North Conway, N.H. — They’re coming.
Not yet, of course. Not this week and not next week, but maybe next month, right after the election. The midterm congressional contests will end and, sure as the frost follows the fall of the leaves, the Republican presidential candidates will be here.
New Hampshire — in recent years bluer than the early autumn skies that form the backdrop to the Presidential Range, but with a bedrock Republican tradition that reaches down generations — will soon be a laboratory for the new GOP. Perhaps Thoreau got it right when he called New Hampshire a place where “the day is forever unproven.”
And so it is a perfect staging ground for a 21st-century Republican Party that is emerging as a most unusual outcropping on the political landscape, enjoying a traditional party surge even as it struggles with a muscular insurgency. That last happened here in 1980, when in that year’s presidential primary Ronald Reagan, offering a Western conservatism far different from the flinty Yankee brand, represented the fresh forces at the gates of the party, and George H.W. Bush, a Yankee patrician with a refreshing vigor, stood as the establishment figure.
Different Republicans
In the three decades since, the Republicans have absorbed the Reagan conservatism and the Bush ascendancy and now are watching new forces compete for attention and votes. These are different Republicans with different impulses.
Some retain the social conservatism of the religious right movement that roiled the party in the late 1980s and 1990s. Many have a states’ rights outlook that curiously mimics the views of conservative Democrats of the 1950s and 1960s. All look at taxes the way elementary school nurses look at strep throat — with dread and loathing.
These new Republicans did not come from nowhere — nor did they spring, as Alice Roosevelt Longworth said of Wendell Willkie’s supporters, from “the grass roots of 10,000 country clubs.”
You saw them on cable last year, assailing House members at district town meetings, drawing a line in the summer sand on the president’s health care overhaul. You saw them the year before looking on in horror as their own Republican representatives lined up with a Republican president (and loads of Democrats, many of them in the Obama administration this very day) to bail out Wall Street and add billions to the deficit.
Party is chaos
Right now, the Republican Party is in the sort of chaos the Democrats thought they had patented, with the regulars trying to keep the radicals at bay even as they try to harness their energy and anger.
It won’t be easy. They want the passion at the bottom of the tea cup but they worry that the caffeinated newcomers are somehow too strong a brew for governing. They’ll see soon enough. The most interesting poll finding of the past week is from Zogby International. It shows that among likely voters, the tea party rated higher than either established political party.
Indeed, the tea party is about to bag a handful of Senate seats and a bunch in the House. The first fight they’ll prompt: a brutal Republican debate on earmarks.
Earmarks direct federal funding to specific projects. The new Republicans hate them. The old Republicans, who have fought for the seniority that makes them powerful enough to provide earmarks for their districts, used to hate them but now they aren’t quite so much opposed. If Republicans regain power — and thus attain important committee chairmanships — they may find that the evils of earmarks have been greatly exaggerated.
The purists are on their way to Washington and are not likely to see earmarks as a pure extract of democracy’s highest ideals. Nor are they going to find the totems and taboos of Capitol Hill enlightening and ennobling.
But while parties struggle in the capital, they find their identities in presidential campaigns far from Washington, which is why so few senators have graduated directly to the White House. Barack Obama is only the third, and his hold on the Oval Office is none too secure right now.
The Republicans now have a governing platform, a modernized version of the usual mix of tax breaks for small businesses, spending freezes and a ban on federal funding for abortion, plus of course repeal of Obamacare, which is about as likely as the repeal of the coming of winter on Mount Washington, where the first snow fell the other day. (After all, the president, even a weakened one like Obama, still possesses the veto pen, far mightier than the insurgents’ sword, thus rendering the question of repeal ridiculous. But if the Republicans win the House, they still might be able to starve the health care overhaul and perhaps influence the regulations that govern it.)
Attracting donations
Already the tea partiers have helped spur traditional conservative donors from their Obama-inspired torpor, and these donors, in turn, have given millions to Republican organizations. The Republican Governors Association, not exactly a group of wackos, suddenly is a major funding recipient. A onetime important member of that group: Rep. Michael Castle, once the governor of Delaware before he became the target of the tea party and, last month, its most prominent victim.
