Re: Recent commentary: is the Tea Party party meaningful?

Here's a comment from a friend of mine: "The genius behind the Tea Party campaign is that it is a corporate created public relations/political campaign designed to promote pro-corporate economic policies via government while calling the movement "anti-corporate and anti-government." The racism angle is a just a way to hook "poor and middle class whites" into ...an effort designed to economically benefit the wealthiest of the wealthy at the expense of "the poor and middle class of all colors."

Steve, they are very much right wing puppets. Dupes of the very policy makers they supposedly want to remove. For the real staunch conservative, the principles that once characterized the right, viz. fiscal responsibility have disappeared; the tea party was not visible in the Bush years because its backers were enjoying those huge Bush tax cuts , and were not at all concerned about government deficit spending: Hell, 75% of the increase in income went to the top 1% of the population during those years.

Taxes have been lower under Obama than we've seen in 57 years. Most of the tea party leaders have been exposed as being lunatic fringe, some as avowed Nazis.

What political convocation of reasonable citizenry would permit such neo-nazi signs as " Obama takes his order from the Rothschilds" or promote racism , or endorse the lunatic candidates (including Paul -- not to mention Bachmann and Palin) who appeal to and provoke , disenfranchisement and racism?

You were wrong when you characterized this economic downturn as being "no different than the recession that plagued Reagan in 1982". Even Bush, whose understanding of economics was as deficient as budget was scared; it scared everyone(with brains anyway) . Our economy was about to implode.

You were wrong about your assessment of the Iraqi war, about Haliburton, and about climate change. Understandably, you wish to continue this streak of egregious assumptions based on your inflexible and antiquated libertarian views . Perhaps you will earn a graduate degree at Beck University, albeit at the cost of your common sense and sanity.

And when you have disposed of "big government" interference and regulation, and coal mine explosions. oil rig spills, wall street making billionaires out of people who create nothing become the order of the day you will understand that Libertarianism is little more than an idealistic, unrealistic and silly notion whose adherents have yet to take their heads out of their asses.

Despite your principles, I hope you can get an extension; that the Party of NO ends this strategy of creating misery and sowing anger and unrest.

Re: Recent commentary: is the Tea Party party meaningful?

Why, Phil! You gave me a turn, there! At first I thought the comment was from my old radio compadre, Tim Morrissey, my most faithful reader; but the more I read the more I said to myself, "Boy! This sure sounds like an Alotta rant!" Lo! and behold! It IS you! If that don't beat all!

Sorry, I'm not among the right-thinking crowd that believes that redistribution of wealth is a grand idea or a moral imperative. Notwithstanding that a lot of redistribution takes place already...

As far as the "corporate created" trope, you obviously haven't attended the two Appleton Tax Day Tea Party meetings. Amateur hour all the way. In a hopeful note for you, though, the attendance this year was about half what it was last year even though three Green Bay TV stations had crews there to cover it.

And "wrong about...climate change"? Please! Color me skeptical. It will not matter in the least whether I'm right or wrong. The global warming johnnies will utterly fail to be able to do anything about any temperature or sea rise...except to moan about the deniers and how unhelpful they were... and if only they'd had a couple trillion more dollars to spend...

The Town Crank

Re: Recent commentary: is the Tea Party party meaningful?

I like this Alotta guy. Makes a lot of sense. Even the global cooling part, as borne out by the national weather this month. (What? You mean a couple hot months in a row doesn't mean global warming???? Damn.)

And don't get me started about what the media decides to deign with its coverage.........

Re: Recent commentary: is the Tea Party party meaningful?

It is a well know historical fact that millions of Germans attended early party rallies, particularly in the rural communities that one could liken to our "heartland". The throngs heard what they thought were answers to their fears and anxiety; solutions to the economic woes and the humiliation of defeat . Pride, no doubt, swelled in their hearts. They met like- minded others and probably dismissed the extremists they heard about in the bigger towns like Nuremberg. Much as you do when confronted with indisputable evidence of racism in the Tea Party movement.


That you attended a local "rally" only demonstrates the backing and power of Faux News to "get the word out" (surely not the mark of a true "grass roots" movement but of Murdockian mania). That you saw ordinary people expressing their disaffection, only suggests what is obvious about the condition of the economy. The policies that brought this economic crisis about are the very policies you advocate for. The absence of such "populism" during the latter part of the Bush administration (where deficit spending, and the real redistribution of wealth --from the middle class to the top two percent of wealthiest Americans --took hold) is a evidence of the power of simplistic bullshit to float on the sea of ideas, like the oil that BP has gifted us with in the name of profit.


Idealism is foolishness.Your "buddy" Paul, confronted with request that he qualify his immutable idealistic views could not back off from from his position and despite subsequent back peddling, he revealed not just his political ingenue but where such "principles" lead.

Claiming that attending a local tea party rally confirms that this is a benign movement of the people is exactly like coming away from a Nazi rally and saying that they are of the people because they handed out beer and brats (which they did by the way) . It ignores the rhetoric and the leadership of the national movement, as well as the money trail of its supporters and originators.

I will not color you "skeptical", but I will color you idiotic.

