home

Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:14:29 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I know we are supposed to be making fun of the Tea Party thing, and they are significantly compromised by being so associated with the Republican Party, but I have to give credit for citizens getting involved in the debate. Sure it's forwarded by GOP astroturfing, and it would be silly to ascribe any political significance to it (after all, even under the most generous estimates, the nationwide totals will be around 20,000 "protesters" (who voted for Republicans in the 2008 election) in a country of 300 million), but I can not bring myself to ridicule folks who are arguing for their viewpoint.

This is an Open Thread.

< Congressional "Privateers?" | "Is America The New Russia?" >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread | 201 comments (201 topical)
    Credit to all those talking heads (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:19:44 PM EST
    who can say "tea bagging" with a straight face.

    I can't!  It's not the term - it's imagining all those presumably straight laced people engaging in "tea bagging".  

    Oh man (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by CST on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:21:17 PM EST
    I had to explain to my parents what was so funny about it because they didn't get why everyone was joking.  Talk about an awkward conversation.

    Parent
    lol!~ (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:24:42 PM EST
    I think I'll wait another day or so before I call home {grin}

    Parent
    Google is my friend (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:30:18 PM EST
    Luckily I was able to locate the urban meaning using google and did not have to ask my children or my oldest grandson. Not sure how awkward it would have been but don't like them to think I'm uninformed.

    Have to admit that it is really, really funny that all Republicans are on TV proudly talking about being tea baggers.

    Parent

    the definitions here (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:37:30 PM EST
    are pretty hilarious.
    particularly the example sentences

    Parent
    ROTFLMAO n/t (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:40:39 PM EST


    Parent
    No way... (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 07:18:57 PM EST
    ...I telling my Mom what it is if see asks.  I'll sned her the Urban Dictionary link and have her look it up.  

    Not gunna go there.

    Parent

    it's only the talking heads (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by cpinva on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:16:33 PM EST
    who've used the term (snicker, snicker), not the organizers.

    that said, i doubt seriously all that many of the tea bag party participants really have the least clue what it is they're actually "protesting". if one of them could state a coherent position, in support of these activities, i would at least respect them.

    as it is, they are, in my opinion, just a bunch of sheeple, led around by the nose, by the likes of fox news and limbaugh.

    Parent

    Agree with you entirely (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:30:55 PM EST
    And all this snickering over a term the vast majority of us never knew could mean something naughty until the other day strikes me as Bevis and Butthead stuff, which used to be the province of the GOP.

    Parent
    Are the act ual protesters (none / 0) (#46)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:08:09 PM EST
    using the term "teabagging"?  As far as I know, it's only Rachel Maddow and David Shuster.

    Parent
    Yes, some (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by eric on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:13:00 PM EST
    really are.  Here's a post at Tbogg that shows a Freeper sign, "TEA BAG THE LIBERAL DEMS BEFORE THEY TEA BAG YOU".  Link

    Parent
    You can't make this stuff up... (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:51:26 PM EST
    this thread and these links are absolutely killing me.

    Parent
    You heard about 2M4M? (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 06:07:02 PM EST
    The Right's really getting amusing . . .

    Parent
    This is what happens (none / 0) (#160)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 07:50:30 PM EST
    when you wall yourself off from modern society and culture- you look like a bunch fricking morons to the gen pop.

    Parent
    Teabagging? (4.00 / 3) (#181)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:01:02 PM EST
    I guess we have to disagree about what "culture" is.

    Parent
    its been interesting watching (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:28:18 PM EST
    the reaction to the DHS report on right wing extremism.  its hard to tell who has their panties in a bigger bunch the right wingers or the lost in the wilderness pro Hillary sites.
    personally I am glad they called this out early.  it is a real problem.  I happen to know some of those right wingers.  they are not to be trifled with.  they are serious and I think/have thought since Obama won the election and it was apparrent he was going to take the country left on many domestic issues that trouble is coming.  
    hopefully it will be limited to the occasional nutcase like the one recently who killed the cops before they could "take his guns".  many of these people came of age under Bush and have never know a world where they did not get what they wanted if the screamed loud enough.
    those days are over and they are not going to deal with it well.  IMO.  

    the other think I like about that report (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:04:42 PM EST
    is that it reminds right wingers that the DHS is not just about watching "other people".
    also long overdue.

    Parent
    They seem to fcous on vets. (1.00 / 0) (#27)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:40:14 PM EST
    After President Obama's aborted attempt to make injured vets pay for their treatment, and now this idiotic report, it is obvious that if this was a GOP admin, progressives would be wringing their hands big time.  Obama just seems to hate vets.

    Parent
    The vet thing (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:22:27 PM EST
    could- call me crazy here- but could have something to do with the fact that the last time we had a dem in office a disaffected right-wing vet returning from the middle east commited what was at the time the single deadliest terrorist attack on American soil.  It's just a possibility.