The tea party tumult accentuates the sense of turmoil that the American political system has spawned in recent years.
George W. Bush won the presidency after an overtime election that underlined how deeply, and how evenly, split was the country. He presided over a grief-stricken country after Sept. 11, 2001, undertook two wars and saw his poll ratings plummet along with the economy. Then Barack Obama led a hope-and-change crusade that inspired young and independent voters and seemed to have created a new period of Democratic rule (and accompanying Republican despair), only to see the economy continue to sputter and his own approval numbers fall. Enter the tea party.
The result is that the velocity of change in American politics is at a nearly unprecedented level. That has been inspiring to the tea party. But it ought to be a warning to the tea party as well — and to the rest of us. The presidential campaign may be coming, but the real question is how much more change is coming.
— David Shribman is executive editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
Comments
cato_the_elder 2 years, 7 months ago
Liberal Democrats always preach that grass-roots democracy is the soul of America - until a real grass-roots movement is born that doesn't subscribe to their liberal views. When that happens, the members of the new group are immediately branded as ignorant, uneducated misfits by liberal Democrat leaders who in their younger days were best known for incessantly chanting "power to the people." As a result, their condescendingly elitist attitudes and their resultant hypocrisy are there for all to see. Sooner or later, their true colors are always revealed. They just can't help themselves.
dougnamy 2 years, 7 months ago
This is not grassroots. Is it elitist to be informed?
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer
cato_the_elder 2 years, 7 months ago
Dougnamy, the article about the Kochs from the laughingly biased, far-left New Yorker magazine (which I used to read regularly before it went off the deep end) was the obvious springboard for a recent letter to this newspaper, critical of the Kochs, that was thoroughly discussed on this forum. If you want to be an uninformed elitist, then by all means read and believe what's in the New Yorker.
The sole reason for the existence of the Tea Party Movement was the election of Barack Obama and the realization (too late for many who mistakenly voted for him) that when he said that he wanted to "fundamentally transform America," he meant it, and in no uncertain terms. When Tea Party members say that they "want to take their country back," they mean that just as seriously. The overarching political question of our times is whether those in America who believe in limited constitutional goverment still have the time and the means available to stop him. If the Kochs can help, fine. They're philanthropically inclined, and it's a good cause.
I'm not a member of the Tea Party but I know a number of people who are. The ones I know are intelligent, capable, successful people who would bristle at the notion that the Kochs or anyone else are responsible for what they think. When people finally come to the realization of what Obama and his cronies want and would already have done to this country if they hadn't had to deal with a broad range of both Republicans and Democrats in a Congress elected by the people, then they begin to understand.
vertigo 2 years, 7 months ago
"The sole reason for the existence of the Tea Party Movement was the election of Barack Obama"
Ehhh. Wrong. The Tea Party existed due to TARP (Bush's bill), the stimulus bill and the mortgage bailouts. Taxed Enough Already Party started when Rick Santelli gave a scathing report on CNBC from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile. I
t's not about the election of Obama- it's about out of control government spending. At least it was until the racists, birthers, and conspiracy theorist loonies waylaid the party.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/2723474,CST-NWS-TeaParty19.article
cato_the_elder 2 years, 7 months ago
The sole reason for the existence of the Tea Party Movement was the election of Barack Obama, whether you like it or not.
vertigo 2 years, 7 months ago
So when people say the TEA party only exists because a black man was elected president then I guess they are right. Thanks for clarifying.
cato_the_elder 2 years, 7 months ago
Cut the crap, Vertigo. I previously stated quite clearly that Obama's actions in office and the concomitant realization by many Americans of what he really wanted to do to this country caused the birth of the Tea Party Movement. Obama's race had nothing to do with it. Most of his closest cronies and enablers, whose views are as antithetical to our American freedoms as his are, happen to be white. By despising Tea Partiers as you do simply for exercising their right of freedom of speech as Americans, you and people like you are disgustingly intolerant and hypocritical.
vertigo 2 years, 7 months ago
Considering the Tea party formed in February 2009 and Obama took the presidency in January 2009 I doubt a whole movement of people were able to ascertain, in one months time, what Obama's action are going to be for his whole Presidency.
