BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Next they'll be telling us they're smart and informed...
Despite her intense fear of the connection between Islam and terrorism, however, she does say, "To my great relief, I have learned that there are moderate, America loving, Constitution supporting Muslims."
"I know that some don't share my political views. This is OK. In America, we cherish our diversity of views. But an American's religion is their own business and no one should be excluded based on considerations like religion, race, sex, etc."
Tea Party?
All i keep hearing about is the GOP. Brilliant move on their part.
They overtook the Tea Party, used that base to vote GOP, and got themselves elected. All the bat shit crazy tea partiers lost, minus Rand Paul.
So congrats Republicans.
So...
Teehee, Tea Party.
Slate Magazine
Faking Right
How the Republican Congress will abandon Tea Party ideas and legislate toward the center.
By Jacob Weisberg
Posted Saturday, Oct. 30, 2010, at 6:54 AM ET
In the likely event that Republicans capture control of one or both houses of Congress next week, the new leaders will face a strategic question. Should they pursue the agenda of the Tea Party movement that brought them to power? Or should they try to mollify their party's base with gestures and symbols, without taking its radical ideology too seriously? While they'll never discuss this problem honestly, indications point in the latter direction. That is, the GOP's congressional leadership will feint right while legislating closer to the center.
The choice is between a Ronald Reagan strategy and a Newt Gingrich strategy. Reagan, who first rode a new conservative movement to the presidency in 1980, was a master of the right fake. After one brief and disastrous attempt to reduce Social Security spending in 1981, Reagan never seriously challenged federal spending again. But Reagan sounded so convincing in his rhetorical flights that most conservatives and liberals walk around today thinking that he cut government. Reagan was just as slippery with the religious right, embracing them while wasting little political capital on issues like abortion or school prayer. President George W. Bush followed this same model, humoring the base while letting government expand.
After Gingrich became speaker of the House in 1994, he was much more literal-minded. He and the Contract with America Republicans made the terrible mistake of taking their own anti-government rhetoric seriously and thinking they had a mandate to implement it. They proposed a budget that really would have slashed federal spending on Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment. And when Bill Clinton wouldn't roll over for them, they were willing to shut down the government, which they had convinced themselves everyone hated.
A recent Wall Street Journal article suggested that the future leaders of a Republican House remember Gingrich's mistake and intend to avoid repeating it. The House candidates most likely to win are experienced politicians who understand they're being handed a gift, not a mandate. They don't think working with Democrats is evil. On the big picture tax and budget issues, they plan compromise with President Obama.
What makes this plausible is that the House leaders-in-waiting are, by and large, not an ideological group. John Boehner, the speaker-in-the-wings, could have replaced Monty Hall on Let's Make a Deal. Kevin McCarthy, who will probably become the House whip, is less pickled-looking but similarly pragmatic. Even Eric Cantor, the more ideological majority leader in waiting, says he has no interest in another government shutdown. By contrast, Mike Pence of Indiana, who advocates a "no compromise" strategy, is considering resigning from the leadership ranks to run for president in 2012.
In practice, it may be difficult to discern which tactic congressional Republicans are pursuing. "Repealing" health care reform, for instance, sounds like a radical step. In fact, voting for repeal would be little more than a gesture, since Obama would veto any such measure. Refusing to fund parts of the health care bill in the 2012 budget, on the other hand, would count as a meaningful effort at rollback—and would be likely to provoke a high-stakes showdown. If the new leaders make a big deal about banning "earmarks"—which amount to less than 1 percent of federal spending—count it as a feint. If they propose means-testing Medicare or raising the retirement age, count them as serious.
One can already see antagonism emerging between the congressional and presidential wings of the party. The congressional wing, seeking to retain swing seats it picks up this year in 2012, will incline toward symbolic action. The presidential wing, trying to capture the Tea Party activists in a primary season, will argue for a frontal challenge to spending. If the congressional leaders show moderation and flexibility, they should expect to be accused of selling out by Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, et al. But they are likely to back off anyway, because making draconian cuts in spending, especially against the backdrop of an anemic economy, would be politically suicidal.