    Parent
    So the report is about (none / 0) (#63)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:33:11 PM EST
    Mcveigh, dead guy?  

    Parent
    I am curious (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:43:59 PM EST
    Do you think that Obama, vet-hater that he is, personally directed DHS to focus on dangerous vets as much as possible in their report in order to further his anti-vet agenda?  Or do you think his vet-hating attitude is so obvious that it just kind of subconsciously seeps down through the ranks?

    Parent
    Well, putting on (none / 0) (#112)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:41:50 PM EST
    my moonbat simulator tinfoil hat, If I was progressive and he were a rethug, he or course only hires people who agree with him.  But then again, did hire the people who did put out the report.  

    Parent
    actually (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:47:09 PM EST
    the people who put out the report are bureaucrats who probably have been in DC for fifty years.
    it was not the new DHS secretary.  and as already mentioned it was ordered by Bush.

    Parent
    It occured to me (none / 0) (#123)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 06:06:51 PM EST
    that you are new to the site, relatively.  The past couple years, several times a year would be a post Bush hates people with dandruff, or GOP hates the military.  etc.  I was just borrowing that.  

    Parent
    Okay (none / 0) (#162)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 07:55:20 PM EST
    As parody it's more than fair game, I give that to you.  But you know, Bush's dad really did hate broccoli!

    Parent
    Bush Administration Ordered Study (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by daring grace on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:34:31 PM EST
    And it earlier featured a report on left wing extremism. I heard this today on CNN, but it's also reported here, quoting a Fox News reporter:

    However, this morning, Fox News's Catherine Herridge revealed that the report, along with an earlier report on radicalized left-wing groups, was actually "requested by the Bush administration" but not completed until recently:

        HERRIDGE: Well this is an element of the story which has largely gone unreported. One looks at right-wing groups, as you mentioned. And a second is on left-wing groups. Significantly, both were requested by the Bush administration but not finished until President Bush left office.



    Parent
    Good for Catherine Herridge` (none / 0) (#189)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:38:49 PM EST
    Unfortunately, it's unlikely that anybody else at Fox, all of whom have been screeching their heads off about this, will pay any attention whatsoever.  But she gets points from me for this anyway.

    Parent
    if you read it (none / 0) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:41:33 PM EST
    that is really not true.  the right wing noise machine is focusing on vets because its the best way to avoid admitting its talking about them.

    Parent
    I read it (none / 0) (#37)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:49:53 PM EST
    Vets are mentioned eleven times.  

    Parent
    that doesnt mean it focused on vets (none / 0) (#50)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:13:32 PM EST
    it would be hard to write a report on right wing extremism without mentioning several famous vets.
    and the fact is things like militias do seem to attract former military.

    Parent
    Got a link (none / 0) (#62)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:32:30 PM EST
    of percentages?  I would posit that militias attract wannabes.  Politics attract former military also.  

    Parent
    btw (none / 0) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:40:16 PM EST
    this is a pretty good reason for Obama to want to continue listening in.
    I am not saying that it justifies it Im just saying if thats the reason its as good a reason as I can think of.
    we are talking about dangerous people.  and they are you neighbors.  and in my case, my family.


    Parent
    unfortunately (none / 0) (#36)
    by star on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:49:52 PM EST
    extremism does not seem to be limited to right wing nuts.. some of the left wing nuts are down right crazy.. and winning elections and putting BO in office only seem to have increased their zeal..
    we have family friends who have to use profanities against palin and other repubs every weekend when we meet that we are seriously considering loosing em as friends..at least to keep my kids away from so much hatred.. and this same friend was recently fired from job for blogging obsessivly at work with his LEFT WING nutcases.. luckily his wife has steady job..and is less obsessed..


    Parent
    its true that extremism is not limited (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:11:06 PM EST
    to right wingers.  unfortunately guns mostly are.

    Parent
    Holy (none / 0) (#65)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:34:16 PM EST
    MOVE, batman.

    Parent
    surely you are not (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:42:52 PM EST
    going to suggest that extremists on the right are not more likely to have a paramilitary focus than extremists on the left.  there are literally hundreds of right wing paramilitary groups in the US.  in every shade of extremism.
    this whole discussion of dissing vets is a smokescreen thrown up, somewhat effectively, to distract people from the real point of that report.
    I have many friends in the military and former military.  they are not dissed in that report.
    the report rightly calls out likely domestic threats.
    and it was overdue IMO.


    Parent
    I would say they are as likely. (none / 0) (#107)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:36:16 PM EST
    DHS is the one to bring up the vets issue.  I am glad you are happy with DHS.  I have gotta ask though, what are the specifics of the report?  It is so general that it is a virtual echo of the bitter, clingy episode.