That's akin to saying the Chiefs are going to win the Super Bowl this year and go undefeated the whole season because they won their first game of the season.
See, here's the rub. I don't despise the Tea Partiers- the REAL tea partiers. When they originally formed (over their deficit and spending/pork concerns) they have/had valid concerns. The problem is that movement has been waylaid by racists, birthers, and lunatic conspiracy theorists like yourself. You and your ilk have taken the focus off the REAL reason for the Tea Party and turned it into a joke.
cato_the_elder 2 years, 7 months ago
The Tea Party Movement was born in spirit the day after Obama was elected. It took awhile for a larger group of Americans to wise up to him, as I said. A significant number of us who had carefully studied his views and his background well before he was elected were keenly sensitive to his overarching desire to "fundamentally transform America," which it did not take long for large numbers of Americans to grasp.
Common-sense Americans recognize leftist extremism when they see it. As I said, when Tea Partiers say that they want to "take their country back," they mean it. Although Obama and his disastrous policies were the catalyst, incumbent Republicans and Democrats alike have been targeted to receive assistance in finding new jobs next January. People like you don't like the Tea Party simply because it's become a legitimate force made up of average Americans that establishment politicians in both parties are having to take much more seriously than they had ever anticipated.
Although I've been called many things on this forum by a plethora of leftist twits, one of the most obnoxious of them having been removed from this forum a few weeks ago, I've never been called a "lunatic conspiracy theorist." Perhaps you might enlighten me as to the particular conspiracy theory to which I ascribe.
vertigo 2 years, 7 months ago
racists, birthers, and lunatic conspiracy theorists...
I wasn't narrowing you down to the conspiracy theorist. Take your pick, if you're not one you're one of the other two.
cato_the_elder 2 years, 7 months ago
Don't dodge my question, Vertigo. Please confirm whether or not you are willing to enlighten me as to the particular conspiracy theory to which I ascribe. Once you confirm that you cannot, we can then address what proof you could possibly have for your other baseless allegations. I'm looking forward to it.
vertigo 2 years, 7 months ago
What part of "I wasn't narrowing you down to the conspiracy theorist" do you not understand?
It read funny, I'll admit that. And I can see how you could take that I was calling you a conspiracy theorist. What I was attempting to say is your group of people (the racists, birthers and conspiracy theorists) have infiltrated and mutated the Tea Party into something other than what it originated as.
Get it now?
vertigo 2 years, 7 months ago
Oh, and saying things like-
"What is Obama hiding? Why won't he release his college and law school transcripts?"
and
"Obama's campaign literature was quietly changed from stating that he had never been a Muslim to stating that he had never been a "practicing" Muslim"
and
"if you think that the hard leftists in power right now in Washington aren't making every effort to control the minds of the free citizens of this country, then you're naive in the extreme."
doesn't help your cause when laying claim to not being a conspiracy theorist.
And saying things like- "Actually, Bob, I have my original birth certificate. It's in my safe deposit box at the bank. Why doesn't Barack have his? Does Michelle have one? I'll bet she does, or at least used to before it became an issue for her hubby. You know something? I'll bet even Charlie Rangel has his."
and
"Obama needs to decide whether he is a Kenyan or an American."
Doesn't help when you claim not to be a birther either.
vertigo 2 years, 7 months ago
cato_the_elder (anonymous) says… "The real question as we speak is whether, as put forth by PUMA and others, Barack Obama was actually born in Canada, which is quite consistent with available evidence." August 21, 2008 at 7:22 p.m.
"...concerning your inquiry as to neo-marxist Barack Obama's "fitness" for the presidency, where is his original birth certificate? Is forgery an acceptable practice for a presidential campaign? Also, what about your candidate's time in Indonesia? Do you know who Barry Soetoro was? His school registration papers? Citizenship: Indonesian. Religion: Muslim. Care to refute that?" August 21, 2008 at 3:40 p.m.