Why does anti-government ideology work as an electoral strategy but fail as a governing one? In a recent essay in the New York Review of Books, Michael Tomasky offers a persuasive explanation. By and large, the American public likes Republican themes of more liberty and less government better than it likes Democratic themes of compassion and fairness. But when it comes to the specifics, the situation is reversed. Democratic programs like Social Security and Medicare retain broad popular support, whereas Republican cuts in programs provoke antagonism. Thus conservatives prefer to debate philosophy while liberals would rather argue about programs.
Tomasky argues that this conundrum makes it difficult for Democrats to connect their policies to their beliefs. Conversely, it makes it hard for Republicans ever to follow through on their ideas. We will see what they do with another opportunity to put them into practice.
I'm amazed by how many conservatives are clueless of this.After one brief and disastrous attempt to reduce Social Security spending in 1981, Reagan never seriously challenged federal spending again. But Reagan sounded so convincing in his rhetorical flights that most conservatives and liberals walk around today thinking that he cut government.
After Gingrich became speaker of the House in 1994, he was much more literal-minded. He and the Contract with America Republicans made the terrible mistake of taking their own anti-government rhetoric seriously and thinking they had a mandate to implement it.
She's a bit of a butterface.
Oh well, Chelsea Clinton looks a lot better these days, maybe Bristol will grow into something more refined-looking.
In fact, voting for repeal would be little more than a gesture, since Obama would veto any such measure.
Why does anti-government ideology work as an electoral strategy but fail as a governing one?
In a recent essay in the New York Review of Books, Michael Tomasky offers a persuasive explanation. By and large, the American public likes Republican themes of more liberty and less government better than it likes Democratic themes of compassion and fairness.
The Palin family is where refinement, dignity and good manners go to die.
ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Bristol Palin has been so busy practicing her moves for "Dancing With the Stars," she apparently forgot to send in her absentee ballot.
The 20-year-old daughter of former Gov. Sarah Palin, who campaigned for candidates across the nation in this election, told the syndicated TV show "Inside Edition" after Tuesday's night show, "I did not send in my absentee ballot in Alaska. I'm going to be in trouble. Sorry, Mom!"
How the international media is covering the Tea Party
by ELIZABETH DICKINSON and JOSHUA E. KEATING
Foreign Policy (Oct. 26 issue)
GERMANY
Narrative: The Tea Party is about fear of American decline
Coverage: In a broad survey article on the history and national reach of the Tea Party movement, Der Spiegel's Marc Hujer and Thomas Schulz argue that, "For the first time since the global economic crisis more than 80 years ago, questions are being raised about America's success model, the principle that this country without a welfare state has always been more successful than Europe."
They take particular note of Beck's warnings against European-style socialism and allusions to Hitler and Stalin, making the case that the Tea Party is a movement of "blue-collar workers with posters of pin-up girls in their lockers." They are reacting, the article argues, against what they perceive to be a shift toward a European social model in which they would lose their privileged position...
CHINA
Narrative: The Tea Party will lead to U.S.-China conflict
Coverage: The government controlled China Daily describes the Tea Party as a "polarizing groundswell...based largely on suspicion of Obama's background, policies and motives." The movement is blamed for the high level of vitriol directed at incumbents in this election cycle.
But beyond the anti-Obama backlash, the newspaper sees the movement as a sign of the "US' inability to find political solutions" to economic problems. China's role as "the major engine of global economic recovery," according to this view, "embarrasses and threatens the US." In response, movements like the Tea Party promote a zero-sum view of the international economy in which only one country can be prosperous. If this worldview is followed to its logical conclusion, war between the two powers over influence or resources may be inevitable. According to China Daily, "China's greatest danger is that US policymakers face economic and national security crises they cannot solve."
