extremist positions of the movement or party you are villifying, you're going to miss that there's more than a kernel of truth in some of their other positions. It's actually a fault of most partisans like yourself - you're so vested and absorbed in your own positions and rigidly sure that the other party is wrong on everything that you can't fathom that you could be wrong sometimes and they could be right. If you can honestly say right now that government spending isn't part of the problem then it says a lot about you.

[mrklean]

I support a segregated America. Seriously, ask any black person and they will tell you the same thing. Blacks do NOT like us so let's end the charade and bankrupt the race baiting cowards in DC. Talk about a great life. Black parents won't have to worry about some spoiled senator's kid getting his way in school and some hard working white parent won't have to deal with some black kid knocking up his young daughter. I don't see how I can make it any clearer.

Hes off his Meds again............SECURITY!!!

[kalm]

Head in the sand would be lending credence to a movement, heavily funded by monied interests, that fields bat **** crazy candidates who preach that government spending is what caused all of our problems or that cutting that spending will on its own solve our problems.

Will independents vote for Tea Party candidates (some may be), will those tea party candidates get absorbed by the GOP (probably). Will that move the GOP further to the right (yes). Is that really what we need?

And again, if you only see the most extremist positions of the movement or party you are villifying, you're going to miss that there's more than a kernel of truth in some of their other positions. It's actually a fault of most partisans like yourself - you're so vested and absorbed in your own positions and rigidly sure that the other party is wrong on everything that you can't fathom that you could be wrong sometimes and they could be right. If you can honestly say right now that government spending isn't part of the problem then it says a lot about you.

Of course there's a kernel of truth to their sentiments and of course government spending is part of the problem, neither I nor Matt Taibbi didn't say it wasn't. But how can you not define the Tea Party by the sources that fund them, the candidates that represent them, and the assimilation of said candidates into the GOP?

You're clearly blinded by your rabid anti-partisanship. Occassionally one side or the other can be right - especially in defining the other side. In this case, regardless of the validity of some of their positions and the fact that they have already made some and will continue to make waves in this election cycle, the journalist is correct in pointing out that the Tea Party movement has some serious flaws.

[GannonFan]

And again, if you only see the most extremist positions of the movement or party you are villifying, you're going to miss that there's more than a kernel of truth in some of their other positions. It's actually a fault of most partisans like yourself - you're so vested and absorbed in your own positions and rigidly sure that the other party is wrong on everything that you can't fathom that you could be wrong sometimes and they could be right. If you can honestly say right now that government spending isn't part of the problem then it says a lot about you.

Of course there's a kernel of truth to their sentiments and of course government spending is part of the problem, neither I nor Matt Taibbi didn't say it wasn't. But how can you not define the Tea Party by the sources that fund them, the candidates that represent them, and the assimilation of said candidates into the GOP?

You're clearly blinded by your rabid anti-partisanship. Occassionally one side or the other can be right - especially in defining the other side. In this case, regardless of the validity of some of their positions and the fact that they have already made some and will continue to make waves in this election cycle, the journalist is correct in pointing out that the Tea Party movement has some serious flaws.

Of course they have flaws, hence why they will never be a permanent party in American politics. That's the fate of all movements. But you're the one who is dismissing any valid points they may and do have by calling them collectively (i.e. ignoring the vast majority that aren't) racists and neanderthals. Despising the electorate is often the fallback of the electoral loser.

[kalm]

Of course they have flaws, hence why they will never be a permanent party in American politics. That's the fate of all movements. But you're the one who is dismissing any valid points they may and do have by calling them collectively (i.e. ignoring the vast majority that aren't) racists and neanderthals. Despising the electorate is often the fallback of the electoral loser.

The neanderthal statement was the author's not mine, and it was funny.

On the contrary I'd assume that the likes of you and Native sport only partially protruding occipital ridges , and have a medium amount of hair.

Of course, since you're non-partisan, I don't have to explain the humor in that joke.

[kalm]

FWIW Gannon, I think that under the current two party system, we are all losers, every election.

In regards to this year's mid-terms my preference would be for a large number of incumbents of both parties to lose. Since that won't happen, I'm not that opposed to Republicans winning back a bunch of seats. The Democrats, and especially Obama deserve to be punished for beating the Republicans at their own game of corporatocracy. I'm just not convinced they will learn - although getting Rahm out of the White House is a good start.

