Anti-Tax Tea Parties Held Across U.S.

[Canadiens1131]

Good times at the Paul / Conway debate!

YouTube - Rand Paul Supporter Stomps Head of Woman

Let's take back America from the government, one curb stomp at a time, yeeeee-fucking-HAWWWWWWW.

[BVS]

Is this the kind of followers you get when you want to get rid of the department of education and think civil rights legislation should have never happened?

[kramwest1]

Originally Posted by BVS

Is this the kind of followers you get when you want to get rid of the department of education and think civil rights legislation should have never happened?

These are they.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Huffington Post

Judson Phillips, founder of the Tea Party Nation, fortified a recent email encouraging Minnesotans in the 5th Congressional District to vote Rep. Keith Ellison (D) out -- in part because he's a Muslim -- by stating that he, as well as most Tea Party members, had serious qualms with Islam.

"A majority of Tea Party members, I suspect, are not fans of Islam," Phillips said in an interview with the Daily Caller. "I, personally have a real problem with Islam. With Islam, you have a religion that says kill the Jews, kill the infidels. It bothers me when a religion says kill the infidels. It bothers me a lot more when I am the infidel."

Earlier in the week, Phillips blasted out an email asking voters to support Ellison's opponent Lynne Torgerson, a divisive candidate herself in the area of religious tolerance:

There are a lot of liberals who need to be retired this year, but there are few I can think of more deserving than Keith Ellison. Ellison is one of the most radical members of congress. He has a ZERO rating from the American Conservative Union. He is the only Muslim member of congress. He supports the Counsel for American Islamic Relations, HAMAS and has helped congress send millions of tax to terrorists in Gaza.

Phillips, who came to prominence earlier this year for organizing a much-maligned, mainstream Tea Party National Convention, rectified his incorrect assertion that Ellison is the "only Muslim member of congress" to the Daily Caller -- Rep. Andre Carson (D-Ind.) is also Muslim -- but, according to a post on Tea Party Nation, as well as a later interview in the Washington Post, would not excuse his opposition to the congressman on religious grounds.

"I am not going to apologize because I'm bothered by a religion that says kill the infidel, especially when I am the infidel," Phillips wrote on Tea Party Nation, according to the Daily Caller. "Should we vote out Keith Ellison just because he is a Muslim? No. But his beliefs define his character and his character is a central issue."

Lynne Torgerson's website can provide a little a little insight into how her candidacy meshes with Judson Phillips's "vote him out because he's Muslim" message.

Torgerson devotes a large portion of her issues page to anti-Islamist rhetoric and anti-CAIR conspiracies. 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."


Ellison responded to the matter in an op-ed for the Washington Post on Wednesday.

"I issue a call to civility, and urge Americans to reject the divisive rhetoric of Republican Tea Party leaders like Judson Phillips; including calls for my defeat solely because of my religion," Ellison wrote. "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."

[deep]

Does he wear Muslim garb?

[kramwest1]

I'm pretty happy with Ellison as my Rep. You can't even tell he's a Muslim by looking at him.

He's flawed, but he is very earnest and sincere. He will be re-elected by a large margin.

[deep]

So he is not on the (Juan Williams) no-fly list.

[kramwest1]

Originally Posted by deep

So he is not on the (Juan Williams) no-fly list.

[BEAL]

So Tea Party is not racist because.......???????

[deep]

they accept members that drink coffee.

[BVS]

Next they'll be telling us they're smart and informed...

[HBK-79]

Today my pro-war, Jesus-fearing neighbor wore this-



What else will they think of?

[PhilsFan]

That's clever, I'll give them that.

[Moonlit_Angel]

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, it's such a shocking concept, huh?

Good god .

"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."

This. Can we send this message out to every single person in the country and get them to read it a few dozen times to let it sink in? Please?

Angela

[kramwest1]

So...

Teehee, Tea Party.

[BEAL]

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.

[kramwest1]

Originally Posted by BEAL

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.

And now we get to watch the unholy marriage of Republicans and Tea Partiers as the try to legislate.
Rand Paul in the Senate?

[2861U2]

Originally Posted by kramwest1

So...

Teehee, Tea Party.

I disagree. I'm fine with the results. Strong candidates won, like Rubio, Paul, and Haley, and the weaker candidates like Angle (who wasn't my preference), O'Donnell, and Paladino (not my preference), lost. That's just the opposite of what Democrats wanted. This Nevada outcome may actually be a blessing for our side.

[Canadiens1131]

Excellent article on where we're headed now.

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.

[BVS]

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.

I'm amazed by how many conservatives are clueless of this.

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.

The truth is a poll shows that the overwhelming majority of voters thought the priority of the government should have been spending in order to create more jobs. And most want Obama's plan to keep Bush's tax cuts for those making under 250,000.

Both of these conflict with the Tea Party movement and the anti-government mood, when it comes down to it, very very few actually believe that anti-government is the way. This election was won by ignorance and fear, a dangerous combination.