FRANCE
Narrative: The Tea Party is a movement of conspiracy theorists, reactionaries, and anti-elitists
Coverage: In the French media, the Tea Party has become the pinnacle of American stereotypes--a movement of libertarian, Anglo-Saxon, conspiracy-theory-driven voters who are, more than anything else, angry that the United States is losing its place in the world. "The Tea Party is the party of no," Le Monde wrote in an editorial on Oct. 20. "The Tea Party is also...a libertarian movement...In the Tea Party, they wish to be left alone, to live as before when everything was going well, when America embodied the Anglo-Saxon status quo, when the Taliban were on the CIA payroll, and when neither the Chinese nor al Qaeda opposed the hegemony of Uncle Sam. Those in the Tea Party are typically white, and 'ok' financially and hence in something of a panic ever since the world began to change as the times changed. They don't worry about climate change, because they cannot imagine how mankind could have in its power to mess up what God created." An earlier blog post from Le Monde placed the summer's conservative rallies, including Glenn Beck's Restore Honor gathering in Washington, as "a chance to feed the rumors and conspiracy theories that have shaken the White House through the summer"--for example, Obama's secret Muslim faith or his supposed lack of U.S. birth certificate....
PAKISTAN
Narrative: The Tea Party is an Islam-bashing political front
Coverage: While the Tea Party may have begun primarily as an economic movement opposed to the expanded role of the federal government in the U.S. economy, in the Pakistani media it is often described a synonymous with the anti-Islam backlash surrounding the "Ground Zero mosque" and proposed Quran-burning in Florida. Pakistan's Dawn newspaper has described American Muslims as "living on the edge" ever since the Tea Party and other "right wing zealots" ganged up on the proposed Cordoba Center in lower Manhattan, releasing "venomous discourse" into the national conversation. The rhetoric targeted at American Muslims has been called a "reminder of the treatment meted out to other scapegoats in American history."
In Dawn's telling, the Tea Party has risen in tandem with the "Ground-Zero-inspired Muslim baiting frenzy" and is driven largely by the "bigoted rabble-rouser" Glenn Beck who attacks President Barack Obama as a "closet Muslim." According to Dawn, the same "predatory instinct" that led Americans to enslave Africans and wipe out Native Americans is "gathering mass, once again," this time with Muslims as the primary target.
SPANISH-SPEAKING WORLD
Narrative: An ultra-radical right-wing movement in the mold of authoritarians of another era
Coverage: When the Argentinian newspaper Clarin dispatched its correspondent to cover Christine O'Donnell's campaign in Delaware, they were clearly flabbergasted by what was taking place in the United States. Their correspondent wrote about hoping to figure out how someone who is "uneducated, unemployed, having a history of tax evasion, who used to practice witchcraft when she was young, who militantly fought masturbation, and who now defends creationism, could unseat the incumbent Republican."
The Spanish are less mystified and more alarmed. "We don't know if we feel more profound horror or more profound pity," El Pais wrote. The author refers to the Tea Party as an extremist movement and notes that O'Donnell (for example) is "proudly extremist." From there, the newspaper warns that "sometimes totalitarianism results from the best intentions and fanaticism grows in the most benign and public settings. The United States is living in one of these moments...in which its values are in conflict with one another."
The laws and policies of the legislature of the United States of America are now effectively on e-Bay, for sale to the highest bidder. Are you a Wall Street boss who wants to party like it’s 2007? Are you a Big Coal baron who wants to burn, baby, burn? Are you an insurance company that wants to be able to kick sick people off your rolls? Meet John Boehner, the most powerful Republican and soon-to-be Speaker of the House. But – of course! – you already have.
Here’s an example of how you have worked together. In 1995, the House was going to finally repeal subsidies for growing tobacco, because an addictive cancer-causing drug didn’t seem like the most deserving recipient of tax-payers’ cash – until Boehner walked the floor of the House handing out checks from tobacco lobbyists to his fellow elected representatives. They changed their minds. The subsidy stayed. Explaining his check-dispensing, Boehner says: “It’s gone on here for a long time.” So get your bids in: the House is open for business.
