April
14th 2009
Posted under Media
Liberals, in an effort to diminish the 15 April TEA Parties, have taken to calling them teabaggings and the participants teabaggers. For those who don’t get the vulgar reference see Urban Dictionary. On the Rachel Maddow Show there was an extended segment with Ana Marie Cox (the former Wonkette) which was nothing but one long play on the word teabagging.
Seriously, is this the best the liberals have got? A profane play on words and an extended snicker fest. Grow up!
These TEA Parties actually have the liberals a little frightened. They are not the manipulative creation of FOX News as they would like everyone to believe. They are a spontaneous uprising of the grassroots.
Kirt Higdon on 14 Apr 2009 at 11:07 am #
The tea parties are not so much a spontaneous uprising as a spontaneous temper tantrum. As such they lacked focus and genuine political purpose and were made to order for the opportunists and provocateurs who will be flocking to them on the 15th to either co-opt or stage incidents. FOX news may not have invented them, but some of its personalities and similar media neo-cons are conspicuous among the opportunistic co-opters.
I am now hearing of some wise people who are having second thoughts about the whole thing and deciding not to attend. Others, however, seem even more determined to attend to do battle with republicans and neo-cons who show up. Needless to say this will make it easier for provocateurs to stage incidents to discredit all opposition to the regime.
And I don’t think liberals have any fear of the parties. For them it is much easier to ridicule what can easily be ridiculed than to defend policies for which there is no rational or moral defense.
Filmer on 14 Apr 2009 at 12:54 pm #
I disagree Kirt. The TEA Parties arose in multiple cities spontaneously, and in many cases it is outside the “mainstream” “far” right types who are behind them. (Libertarians, Campaign for Liberty, Ron Paul supporters, etc.) It is the mainstream movement types who are in many cases gravy training on the work of others. (It depends on the city.)
I have heard the opposite of what you say. That it is the mainstream types in many cases who are leery of the TEA Parties because they think there will be too many “radical” people and organizations there. I think it will be good for Joe Blow Hannity listener to show up thinking there will be a lot of others like him and find instead people carrying signs that say “End the Fed,” “Ron Paul was Right,” “Abolish the IRS,” “Gold is Real Money,” etc. etc. etc. Movement cons need to be exposed to these other ideas so they can see that there is a whole other conservatism out their beyond there movement conservative box.
I do agree they are unfocused. They are really about spending and debt, but the April 15 date and the TEA Party name confuse the issue.
Kirt Higdon on 14 Apr 2009 at 2:33 pm #
I’m not so sure we’re that much in disagreement, Filmer. I agree that this phenomenon (it would be far over-rating it to call it a movement) emerged from elements of the far right and is unfocused.
It’s precisely that which makes the whole thing vulnerable to co-option, manipulation, and provocation. Locally in Corpus Christi, the best know partier is a local neocon talk show host who favored the October bank bailout. Local Republicans are reportedly turning out in force – the same people who expelled Ron Paul supporters such as myself from the county convention.
A very excited but unfocused young couple I recently met are attending the San Antonio tea party. They said that partiers had been instructed not to bring signs, but to let the message be whatever the speakers said. They didn’t know who the speakers would be but apparently Glenn Beck is pre-recording a speech to play at the party. That makes it seem like he’s trolling to pick up a few more fans, but avoiding direct exposure in case there is a riot or something like that.
Maybe things are different in other states, but here it seems like the Republican establishment is seeking to pick up the support and energy of young libertarians and Ron Paul supporters with a head feint to the right. Maybe I’ve become too old and cynical but when someone like Ann Coulter suddenly comes out with a “Ron Paul was right” statement, I strongly doubt she means it and I doubt that we want her as a convert even if she does mean it.