    Parent
    I would say they are not (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:44:39 PM EST
    and I am not particularly happy with the DHS.  I am happy that if we have to have a DHS it is finally focusing a little on the right wing nuts who I have always believed were the biggest threat, as opposed to muslims or anyone else, to my freedom if not my life.  
    as far as I am concerned that fact is more important that the any specifics of the report.

    Parent
    But yet (none / 0) (#125)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 06:09:11 PM EST
    you know alot of militia guys.  

    Parent
    Man is your (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 07:28:54 PM EST
    face going to be red when it finally sinks in that this report was ordered under the Bush Admin and follows a similar report on Left-Wing extremists put out by DHS in January.

    Parent
    A PDF of The Report (none / 0) (#118)
    by daring grace on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:56:34 PM EST
    can be found here.

    It's on the web site of the Washington Times which the Washpo credits with breaking the story.

    Parent

    Clinging to our guns (none / 0) (#93)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:21:00 PM EST
    and our God in a lot of states that voted Dem this time.  Just saying -- it's not that simple in hunting country.

    Parent
    I know hunters who have many guns (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:25:28 PM EST
    I also unfortunately know militia nuts who have many guns.  not the same thing.  not the same thing at all.  this is another useful smoke screen IMO.
    no one is worried about hunters.


    Parent
    Yeh, just saying that not all hunters (none / 0) (#120)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:57:37 PM EST
    are right-wingers, per the start of this thread.

    Parent
    I would say the main difference (none / 0) (#152)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 07:26:49 PM EST
    is that one side kills people when its out of power (hundreds of people in dozens of attacks in the 1990s alone) and the other side has for nearly three decades limited itself to the destruction of property and vandalism- but that's just me.

    Parent
    true. (none / 0) (#198)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 10:02:58 PM EST
    very true.

    Parent
    We should be celebrating all the Tea Parties (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by steviez314 on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:46:36 PM EST
    in Minnesota.

    After all, they have taxation without (full) representation thanks to Norm.

    They were nowhere to be found (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by AX10 on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:33:59 PM EST
    during Bush's horrible 8 years.
    They had no problem with blatant violation of the law, repeatedly.  They had no problem with Bush spending this country into a hole.  They had no problem when Bush proposed TARP.
    Now that there is a Democrat, these nuts are coming out of the woodwork.

    See this from Glenn Greewald:
    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/22/militias/

    The chickenhawks:
    "Bill Clinton's election in 1992 gave rise to the American "militia movement":  hordes of overwhelmingly white, middle-aged men from suburban and rural areas who convinced themselves they were defending the American way of life from the "liberals" and "leftists" running the country by dressing up in military costumes on weekends, wobbling around together with guns, and play-acting the role of patriot-warriors.  Those theater groups -- the cultural precursor to George Bush's prancing 2003 performance dressed in a fighter pilot outfit on Mission Accomplished Day -- spawned the decade of the so-called "Angry White Male," the movement behind the 1994 takeover of the U.S. Congress by Newt Gingrich and his band of federal-government-cursing, pseudo-revolutionary, play-acting tough guys."

    arguing? (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by candideinnc on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:03:23 PM EST
    I don't know that they are arguing any viewpoint so much as whining that they lost the election.  They don't like Obama.  He's a fascist or socialist or something else bad.  They don't like debt...unless the Republicans are the ones to incur it.  They don't like taxes, unless it goes to swell the military and start unjustifiable wars.

    How can you help not ridiculing this?  They are clowns led by the nose by the well paid propagandists at Faux with so many misconceptions about reality as to be pathetic.  Actually, that probably is more of what they deserve than ridicule, I suppose.  They are pathetic.

    Just don't turn your back (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:26:32 PM EST
    on them, and I mean that in a lot of ways.  Ignore them at our peril, if we remember the midterm elections in the first term of the last Dem in the White House.

    Parent
    You are so right, Cream City (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by kmblue on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 07:27:03 PM EST
    All these folks need is a simple message they can grab onto, like "class warfare" or "rationing health care", and the dems are doomed in 2010 if the economy hasn't improved.

    Actually, if the economy hasn't improved in 2010,
    they may not even need that.

    Parent

    True (none / 0) (#141)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 07:08:27 PM EST
    That worries me (though it could be argued that a lot of that was due to Southern Dems- something we have a lot less of now-- and retirement)  but what worries me more is what the right did about 3/4 of the way through the last Dem's first term- these people seem like harmless kooks but they've left a trail of bodies and we can't forget about it.  

    Parent
    Very true. (none / 0) (#169)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 08:11:07 PM EST
    '94 energized them for a backlash that continues to do damage, as we saw again in last year's campaign.  And I have seen the damage done to others at the local level.  The fundies are not harmless at all.

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#168)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 08:06:30 PM EST
    The pendulum swings....

    Who-da-thunk George W. Bush would ever have been prez.

    Parent

    Hypocrisy abounds (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by Slado on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:04:44 PM EST
    For those on the left...