Your comments, self aggrandizing and well written as they be, are little more than embellishments of Rush Limbaugh or Beck, and should be taken with the same degree of incredulity and despair.


I am not a political "junkie" but I know that the Republican Party, what used to be a party of fiscally responsible, well meaning and intelligent men and women who love their country, has been hijacked by people who serve the interests of the corporations and the affluent . As despicable as selling out the people to special interests may be, it is nothing compared to the advocacy and pandering to "lunatic right" that they seem all too willing to do.

Since you feel compelled to follow these fascists, and since you advocate for a system of government that can not exist except as an abstraction, I've elected not to engage you (or any of your readers who swallow this crap, hook , line, and sinker)


Long ago I learned it was pointless to try to have a "dialogue" with idealists. It's like trying to convince Bible lierallists that the earth is not five thousand years old, or that men did not ride dinosaurs like horses. Reading some of those sites, where according to the Politicians in Texas, Jesus wrote the Constitution...and 'god' decreed north america for the white man...And those pesky dinosaurs tried to attack and eat the baby Jesus while walking among us 2000 yrs ago....I heard that the church cut out a part of Genesis where Adam straddles the back of T-Rex and uses him to chase gays and lesbians."

This is the crowd you advocate for, directly or indirectly. Idiots who want to revise history by insisting on text book changes, fools who think that Halliburton's 34 million dollar "gift" to Cheney did not influence government policy. Morons who think the average guy should be left to flounder and corporations given huge tax breaks and corporate welfare.

Calling entitlement programs and asking the top tier to pay a more realistic portion of taxes, "redistributing wealth" makes as much sense as the commonly held idea among the wealthy that somehow the affluent are surely beloved by God, and are best fit to "rule" .

As change: one can dispute scientific theories and assumption till the cows come home, but if there is a 1 in a 100 chance that most scientists are wrong, I would hate to try to explain to my grandchildren why I opted out and handed them a planet with little chance of self rejuvenation.

Fascism and Christo fascism, McCarthyism, Racism, all find a home in the Tea Bagger "community" - no thanks, the red scare of the fifties was not that long ago and it took a brave few with their "rants" to remind the country that we were emulating the very forces we fought only a decade earlier.

To those who wish to "take back the country" --what the hell are you talking about? What is it about sedition and advocating against your own elected government, not a foreign power, you don't get?

"Taking back the government " is fascist talk. (And, I hate fascism more than anything.) What do you plan to do with it, dismantle it? To whom are you planning to turn it over to, those who want a theocracy, those who wish to pretend it is 1850?

The "Free Market" as equalizer, or arbiter is just stupid. Like "pure capitalism" it's an abstraction used by some to control, to promote class distinction, and allow their greed to go unregulated, unwatched, uncontrolled --the results being what we now have to contend with.

You are not only misguided and misinformed, but unprepared to deal withe the pain of extracting your head from your buttocks.

Where were you when I told you when he was elected that Mr Bush would destroy the economy? f you have forgotten I will remind you that you told me that no one man could do such damage. Whanna bet? Look around.


Yes, I " rant"; just as I would have against those who could not see the inherent dangers of Hitler's anti-semitism, and obvious insanity.

No one is a fan of "deficit" spending, but let's not forget that Mr. Clinton turned over a surplus to Mr. Bush, and 8 years later we faced an economic meltdown matching the "great" depression. Advocating for such inanity, only now it is packaged with the most divisive, racist, anti democratic rhetoric we have seen since the civil war, mocks everything you purport to represent.

You and your ilk will take away our liberty and our freedom , handing it over to the whim and caprice of corporate interests. As I said, "Corporations bleed red ink, but real people bleed real blood". There's a huge difference, despite what those lackeys on the Supreme Court have decreed.

Re: Recent commentary: is the Tea Party party meaningful?

Phil,

>> Morons who think the average guy should be left to flounder and corporations given huge tax breaks and corporate welfare. <<

Your attempt to tar me with the same brush as the Nazis, fascists, and the lunatic right can only fail. I'll just address this one point since, as you said, you've elected not to engage me. Maybe you'll have time to see what I say on this one point.

I have in multiple times and places declared that I am opposed to corporate welfare, including corporate farms.

I recognize that you're in rant mode here and I don't want to turn off the fire hose. But there are plenty of times I have to ask myself, "Who's he talking to?"

The Town Crank

Re: Recent commentary: is the Tea Party party meaningful?

It's condescending to suggest that I am in a "rant" mode ; using that term leaves the reader with little option than to infer that I am somehow "unbalanced. While you suggest that "I am painting you with a wide brush", I'd suggest that you are trying to paint me as if I was the Renfield character in Dracula, an inmate "ranting" in an asylum. This, by the way, is a well known fascist ploy: and it is exactly what they did to anyone who disagreed with them; so, I see what playbook you are referencing.

For my part, let me leave no doubt as to what I suggest can be inferred from your site: you advocate for, and "proudly" display symbols and links to organizations whose agenda is the overthrow of the government ; groups whose leaders, candidates and spokespersons have revealed their indisputable fascism.