But if nothing else, this will create gridlock of which - thanks to Z and Chizz - I'm beginning to appreciate more and more.

So put that in your partisanphobic pipe and smoke it.

[GannonFan]

FWIW Gannon, I think that under the current two party system, we are all losers, every election.

In regards to this year's mid-terms my preference would be for a large number of incumbents of both parties to lose. Since that won't happen, I'm not that opposed to Republicans winning back a bunch of seats. The Democrats, and especially Obama deserve to be punished for beating the Republicans at their own game of corporatocracy. I'm just not convinced they will learn - although getting Rahm out of the White House is a good start.

But if nothing else, this will create gridlock of which - thanks to Z and Chizz - I'm beginning to appreciate more and more.

So put that in your partisanphobic pipe and smoke it.

And see, we can agree with that. There was a good bit of cleaning out of bad Republicans in '06 and '08, and now we get a similar cleansing of bad Democrats this time around. I agree, unfortunately this can't happen all at once to both parties, but it's probably going to be the closest timing of throwing out of both parties we've ever had. Hopefully there will be some gridlock and hopefully that will be enough to get people talking to each other again. Neither party is evil and neither party is hopeless and the best governing happens when people legitimately talk about what they want and how's the best way to go about doing it. Villifying the other side constantly doesn't do much in the long term, and both parties have been very good about doing just that for too long now. Time to start behaving like adults.

[kalm]

FWIW Gannon, I think that under the current two party system, we are all losers, every election.

In regards to this year's mid-terms my preference would be for a large number of incumbents of both parties to lose. Since that won't happen, I'm not that opposed to Republicans winning back a bunch of seats. The Democrats, and especially Obama deserve to be punished for beating the Republicans at their own game of corporatocracy. I'm just not convinced they will learn - although getting Rahm out of the White House is a good start.

But if nothing else, this will create gridlock of which - thanks to Z and Chizz - I'm beginning to appreciate more and more.

So put that in your partisanphobic pipe and smoke it.

And see, we can agree with that. There was a good bit of cleaning out of bad Republicans in '06 and '08, and now we get a similar cleansing of bad Democrats this time around. I agree, unfortunately this can't happen all at once to both parties, but it's probably going to be the closest timing of throwing out of both parties we've ever had. Hopefully there will be some gridlock and hopefully that will be enough to get people talking to each other again. Neither party is evil and neither party is hopeless and the best governing happens when people legitimately talk about what they want and how's the best way to go about doing it. Villifying the other side constantly doesn't do much in the long term, and both parties have been very good about doing just that for too long now. Time to start behaving like adults.

Agree, but I'm just way too cynical to see that happening.

Historically, the Republicans have been far superior to the Democrats when it comes to political theater, mudslinging, and raising money from monied interests. I would attribute much of their success over the last 30 years to that notion, but even going back to the days of Father Mclaughlin, it's been on display.

But recently, and due to the weakening of unions, the Democrats have made in-roads when it comes to cozying up to big business, and media attack groups like MoveOn, Daily Kos, MSNBC etc. (although I think they still pale in comparison to the effectiveness of the Republican's messaging)

So taking the low road and whoring yourself out is a proven political success. Why would you not expect the Democrats to play by the same rules? It's no longer about good governing, it's only about power and getting re-elected, and it won't change until things get really bad or we have public financing of elections.

[Ivytalk]

And see, we can agree with that. There was a good bit of cleaning out of bad Republicans in '06 and '08, and now we get a similar cleansing of bad Democrats this time around. I agree, unfortunately this can't happen all at once to both parties, but it's probably going to be the closest timing of throwing out of both parties we've ever had. Hopefully there will be some gridlock and hopefully that will be enough to get people talking to each other again. Neither party is evil and neither party is hopeless and the best governing happens when people legitimately talk about what they want and how's the best way to go about doing it. Villifying the other side constantly doesn't do much in the long term, and both parties have been very good about doing just that for too long now. Time to start behaving like adults.

Agree, but I'm just way too cynical to see that happening.

Historically, the Republicans have been far superior to the Democrats when it comes to political theater, mudslinging, and raising money from monied interests. I would attribute much of their success over the last 30 years to that notion, but even going back to the days of Father Mclaughlin, it's been on display.