    When it's a protest by the left we are not to question the loonies and generalize the protestors and when it's a protest by the right we are to assume they're to stupid to know what they're protesting

    For us on the right...

    When it's a protest by the left it's becaue they hate america and when it's a protest by the right it's because they love america.

    Have I got it summed up correctly?

    Oh no, no one questions lefties (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 06:25:10 PM EST
    Those protests in Seattle a few years back, no no, got no negative coverage at all.  Same with the most recent in Europe.  Come on, liberal is the most demonized political word of the last half century.  Whatever demonizing has befallen conservative pales.  You won't even HEAR a politician, with rare exceptions, call themselves liberal.  

    Please, when I went to anti-war protests leading up to Iraq, there was plenty of criticism leveled at us as traitors, terrorists lovers, you name it.

    Be friggin' serious.

    Parent

    Read what Salo said (none / 0) (#142)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 07:08:36 PM EST
    about the viewpoint of the right about the left.

    Parent
    Um (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 07:03:50 PM EST
    if the "tea parties" drew 1/10 the support nationally as an immigration march or Anti-war demonstration in a single major American city, then I'd say your comparison had some merit- however since they don't- I have a hard time seeing these as anything other than a giant whinefest where people who backed the losing canidate can moan about how its fascism to have an income tax.  My assumption is (admittedly this is ancedotal not qualitative) backed by the crowds at Tea Partys being older, conservative and overwhelmingly white.

    Parent
    Thousands reported (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 08:49:20 PM EST
    in tea-party turnout in the home of progressivism -- Madison, Wisconsin.  Thousands there alone.

    And in Madison, I wouldn't count on them all being older and conservative.  White, yeh. . . .

    Then again, it was the first day in the 70s there.  I noticed that Madison never had marches against apartheid until the snow melted.

    Parent

    Madison's odd (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:02:13 PM EST
    that stuck out to me too- Madison drawing 5,000 would make it the largest tea party outside of what's sure to be the big ones that FOX is hosting and sponsoring.  I mean DC probably didn't crack 1000, and Boston seemed similarily tiny.

    Parent
    Long Winter... (none / 0) (#184)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:15:24 PM EST
    ...nice day, beautiful city and Madison being Madison (and 'skonsin being 'skonsin) there was probably some beer involved.

    Heck, give me 1000 kegs and even I can get 5000 people together in Madison.

    Parent

    bugger off. (none / 0) (#193)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:47:57 PM EST
    It's sad that the protests are part of the GOP machine. Still I don't see a problem with Tea bagging. Very pleasant stuff.

    Parent
    Just so I understand (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by CoralGables on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:28:55 PM EST
    The original Tea Party had Colonists dumping tea in the harbor as a protest in theory against government officials, because they didn't want to pay a government tax on tea purchased from the East India Tea Company, a company based in England.

    Today's Tea Party has protesters buying tea from Lipton, owned by Unilever a company based in England, while paying a government sales tax on the tea, so they can deliver that tea free of charge to government officials.

    If this was actually successful it would do wonders for the British economy by largely increasing their tea exports while providing free tea to government officials in the USA.

    What has the world of good old fashioned protest come to?

    WHAT viewpoint? (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by dws3665 on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:32:08 PM EST
    The "I Hate Obama" viewpoint? That seems to be all these folks have in common. There are about 15 separate "causes" that are bringing people out to these "teabag parties," and the only thing they have in common is bitterness that they lost the election.

    I'm all about their right to free speech and assembly, but I hardly think they can be considered to be speaking with one voice about any particular issue.

    the "I Hate Obama" (none / 0) (#156)
    by kmblue on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 07:29:00 PM EST
    combined with the right wing noise machine will be plenty.  Check out digby today.  It made my hair stand on end.

    Parent
    Yes, the unfortunately (none / 0) (#164)
    by KeysDan on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 07:57:42 PM EST
    named "tea bag" revolt seems to me to be the right wingers anti-Obama update to the Clinton attacks of the 1990's.  It should not be considered as a single event, but rather, the beginning of a sustained campaign. At present, the glue that is holding the disparate nut cases together is the dollar amount of the Economic Stimulus Bill, and its purported needlessness and wastefulness.  Even when (not if, in my view) the stimulus actually succeeds, fault will be conjured up for one reason or another. Of course, the  annual expenditure on defense-related purposes of $l trillion, exceeds the one-time, special purpose stimulus expenditure--now if this part of the budget were the tea-baggers cause, I would consider joining them, their protest nomenclature notwithstanding.

    Parent
    The Uselessness of Honorable Mention Ribbons. (5.00 / 0) (#134)
    by Addison on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 06:41:43 PM EST
    Obviously in a participatory democracy participation is valued.

    People participate and present their viewpoint in their society and their government every day. Whether as employees of the government of dissenters against it, whether as taxpayers, or citizens, or community organizations providing services. Arguing for their viewpoint, and working toward its ends.