Because I know you personally and like you, it is difficult to be "dispassionate" that someone of your considerable intellect and personal egalitarian values would run with this crowd. Perhaps your reasoning is merely inflexible , clouded by an adherence to an abstract, early 19th century view of the national landscape, that you are incapable of understanding that in the real world, politicians on the right don't want "limited government", they want "no government interference, or regulation" that will impede them from profiting and the expense of lives and the interests of society. If corporations are "citizens" as defined by the Supreme Moron Right Wing Court, than they should act it. They, like real citizens , should be subject to prohibitions and regulation.

Almost all consumer and worker protection law and legislation that has come about has come about after an incident or an event that appalled the nation. From the Triangle Shirt Fire in which young women burned or leaped to their deaths, and provoked us to force urban businesses to think about the safety of their workers as well as their profit, to the hugest environmental disaster in our history, the BP pill and the Upper Big Branch coal disaster, it is always the same for "you guys" --leave the "poor" corporate sectorr alone.

Behind the " tea party" is not a group of citizens who feel they have been overtaxed (if that were true they would be supporting Obama) but that same collection of fascists positing as "liberty loving " who want to continue to buy and sell legislators and control the government with their very, very deep pockets.

That the worst collection of fringe positions and advocates has coalesced around this "populist movement" is no surprise. Again, the same kind of malcontents and racists that clung to or embraced the lunacy of the Nazis.

Now here you are spewing that same slop; if not directly, indirectly by supporting these people an by implication, their views. Some of what I mean includes the racism and sedition advocated below:

Here's Josh Horoowitz recently ( a Jew of course, and we all know what your crowd thinks about Jews and Intellectuals, don't we?).

" On May 18, Tea Party darling and lifetime National Rifle Association (NRA) member Rand Paul made national news when he won the Republican nomination for the Senate in Kentucky. Paul was already well known for his strong Libertarian views and lineage (he is the son of U.S. Representative and 2008 presidential candidate Ron Paul). But he -- inadvertently -- elevated his profile even further when he came out publicly against a provision in the 1964 Civil Rights Act that prevents private businesses from discriminating on the basis of race.

That Paul would criticize such important and longstanding federal protections was disturbing enough. But to make his position more palatable on the Rachel Maddow Show -- at least in his mind -- he suggested that his interpretation of the Constitution would also allow business owners to keep gun-carrying individuals off their property. For all practical purposes, Paul elevated individuals who elect to carry loaded guns outside their homes to the same protected class as race, gender or ethnicity. Paul proposes to give people who pick up a gun the same special legal status as Americans who were being sold as property just 150 years ago. Since when did gun-toters become an heir to that legacy?

Angle is known for a number of bizarre statements and policy positions, but of perhaps greatest concern is her advocacy for armed insurrection. In January, she told conservative radio show talk host Lars Larson the following, "You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years. I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out." She reiterated this idea just two weeks ago, telling the Reno Gazette-Journal that a recent increase in gun sales nationwide "tells me that the nation is arming. What are they arming for if it isn't that they are so distrustful of government? They're afraid they'll have to fight for their liberty in more Second Amendment kinds of ways ... If we don't win at the ballot box, what will be the next step?"
This notion that gun owners are super-citizens with the right to violently overturn elected government was given the National Rifle Association's intellectual imprimatur at their national convention last month in Charlotte. 2012 Republican presidential nominee hopeful Newt Gingrich was called in to make it clear that "the Second Amendment is in defense of freedom from the State."

In Gingrich's revisionist version of history, "The Founding Fathers were all warriors." Not only is that statement patently untrue (many of our Founding Fathers never fought in the Revolutionary War), but it also conveniently ignores the fact that two of the greatest soldiers in our country's formative years -- generals George Washington and Alexander Hamilton -- were ardent Federalists with little patience for those seeking "freedom from the State." Washington rode out at the head of 13,000 militia to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion after citizens in western Pennsylvania threatened violence in response to an unpopular federal excise tax. Later, Washington made it clear that, "the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish Government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government."

The notion that Washington or any of our Founding Fathers would have seen democratically-enacted laws as the pretext for violent revolution is both groundless and irresponsible. "

To use my well worn analogy: You remind me of one of the many millions of Germans who were not fanatics, or antisemitic, or mean spirited who embraced and advocated for Nazism, because some of their views echoed their own. BUT, they did grasp the "real meaning" of the fascist rhetoric.

When a tea party candidate talks about "second amendment" remedies, doesn't it send a chill down your spine? When they talk of less government spending and want to spend 100 billion on a border wall or unlimited amounts for wars, doesn't that give you pause? And when you hear about "less government" and in your heart you really know that it is the mantra of corporate greed- -arent you ashamed?










d -as aoppcthe term clearly imbues asuggestive and it's your site, so you are free to turn off the hose, suppress, or otherwise censure anything I have to say.


YoLet me use my well worn analogy to the rise fascism in Germany to

Re: Recent commentary: is the Tea Party party meaningful?

Obviously I rushed, and failed to clear the end of my response - but you can just attribute it to "rant", along with the typos and misspellings instead of my poor eyesight.