But recently, and due to the weakening of unions, the Democrats have made in-roads when it comes to cozying up to big business, and media attack groups like MoveOn, Daily Kos, MSNBC etc. (although I think they still pale in comparison to the effectiveness of the Republican's messaging)

So taking the low road and whoring yourself out is a proven political success. Why would you not expect the Democrats to play by the same rules? It's no longer about good governing, it's only about power and getting re-elected, and it won't change until things get really bad or we have public financing of elections.

Don't you mean Father Coughlin, the 1930s radio priest who hated FDR?

Seriously, both parties are good at the art of sliming, and the public employee unions (SEIU, AFT, NEA, etc.) have picked up where the UAW and the Teamsters left off. I tune out both sides' ads and catch up on my reading. And public financing has about as good a chance of becoming law as the revival of the "fairness doctrine."

[kalm]

Agree, but I'm just way too cynical to see that happening.

Historically, the Republicans have been far superior to the Democrats when it comes to political theater, mudslinging, and raising money from monied interests. I would attribute much of their success over the last 30 years to that notion, but even going back to the days of Father Mclaughlin, it's been on display.

But recently, and due to the weakening of unions, the Democrats have made in-roads when it comes to cozying up to big business, and media attack groups like MoveOn, Daily Kos, MSNBC etc. (although I think they still pale in comparison to the effectiveness of the Republican's messaging)

So taking the low road and whoring yourself out is a proven political success. Why would you not expect the Democrats to play by the same rules? It's no longer about good governing, it's only about power and getting re-elected, and it won't change until things get really bad or we have public financing of elections.

Don't you mean Father Coughlin, the 1930s radio priest who hated FDR?

Seriously, both parties are good at the art of sliming, and the public employee unions (SEIU, AFT, NEA, etc.) have picked up where the UAW and the Teamsters left off. I tune out both sides' ads and catch up on my reading. And public financing has about as good a chance of becoming law as the revival of the "fairness doctrine."

Yes that's who I meant. I stand corrected.

And I agree with the rest of your post 100%.

[native]

You know, there are plenty of independent voters out there that are going to end up voting either for Tea Party candidates or GOP (or Dem for that matter) candidates who parrot the fiscal conservative message of the Tea Party. Trying to ignore the overwhelming message coming from the electorate that many in the electorate are concerned with runaway government spending and massive deficits and instead trying to tarnish anything remotely related to the Tea Party, including that fiscal message, as either racist or Neanderthal (or both) is just amazing in it's own right, as well as just being wrong.

The Tea Party and the GOP will win a lot of seats in November not because they were racist (some may be), not because they were backward thinking simpletons (some may be) but because they are preaching restraint in government spending. It's really that simple. All these other arguments trying to escape from that reality, and this thread is a really good example of that head in the sand approach, are just chasing windmills.

It's not the thread, per se, GF, it's a few presistent idiots.

[native]

...So taking the low road and whoring yourself out is a proven political success. Why would you not expect the Democrats to play by the same rules? It's no longer about good governing, it's only about power and getting re-elected, and it won't change until things get really bad or we have public financing of elections.

Since the death of Jefferson and the rise of Jacksonians, gaining power, accumulating spoils, and getting re-elected is what being a Democrat politician is all about.

Not one penny of my tax money should ever go to subsidize your point of view, kalm, or anyone else's.

[kalm]

...So taking the low road and whoring yourself out is a proven political success. Why would you not expect the Democrats to play by the same rules? It's no longer about good governing, it's only about power and getting re-elected, and it won't change until things get really bad or we have public financing of elections.

Since the death of Jefferson and the rise of Jacksonians, gaining power, accumulating spoils, and getting re-elected is what being a Democrat politician is all about.

Not one penny of my tax money should ever go to subsidize your point of view, kalm, or anyone else's.

Why do you hate democracy and free elections?

[native]

Since the death of Jefferson and the rise of Jacksonians, gaining power, accumulating spoils, and getting re-elected is what being a Democrat politician is all about.

Not one penny of my tax money should ever go to subsidize your point of view, kalm, or anyone else's.

Why do you hate democracy and free elections?

I love democracy and free elections. I pray that you someday come to grasp what they are, kalm.