    Participation is rarely lauded unless it is being lauded so that something else can go unmentioned.

    And what is going unmentioned here is that the basis and substance of their participation in the dialectic -- which is the rightful subject of a discussion on participatory democracy, NOT the mere fact of participation -- is too often violent, nonsensical, and factually incorrect.

    The wacky mugging and seven-minute epic jokefests that Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Dailykos and so many more have subjected us to on account of the "tea bag" pun have been insufferable (as has most of the coverage of most issues coming out of the MSNBC laugh factory recently).

    It's dumb and insulting stuff, but without a better critique the "tea bag" pun will be the main critique of the small band of protesters and (more importantly) the big money behind them.

    In fairness (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 07:12:52 PM EST
    its probably not a great idea to name a political movement after a Sex Act. It'd be like if you wanted to propose the President going around the filters of the mainstream media and take his case straight to the people- but his partisans called it a "reach around" as in " Man the President's great at reacharounds." It just makes any cause, no matter how important seem a bit laughable.

    Parent
    They didn't... (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Addison on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 07:22:17 PM EST
    ...they bought tea to use as a symbol in a historical allusion to the Boston Tea Party. Now, that allusion failed on multiple levels. But that was the source of the name. The most common means of tea distribution in the United States is not loose, but in bags. Therefore they had to buy their tea in bags.

    "Teabagger" or "teabagging" was then applied, long ago, and has since suffered the fate of many unfunny "jokes" and been run into the ground by people willing to accept an unfunny joke if it's easy and derisive. Conservatives may have since unknowingly (and unfortunately) adopted the neologisms for themselves when talking about the protests.

    But the protesters did not, "name a political movement after a Sex Act."

    Parent

    Well (3.50 / 2) (#145)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 07:16:45 PM EST
    I think it's talking heads  and those who pass for journalists (Maddow, Shuster, Olbermann) are the only ones calling it "teabagging" (and I had to ask someone what it meant myself).  The organizers are calling them "tea parties", so they aren't the ones "naming after a sex act"

    Parent
    I just had to inform a journalist (none / 0) (#165)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 07:59:23 PM EST
    and journalism teacher here about the term teabagging, before it snuck into the student paper.  And at a church campus.

    Yeh, it was tempting to let it see print.  As for teevee, c'mon, Maddow must know what it means.

    Parent

    Are you kidding? (none / 0) (#192)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:46:20 PM EST
    See Somerby.  Maddow has been sniggering and snickering and snorfling and throwing double entrendres around for days over the term "teabagging."

    Parent
    Ah, of course. It's MSNBC. (none / 0) (#197)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 10:01:56 PM EST
    Stopped watching it when it got so sophomoric, and so it's gotten even worse, huh?

    Not time to keep up with all of my online reads today.  I'll check Somerby; thanks.  I'd rather read about MSNBC than watch it.

    Parent

    God Somerby went (5.00 / 0) (#200)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 10:08:41 PM EST
    downhill pver the last year and a half.

    Parent
    Its easier to do (none / 0) (#1)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:18:37 PM EST
    when you contrast the attention this recieved compared to that given to Immigration and Anti-war Protests possibly hundreds of times larger.

    that's a media (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by CST on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:19:39 PM EST
    criticism though not a protester criticism.

    Big difference.

    Parent

    Most of the attention (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:20:29 PM EST
    has come from Fox, no surprise there, Right Wing blogs, no surprise there, and Left Wing blogs, no surprise there either unfortunately.

    Concern for issues is simply not on the Left Wing blog beat much anymore.

    Parent

    They haven't care about issues since at least (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:25:29 PM EST
    2007.

    Parent
    Be fair (3.50 / 2) (#113)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:44:26 PM EST
    And I'm sure there have been protests even larger than the ones you are citing.

    Yet I've seen much smaller left-wing protests get lots of coverage. It all depends on what the MSM wants to cover.

    The same with the headcounts. It depends on whose doing them. I know that my own published assessments have, at times, differed significantly from police counts. In the end, it's a guess. And guesses can be wildly off.

    It also depends of course on when, during the demonstrations, the assessments are done.

    I remember during the Vietnam protests the police would do a crowd assessment as the thing was dying done. You get much smaller numbers that way.

    And of course, it also depends on which side you want to puff up.

    Parent

    I could be forgetful (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 07:15:16 PM EST
    but I can't remember a Left-wing protests which had less than 20,000 being described as some sort of movement.  

    Too put it in more conventional terms- the Tea Party people are the equivalent of the PUMAs during the the election- tons of noise, not much actually there.

    Parent

    Less than 20,000? Nationwide? (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 08:51:25 PM EST
    Hard to believe, or else the movement is centered in the center of so-called progressivism.  The turnout was several thousand, according to librul media reports, in Madison, Wisconsin.