Yep... you're definately not a birther. snicker
So much for "baseless accusations".
cato_the_elder 2 years, 7 months ago
Vertigo, it gives me great pleasure to know that you've wasted so much of your time only to fall on your face reproducing a number of salient questions that I've previously asked and which are just that, questions. Some were asked well over two years ago, when many people were asking exactly the same questions about Obama's known history or, rather, the lack thereof, prior to the 2008 presidential election. Was I the only one asking these questions? Turning to one of my questions you cited, how about the concerns of PUMA, the group formed to support Hillary Clinton against Obama, that I reported in August of 2008? Were the PUMA members, all loyal Democrats who vigorously opposed Obama, all "birthers" too when they stated that Obama was born in Canada, as I merely reported?
We have never had a president in modern times about whose personal history we have known so little. This is due in no small part to his own refusal to discuss it further. For starters, his flat-out, unexplained refusal to release his college and law school transcripts should be of substantial concern to any thinking American. Of course, that doesn't include you, so it's no wonder that Obama continues to get a free pass in your narrow mind.
vertigo 2 years, 7 months ago
LOL
To paraphrase Cato- I'm NOT a birther! But there's a very good chance he's not american.
I'm NOT a conspiracy theorist! But what is REALLY going on with Obama? What's he hiding? Why won't he release his transcripts? There's something going on here... at least I have a theory there is. And lots of people are in on it! Almost like it was a conspiracy or something...
cato_the_elder 2 years, 7 months ago
Vertigo, I've never said categorically that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. I've simply raised legitimate questions about his personal background, about which very little still is known, and have pointed out similar questions that others have raised and positions that others have taken on this issue.
By the way, the use of the term "birther" by far-left Obama apologists is nothing but a smokescreen to attempt to stifle legitimate inquiry into a number of things about Obama's past that we still don't know. For example, I will assume that you were born in America. When you were enrolled in elementary school, was your citizenship shown in writing on your school application as "Indonesian?" If it had been and you were running for president, wouldn't you expect people to ask serious questions about that? Wouldn't it be preferable for you, especially if you were running for president, to have the cojones to respond fully and completely instead of telling your attack dogs to call them "birthers?"
As for "conspiracy theories," how does anyone's good faith concern about why Obama has adamantly refused to release his undergraduate and law school transcripts make that person a "conspiracy theorist?" Doesn't it embarrass you that your hero won't come clean on this? Is there even the slightest chance that the media would have given Obama the free pass that they have on this if he had instead been a black Republican?
Vertigo, your infatuation with Obama, going back to when he sold out Poland and Czechoslovakia's missile defense shields, naively thinking that the Russians would give him something in return, is embarrassing. The Russians cleaned Obama's clock on that one, but you, as naive as the Bamster himself, assured us that they would come around and see it his way.
Yeah, right.
cato_the_elder 2 years, 7 months ago
And, Vertigo, perhaps I should have asked you this final question: Does Russia's having just completed providing Iran with the fuel rods it needed for its nuclear reactor make you sleep better at night? Is the fact that our country's present leadership was incapable of preventing that something that you're proud of? Are you really naive enough not to know that continuing to follow through with the Polish and Czech missile defense shields, rather than abandoning them unilaterally, was the best shot we had at ultimately preventing this? Or do you agree with Ahmadinejad that Iran's obtaining nuclear capability is a good thing for the rest of the world?
vertigo 2 years, 7 months ago
Yeah- how are those fuel rods doing? Oh wait- seems that nuke plant is inoperable. Damn those pesky viruses.
You can send all the fuel rods you want- aint doing no good no how.