To understand what has happened in the mid-term elections, the best guide lies in an unexpected place – the dusty vaults of Hollywood. In 1957, Elia Kazan directed a film called ‘A Face In The Crowd’ that read the tea-leaves of the Tea Party back when Sarah Palin was merely a frosty zygote. One morning a poor wandering Arkansas chancer named Larry ‘Lonesome’ Rhodes is lying passed out on a jail cell where the local sheriff has detained him overnight. A pretty young radio producer arrives and asks if he’d like to tell her a story to be played on her show where ordinary folks speak to ordinary folks. He sings and rambles and offers corn-poke homilies. The clip is a huge hit – and he is soon given his own show, filled with country music and country wisdom which then shoots off into the stratosphere.
When Lonesome Rhodes becomes one of the biggest stars on US television, he starts receiving offers. Advertisers say that if he endorses their lousy products, they’ll shower him with millions. He knows how to sell to ordinary people – and he is pushed to go further. They ask him to sell the political causes that will make them richer too. He starts railing against social security and the old age pension and anything that taxes the rich to help the rest. He uses the tunes and slanguage of working class Americans to get them to emotionally identify with the people who are screwing them over. He’s brilliant at it – a gurning hyperactive huckster, saying that support and security for ordinary Americans is a betrayal of America. He makes himself rich by lying to the people he came from.
The essence of the Tea Party – and the relevance of ‘A Face In The Crowd’ – can be seen most plainly in Glenn Beck. Just over a decade ago, he was a drug-taking, pro-abortion, perpetually drunk DJ on morning radio. One of his famous “pranks” was to ring up the wife of a radio-show rival a few days after she had a miscarriage and taunt her about her loss. But then he stumbled into political commentary. After 9/11, Beck began to articulate a blubbery, blubbering hysteria, calling for the shooting of Michael Moore and the poisoning of Nancy Pelosi. He announced that any government program helping ordinary Americans was a step towards “communism”, and prophesied: “The country may not survive Barack Obama? If he does fundamentally transform America, we’re done. You don’t have to worry about a 2012.” He shot up to be the second highest rated show in cable news, and assembled hundreds of thousands to a rally on the Mall. At times seems quite conscious of the manipulation: “They’re getting so tired of me saying there’s a Marxist in the White House, I gotta take it up a notch,” he reportedly said to one private audience.
But a few years ago, he began to do something stranger still. He announced that the US was going to experience hyperinflation and savings would be rendered worthless – so his viewers should transfer their cash into gold. But not just any gold. No: Obama was probably going to seize gold bullion and nationalize it, he warned, so they should buy gold coins. “I think people are running out of options on what, you know, could be worth something at all. You have to think like a German Jew, 1934,” he said.
Meanwhile, Beck’s program on Fox News is sponsored by a company called Goldline that sells gold coins. As it turned out there is no hyperinflation and no Obama plan to seize bullion
There is, however, one significant difference from ‘A Face In The Crowd’. At the end of the film – spoiler alert – Lonesome Rhodes is finishing a show and, as the end credits roll and the music swells, he rants against his viewers, believing they can’t hear him. But in the control box, a producer deliberately flips a switch. Suddenly millions hear him say: “Those morons out there. I’d give ‘em dog food and make ‘em think it’s steak. Good night you stupid idiots. Good night you miserable slobs. They’re like a bunch of trained seals – I toss ‘em a fish and they lap it up.” John Boehner and Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are ridiculing their followers just as crudely. Can’t somebody at Fox flip the switch?
One of his famous “pranks” was to ring up the wife of a radio-show rival a few days after she had a miscarriage and taunt her about her loss.
After 9/11, Beck began to articulate a blubbery, blubbering hysteria, calling for the shooting of Michael Moore and the poisoning of Nancy Pelosi.
Those in the Tea Party are typically white
They don't worry about climate change, because they cannot imagine how mankind could have in its power to mess up what God created.
The Koch Brothers should sell their Tea Party stock pretty soon.I think the Tea Party is an interesting devil spawn of the economic crisis and a black president, but I think they have peaked with these midterms.
"The SPLC smeared as hate groups, respectable groups such as the Family Research Center, American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, Liberty Counsel and others as hate groups for opposing repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell and Homosexual Marriage.
The ACLU landed at three for being "a hate group with a law license. A lot of law licenses. If you hate America, the ACLU loves you and if you love America, the ACLU hates you."