    It's worrisome, then.

    Parent

    What day of the week is it? (3.50 / 2) (#158)
    by jerry on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 07:43:56 PM EST
    First of all, it's Wednesday and the subject is taxes not war.

    I give them credit for getting anyone out there, I need to be at work, especially in this economy where everyone risks getting fired.

    Second, I just don't understand the liberal left hate for these guys.  What drove these guys is an enormous dislike of Geithner's plan.  Seems there really is an awful lot in common with their protest and with our dislike and distrust of Geithner, et. al.

    Then of course there's our pitiful anti-war efforts in 2001/2002 which were sponsored and run by International Answer.  We were so pitiful we couldn't manage an anti-war movements without having to have ANSWER there.

    Of course various liberal bloggers making fun of the Tea Baggers don't remember the anti-war movement and were probably not covering it since they were for the war then.

    So yeah, after 8 years of disastrous Bush we can, on weekends, get lots of people to liberal causes, so let's bag on the teabaggers those losers.

    Me, I think that if they can stop Geithner it'll be a damn site more than anything I've seen our left do.

    And last time I recalled, contrary to Atrios, the left was there to celebrate participation in politics, regardless of ideology.  You participate?  Good on you.

    Parent

    Are the protestors' tax bills higher this (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:20:10 PM EST
    April 15 than they were under W's administration?  

    Some are paying more in taxes (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:35:41 PM EST
    -- yes.  I've talked with some who were to take part in the protests today.

    Let's not oversimplify what the original tea-baggers were doing in the Boston harbor.  Sam Adams seized on a symbol then, too, but it wasn't about income taxes.  It was about much more -- about all the taxes and economic chaos then.  

    Those with whom I talked included youngsters who had voted for Obama but are not feeling the love now.  They may not be paying more income taxes than they did last year, but many are having to pay them now although they are out of work or working fewer hours -- and many had that happen since January 20.  Others were laid off or cut back earlier but also know that Obama and the Dems backed the bills that led to TARP, bonuses, etc.  (I was surprised at how well informed were some with whom I talked -- but not surprised by others, who are such smart students always.)

    And some are paying more in taxes levied since January 20, yes -- the nanny tax on smokers.

    Laugh all we want, but see who gets the last laugh.  This is the age group that put the Dems back in power.  But this is not an age group with "brand loyalty" toward political parties.

    Parent

    Last poll I saw (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:48:37 PM EST
    Obama had some crazy approval rating, like more than 80%, among the 30-and-under set.

    Parent
    Well (2.00 / 1) (#105)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:33:53 PM EST
    To be fair, these were the same people who polls showed after Election Day, didn't know about Obama's position on clean coal or FISA, but knew all about Sarah Palin's clothes and her pregnant daughter.

    Don't put much credence into an 80% approval rating into a group that may or may not have a clue what reality is beyond "hope" and "change".

    Parent

    Fair enough (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 06:32:16 PM EST
    but for better or for worse, studies show that the partisan ID you pick up at an early age has a strong chance of staying with you your entire life (although obviously I'm sure you and I can both cite counterexamples).  I personally came of age during the Reagan era and the numbers show that people my age are still far more likely to vote Republican than those who are a few years older or a few years younger.  

    So from the perspective of a jersey-wearer for the Dems, it's an unequivocal good sign that the under-30 voters seem to be completely hostile to the GOP.  History shows that they're likely to stay that way to some extent even as the pendulum shifts back in the other direction.  Of course, from the perspective of whether it's good for the country you raise a perfectly valid point, but when I was a kid I was pretty stupid too!

    Parent

    Good points (1.00 / 1) (#135)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 06:43:07 PM EST
    I wonder if that will change now with this generation of "kids" (I must be getting old!) who require instant gratification and have the attention spans of goldfish?  These are not the same kind of people (for both better and worse) than young people of a generation ago - as a generation, they don't seem to stay committed to one thing for very long, so the only way we will get an answer to this is to wait and see what happens 3, 4, 5 elections down the road.  It will also be interesting to see what happens in local elections, and the next time we don't have a so-called "cool" candidate running for POTUS.

    Parent
    You do realize (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 07:20:21 PM EST
    that every generation says that about the one that follows it right? - I mean the Baby Boomers sure looked spoiled and impulsive to the "Greatest Generation" - after all they were doing drugs, dropping out and having sex during the years in which the GG suffered through the Great Depression and saved the world, how could they have the character and discipline of their parents?

    Parent
    Yes (4.00 / 3) (#151)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 07:25:56 PM EST
    But so far, we have empirical evidence that the young voters that came out didn't do it to support Democratic principles or ideals - they came out to support Obama, the man.  That's why in down ticket races (especially local ones) Dems didn't do as well across the board.  For example, out of something like 1400 state legislature seats across the country, the Dems picked up 19. This was even evident in the primaries - young Obama supporters in caucus states were much less likely to stay around and discuss other party business than other candidates' supporters.  They voted for Obama and left.