You do realize we have a missile defense shield in place for Poland and Czechoslovakia don't you? No of course you don't... if you did you wouldn't be hanging your ass out in the wind.
cato_the_elder 2 years, 7 months ago
Were it not for the computer virus, Vertigo, the plant would be on line using the fuel rods loaded by the Russians. Unfortunately, once the virus is overcome, the plant will be back on track. Nice try, but you obviously can't refute what I said. I'd be thrilled if the virus put the kibosh on the plant permanently - and I'm sure that Obama would be too, since it's his ass hanging out in the wind, not mine.
Regarding the missile defense shield, I assume you're talking about naval deployment, which has apparently pleased the Russians a great deal. You must be even more naive than Obama. The issue, Vertigo, relates to bargaining chips that could have caused Russia to back off of its nuclear partnership with Ahmadinejad. Our now-abandoned missile defense shield in Poland and Czechoslovakia was the key. The Russians' actions since Obama unilaterally flushed it have clearly demonstrated that naval deployment isn't.
JJE007 2 years, 7 months ago
Wouldn't grass roots democracy lead to the lowest common denominator ruling the roost? No? I didn't think so. I'm sure I'm misreading this as your saying "Our grass-rooters are better than your grass-rooters." but I could be wrong. Check that. None of us is ever wrong (!~), especially if we follow the money, since we all no that almost no contempory politician has ever truly given a crrrap about "grass roots" types, unless it affects business..
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 7 months ago
I'm not sure what your point is, but here's the link you neglected to include.
http://www.thedailybell.com/printerVersion.asp?nid=1417
snap_pop_no_crackle 2 years, 7 months ago
The current regime would prefer that the subjects who work and pay taxes just shut up and continue to work and pay their taxes.
monkeyhawk 2 years, 7 months ago
Funny thing is ... an ignorant red neck vote is just as valid as an elite, lefty, progressive vote. That is, unless this administration has something up their sleeves to nullify all votes that don't go according to their thinking. Makes one wonder if there is a November surprise waiting out there?
Can't you just feel the wailing getting stronger with each turning leaf? It's just a matter of time before those with "hope for change" reach a fever pitch and begin to melt down like that "friend of the bozo merrills" dude did in front of the CC a couple of years ago.
This is such fun.
jafs 2 years, 7 months ago
I know you didn't mean it this way, but it is a built-in problem with democracy - stupid people get the same input as smart ones.
So if we have a population that's getting dumber, we wind up with the results of that.
I know the question of who is smart and how that's determined is not an easy one to answer, but I think the system works better if we have better educated and better informed voters.
scott3460 2 years, 7 months ago
Funniest proposition in the entire article:
"The purists are on their way to Washington and are not likely to see earmarks as a pure extract of democracy’s highest ideals. Nor are they going to find the totems and taboos of Capitol Hill enlightening and ennobling."
Yea, sure, they will not be corrupted like all the others because they are Tea Party people!!
I guess I should just be quiet and enjoy the spectacle as it unfolds and these TP angels fall to earth. But, just for something & giggles, it is interesting to note the "character" and "accomplishments" of Ms. Palin, O'Donell, et al. Yes, they are useful idiots for the corporate elites orchestrating the TP movement, but beyond that they seem most remarkable for their willingness to whore themselves out for a moment in the spotlight. Methinks they will find the totems and taboos of Capitol Hill plenty ennobling.
yourworstnightmare 2 years, 7 months ago
This is a pretty good analysis of the tea party.
The tea party is just warmed-over populism. The democrats once had a hold of these folks, with populist arguments about banks and big business and fatcats and intellectuals. Now the GOP has them, with populist themes of anti-tax, anti-intellectual, anti-government.
Interestingly, the tea party populism also contains anti-big business themes, mostly centered on the Bush-Obama bailouts. What is interesting is that this anti-big business theme dissipates when it comes to taxation of big business and the rich. An interesting disconnect.
Populism's fire burns brightly, but has never burned for long in American politics. The grown up centrists usually end up picking up the pieces once the childish populists have grown tired of the game.
yourworstnightmare 2 years, 7 months ago
We shall see. I detect overconfidence here. Let's speak again in early November.
vertigo 2 years, 7 months ago
cato_the_elder (anonymous) replies… The sole reason for the existence of the Tea Party Movement was the election of Barack Obama, whether you like it or not.