Patroon on 14 Apr 2009 at 4:20 pm #
In such an environment Kirt, I feel its better that there is a Ron Paul presence, otherwise such rallies will be hijacked because you are right, such rallies do lack focus. Yes people are upset but upset over what and why did it take them so long? Just because Obama’s in the White House? All of a sudden you just got mad? Channel that anger to where it couts, to our political and finanical elites who are using YOUR tax money to keep power for themselves. That’s where the anger has to go and the solution (besides election Ron Paul) is End the Fed. What better way to focus the rally other than that?
Filmer on 14 Apr 2009 at 5:35 pm #
I think in bigger cities that have talk show hosts then they are dominating it. But in the smaller towns it is a more spontaneous grass roots thing.
But I do think it is in our best interest to show up at these types of things and act like we belong. They are allegedly conservative events. The other guys need to know we are out here. To know a different perspective exists. Self-imposed marginalization does not help us.
Steven on 16 Apr 2009 at 6:29 am #
I find it amazing that so many elitist ideologues can so easily marginalize a protest of thousands, yet a few women in Pink get nation-wide, respectful coverage for their amateurish antics. I don’t need to ask why that is. More decrying of Fox, yet the N.Y.Times, MSNBC, the Huffington Post, and the Daily Kos have long been conspirators in national movements which most in the media don’t categorize as unfair.
As far as Ms. Maddow is concerned, she packages a certain, prevalant brand of radical Leftist lunacy in the gossamer-thin trappings of clever satire and smug quips. However, dangerous ideology, whose only intent and purpose it seems is to bankrupt our nation while simutaneously leaving it defenseless, cannot be afforded the pretense of legitimate concern.
Ms. Maddow is as false as they come. Another in an endless parade of poseurs claiming they speak truth to power when in fact they relish being the New Power; a media-backed governmental force that would rather bow to European law, garner Saudi favor, and socialize the U.S. out of superpowerdom.
What I find so amusing is watching a woman make so many scrotal references on air in such a short amount of time. If she doesn’t find this vulgar and distasteful (or even repellant in light of her sexual identity) I humbly submit, perhaps she should be the first to take a mouthful.
Attack the System » Blog Archive » Updated News Digest April 19, 2008 on 18 Apr 2009 at 8:35 pm #
[...] Vulgar Childish Liberals by Filmer [...]
Rmangum on 23 Apr 2009 at 2:01 am #
The problem with the tea parties is more the hypocrisy than the lack of spontaneity. Where were the protests through eight liberty-crushing years of Bush II? Now that the other party is in power, suddenly right-wingers are discovering their inner-libertarian. If attending these events brings the more radical ideas like Austrian economics or the Old-Right-style principles of Ron Paul, then of course that is a good thing. But one of the beautiful things about the Paul movement was that it attracted a diverse coalition of disaffected liberals and conservatives who were convinced the country was going down the perilous road of empire (and yes, it was more spontaneous). This on the other hand just looks like more partisan ugliness. In America it has become less “my country, right or wrong” than “my party, right or wrong”.
But of course the Rachel Maddows of the world are going to sneer at anything that smacks of populist discontent and anti-government sentiment. To them Democracy means shutting up and accepting whatever the managerial class has lined up for them.
(This is all coming, by the way, from a self-confessed “liberal anarchist” with an affection for the alternative, anti-state right.)
Weaver on 23 Apr 2009 at 2:34 am #
It was always partisan. This is just another flavour.
The right was very similar to what it is now pre-9/11. 9/11 vapourised the right wing radicalism of the 90s and very early 00s. Even Bush was anti-war pre-9/11. Post-9/11 he could openly call for war, which he’d probably truly desired all along but hadn’t mentioned often. He didn’t mention Iraq often when campaigning and criticised Serbia and Somalia. Bush had to be anti-war then – we (the right) forced him to be.
I’m inclined to say, “give me statism or give me death”, lol. Politics creates strange bed fellows. (I abhor the current state but simultaneously fear anarchy.)
Glen on 30 Aug 2009 at 11:15 pm #
Are you guys seriously complaining about this?