    Hopefully they'll become more engaged in the party as a whole as opposed to only supporting the man.  

    Parent

    Don't overly generalize a group (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 07:16:55 PM EST
    Obama had his worst showing among Whites over 60- should they all be thought of as Senile Racists who thought Obama was a muslim?

    Parent
    Can definitely relate to what you are saying (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:58:22 PM EST
    Paying less ($ amount) in taxes in 08 than in 07 but then my income is a lot less.

    Greatly increased health insurance premiums and medical expenses due to considerably higher out of pocket expenses have exceeded incoming funds in 09.

    Obama is promising access to Health INSURANCE rather than HealthCARE. I have access now but the costs are becoming beyond my ability to pay.  

    Parent

    I thought (none / 0) (#31)
    by eric on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:42:03 PM EST
    the original Boston Tea Party was a protest against the Tea Act.

    Parent
    Please reread (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:56:22 PM EST
    what is above.  The Brits dismissed it, too. . . .

    Triggers and powder kegs are different things.  Many a movement reflected long underlying resentments but awaited actions that set them off.  (See the 1840s array of political parties in this country -- until the Compromise of 1850, its  Fugitive Slave Act, and then the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 . . . the triggers for a new political party that just may have figured out a way to re-energize today.)  

    Parent

    yup (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by CST on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:04:14 PM EST
    in a lot of ways the tea act was the excuse not the reason.  Sam Adams and co. were looking for a chance to challenge the crown's authority.

    Parent
    sounds a lot like now (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:09:12 PM EST


    Parent
    I think it's the growing debt (3.50 / 2) (#15)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:25:50 PM EST
    That they are protesting, and the bailouts, and the handouts and the budget pork.  Many of the protesters seem concerned about leaving all this debt to their children and grandchildren.  I too have concerns about that.  I hate to think that we're leaving our children with huge debts that they will have to pay off.  

    Parent
    Not much concern (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:28:14 PM EST
    when it was Bush.

    It is too Republican in its orientation to be effective because all this happened when the GOP was in control.

    It is hard to take it seriously as a legitmate concern.

    Hmm, I guess I can be critical of them after all . . .

    Parent

    Of course, there was concern (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:20:30 PM EST
    by the end of the Bush years, which is why so many Republicans voted for Obama or just stayed home.

    Parent
    No one (at most a few) protesting (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:27:15 PM EST
    today falls in that category.

    Parent
    Maybe so. (none / 0) (#89)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:17:31 PM EST
    Dunno and haven't seen demographics of the group today.  Different group, anyway.

    Parent
    I cared! (2.00 / 1) (#195)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:56:23 PM EST
    I was shocked that a republican would be spending money like Bush was!  To watch Obama triple the debt, doesn't thrill me.  Now I have to worry even more about the taxes that my grandchildren will be stuck with, thanks to us.  

    Parent
    So the exploding (none / 0) (#32)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:42:10 PM EST
    deficit does not bother you?  

    Parent
    Not when we face a depression (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:49:36 PM EST
    Of course when we had a decent economy going and a budget surplus, George Bush busted the budget with catastrophic wars and irresponsible tax cuts.

    Talk to me in 4 years and maybe I'll organize a tea party, not now.

    Parent

    yes. (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:56:53 PM EST
    Exploding debt to wage a war of choice didnt seem to faze them.

    They are really just protesting that they lost the election.  As John Stewart said, "I think you are confusing tyranny with losing".

    Parent

    The problem (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by eric on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:36:27 PM EST
    of course is that these people weren't out there with their teabags at anytime in the last eight years.  Ostensibly, they are worried about the debt.  In reality, the debt is the same as it was 4 months ago and there was no teabagging by these people then.  These people don't really care about the debt.  They care about the debt when a Democrat is president.  It was the same in the 90's.

    Additionally, many of these protesters are republican wing-nuts that are united by irrational hatred and fear.  The causes are many: hatred for the Federal Reserve, fear of the New World Order, belief that Obama isn't a citizen, Obama's a fascist, mind control chemical contrails behind planes, on and on.

    Parent

    Eight years ago, (none / 0) (#40)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:57:50 PM EST
    some with whom I talked were 11 years old.  But they voted in November.  Wonder how they'll vote next time?

    Parent
    Third party i'd guess (none / 0) (#54)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:20:08 PM EST
    because I have hard time seeing them voting for the party that basically destroyed America during their childhood.

    Parent
    gosh, that was a whole what, (none / 0) (#57)
    by cpinva on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:24:33 PM EST
    But they voted in November.  Wonder how they'll vote next time?