October 4, 2010 at 3:58 p.m.
Nice to see the racists backing each other up.
cato_the_elder 2 years, 7 months ago
If you disagree with Obama, you're a "racist." This canard was first puked up when the Obama campaign played the race card on Bill Clinton, who was the first victim of this stupid accusation. Remember that, Vertigo? Or was your head so far up a certain private area in your body that you just didn't see it? I'll guarantee you that Bill Clinton hasn't forgotten it - you can take that to the bank.
camper 2 years, 7 months ago
The Tea Party is full of contradictions. I keep hearing a number that is thrown around that 47% of Americans do not pay Federal Income tax. This is misleading, because this % does not include social security/medicare deductions. If you consider social security taxes paid, and subtract individuals under 18, this percentage is far lower. Not to mention city, local, state, sales, gasoline, and cigarette taxes. This notion that 47% are not pulling there weight seems to be false. I'm not sure how much, but this link may be helpful:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_percentage_of_the_us_population_makes.html
In fact, the IRS tax code provides deductions and credits that can lower or personal income tx liability for middle class home owners, and those with dependent exemptions. Regardless, the discontinuation of the Bush tax cuts will only affect those in the highest bracket which is about 2-5% of taxpayers.
overplayedhistory 2 years, 7 months ago
I sometimes wonder what is like in the paleo-cortext dominated mind. I imagine that it is like having a limited sense of smell and black and white only vision. How dull limited enjoyment such poor souls must get out of life.
What a well balanced informed historical assessment of the land scape right now. In other words liberal dribble. There is us and them and no in between in the paleo mind.
camper 2 years, 7 months ago
I wonder how the word "elitist" has become so popular today. Palin seems to be the one who started the trend of labeling liberals as elitists. I'm sure there are some, but I always thought of elitists as the conservative wealthy country club crowd who have old money and earn a lot of passive income from this wealth.
I also had a boss (who was a liberal...go figure) who had a general aversion to factory workers, and clerks who worked in the office. He actually discouraged the mingling and social interaction between management and staff. I remember cutting someone slack because they were 15 minutes late to work, and the boss criticized me for patronization and trying to be buddies.
I ramble here. I guess what I'm trying to say is that elitisim is a two-way street. How liberals are getting labeled nowdays seems to be contrived.
yourworstnightmare 2 years, 7 months ago
Tom, I want to congratulate you on a thoughtful, well-reasoned post.
I don't necessarily agree with all you said, but keep it up!
camper 2 years, 7 months ago
Thanks Tom.
scott3460 2 years, 7 months ago
When corporations are allowed to purchase as much influence as they can afford and media corporations control entry in to the political game (pay for advertising, or else,) what choice have the Democrats but to play the money game?
One cannot support the hijakking of our democracy by unlimited corporate influence and then complain when Democrats attempt to fight back. Or at least you can't and maintain intellectual honesty. As we have seen, the right is willing to do anything to gain power.
jafs 2 years, 7 months ago
Sure.
But both parties do it.
It's disingenuous at best.
Gene Wallace 2 years, 7 months ago
Political historical assessment from a nutrition book? CCG! (Cheshire Cat Grin)
beatrice 2 years, 7 months ago
If they were only interested in fiscal conservativism, I could appreciate the movement. As soon as they start to throw in their social conservative views, then the teabaggers lose all credibility. Being for freedom from government and for oppresive social order is a strong contradiction. Just get the social issuals out of the way, and they could be a legitimate alternative party, and not just a branch of the Republican party as they are now.
snap_pop_no_crackle 2 years, 7 months ago
The comment pre-removed for using vulgar terms to describe someone not on the dexter side of the aisle.
beatrice 2 years, 7 months ago
What vulgar term? It is a recognized political term, that happens to have another meaning unrelated to politics. Deal with it. Or are you the type who still giggles every time you read about Dick Cheney?
snap_pop_no_crackle 2 years, 7 months ago
Consider the good ship John B. Colgate.
jafs 2 years, 7 months ago
Actually, according to an interview on NPR, the tea party leadership is advocating just that - that they stay focused on fiscal conservatism.
beatrice 2 years, 7 months ago
I hope they do, but it isn't what I have seen thus far. At his recent gathering, Glenn Beck was all about taking back the country for God.
camper 2 years, 7 months ago
If they were able to see the big chunks of tax payer money going to defense and social security and medicare, they may have more credibility. The bank bailout was a reluctant option to keep things afloat, yet tea baggers (and Republicans oppose financial reform). This makes them to appear as misguided aging baby boomers who are happy with there social security and medicare benefits, and at the same time call any other distribution as Socialism or Communisim.
I have an uncle who is a teabagger for instance. He was a good teacher and rose to administration. A Social job nonetheless. He retired last year and has quite a good pension that is 70% of his his salary while working. After retiring, he took a job as a consultant and was laid off recently. Though he still pulls in 6 figures from pension, not to mention Medicare and Social Security, he also receives unemployment compensation due to his recent layoff. This man has a vacation home in Florida to boot.
So for the most part, I really see tea baggers as folks who are happy with what they have and want to protect it. They are glad with there health care and social security, but are out to deny younger folks who want basic necessities..
jafs 2 years, 7 months ago
Interesting.
Have you asked him where he thinks his pension, SS and Medicare benefits would come from if taxes were slashed?
bearded_gnome 2 years, 7 months ago
don't remember such concern about the democ]rats with code pink! throwing blood on Condi et al. weird protests in the street too.
funny the liberal punditochracy likes to criticize the trouble stirred up by tea partiers, actual americans, law abiding and expressing their political opinion.
uncleandyt 2 years, 7 months ago
Nobody remembers code pink throwing blood on Condi, because it didn't happen.
Agnostick 2 years, 7 months ago
Condi was confronted by an anti-war protester. The protester waved her hands, smeared with red paint, near Condi--right in her face, really. The protester was quickly hustled away.
Code Pink Protesters Confront Condi Rice with Bloody Hands. by Plato86
For what it's worth, I never thought Condi was all that bad. She was probably the smartest one in that group, after Powell jumped off the crazy train.
vertigo 2 years, 7 months ago
Meanwhile in other news- 3,000 millionaires receiving welfare - 17 of them earned over $10 million last year. Nice to see hypocrisy knows no bounds.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-01/almost-3-000-millionaires-claimed-jobless-benefits-in-2008-irs-data-show.html
vertigo 2 years, 7 months ago
Oh so NOW unemployment isn't a form of welfare. Got it. I guess you conservatives will get off the backs of those who have been unemployed when you call them lazy and welfare queens? http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201005150012
I take it you were in favor of Obama extending unemployment benefits just recently then?
Please tell me, who pays for the unemployment benefits when the recipient receives more than was paid in by their employer? Could it be, hmmm I don't know, the taxpayer?
I never said it was illegal, I said it was hypocritical. Why? Because there's a fairly good chance that a large portion of those millionaires don't hesitate to bitch and moan about those on welfare, food stamps, WIC, and Obamacare but when given the chance to take from the system they step right up even though they have no need.
Oh and by the way, according the IRS unemployment benefits are classified "as a type of social welfare benefit". Notice the second to last word? Welfare. Hmm. Odd.
Why even Joe Miller, Alaskan TEA party candidate thinks so: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/19/joe-miller-alaska-poverty-unemployment-unconstitutional_n_730710.html
The ultra conservative website "Stop the ACLU" also believe unemployment benefits is welfare: http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2010/07/20/unemployment-americas-new-welfare-program/
Carl Paladino, GOP candidate in New York's Governor race, says send those on welfare and unemployment to prison dorms! http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/politics/Paladino-Prison-Dorms-For-Welfare-Recipients-20100821
vertigo 2 years, 7 months ago
Meanwhile in other news (well not really news since it continually occurs)-
CorkeyHundley throws up a strawman.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.