    6 months ago? and obama's only actually been in office for 3 of those. it took 8 years for some of these people to finally recognize that bush was a disasterous idiot, who's policies trashed the country.

    talk about your "instant gratification" generation! do they seriously think problems created/festering over 8 years are going to suddenly, miraculously be fixed overnite? what drugs are these nitwits on, and where can i get some?

    Parent

    Again, please read (none / 0) (#167)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 08:04:08 PM EST
    what I wrote.  You must not know many 11-year-olds, if you think they all ought to have seen through Bush.  I don't fault those under 20, when so many older people around them were not wiser.

    And no, who said that they said that problems would be fixed overnight?  Actually, too many are too sadly cynical about "hope" for "change," but I give them credit for more hope than I have, after too many years of being taken in by too many pols.

    Parent

    Mostly, I get the impression that (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:06:01 PM EST
    the majority of participants haven't a clue what they are really protesting.  They are protesting our current reality, but did not feel the need to protest anything that created this reality.

    And this whole debt to the children thing is emblematic of how little understanding these people really have about what has been going on in the world around them.  Donny Duetsch was on Morning Joke recently and queried Gov Mark Sanford about why he was going to deny children the benefit of education funding n the interest of saving them money down the road and rightly pointing out that investment in better education would likely make them better prepared to earn money for a better life even if they had to contend with a debt.  Sanford had no intelligible answer for this question.  I guess he thinks that a lost generation of kids whose eventual earning power is better than getting into debt.  That's South Carolina GOP politics for ya!

    Parent

    Agreed, many don't (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by eric on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:40:04 PM EST
    have a clue.  They are mad, but they aren't sure about what, exactly.  Fascism, Socialism, a New World Order, the Federal Reserve....  They are all over the place.

    Parent
    Well, they know what they are (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:10:35 PM EST
    mad about generally-speaking, but I don't think they have been good information about what created the conditions that they are suffering.

    They are being told that Obama, socialism, fascism or whatever is the enemy and that enemy is responsible for their woes.  Meanwhile they are just victims of political manipulators who don't give a s... about them at all.

    Parent

    I think Stewart is dead on (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:13:38 PM EST
    as usual.  its about the fact that they lost.

    Parent
    It depends on which "they" you and (none / 0) (#91)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:19:08 PM EST
    he are talking about.  There are normally a pretty good percentage of people who have been given some really bad information about what is going on that make up the bulk of the people in the movement.  Iraq is a great example of that too.  Fan the flames of fear and discontent and all of a sudden you have people agreeing to and pushing for all kinds of crazy stuff.

    Parent
    we are talking about (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:31:08 PM EST
    the organizers

    Parent
    What often happens in movements (1.00 / 0) (#58)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:24:59 PM EST
    is that the masses have the resentment but not the words, or the facts beyond their own lives, to verbalize their concern -- that is, until the resentment motivates them to go to a protest.  Then they are given, by the leaders, the words -- and, in an effective movement, the next action to take.

    See Obama campaign 2008 (and resentment of youth against baby boomer "entitlements," etc. -- or maybe just their mothers as embodied by Clinton:-).

    If this group today does more than just act today, it will follow up with newsletters (online) to keep priming the masses with more means to express their resentments.  But just because they can't express them does not mean they do not have them.

    Parent

    I really think (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by CST on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:32:26 PM EST
    the whole "resentment" thing is overblown.

    We are just fine with our parents getting social security and medicare - and hope they do since they were depending on it.  We just don't expect it for us.  It's not a resentment thing, it's an expectations thing.

    I don't think Obama's youth support was about what you think it was about.

    Parent

    Social Security and Medicare will be (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by caseyOR on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 06:43:51 PM EST
    there for you if you demand it. In the '80s we were told that SS was going broke, and our grandparents and parents were heading for the ice floes, and it was all our fault because as baby boomers we insisted on being such a huge demographic that no future generation could afford the costs of our SS and Medicare.

    So, we agreed to double the amount we paid in FICA and to have benefits cut. The deal was that the extra $$$$ would go into the SS trust fund. This would ensure that the money was there when the selfish boomers retired. Of course, even though we agreed to the extra withholding, we didn't think we'd have SS either. We thought we were doing it to keep the promises made to our parents.

    It only continues to exist because we fight to keep it. We worked hard after the Reagan increase to make sure SS stayed solvent. We did a pretty job of it, too. We won't be dipping into the surplus until around 2040. The youngest boomers, those born in 1964, will be 76 in 2040. Seriously, most baby boomers will be dead by that times.

    If you want Social Security to be there for you, fight for it. Don't let these backdoor privatizers bamboozle you. It is pretty clear now that Wall Street cannot be trusted with anyone's retirement dollars.

    Medicare will be fixed when health care is fixed. We need single-payer healthcare for everyone. HR 676, Medicare for All, is the plan that looks best to me.

    Parent

    Good points (none / 0) (#138)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 06:56:18 PM EST
    including that the younger 'uns may not know that the Social Security crisis crap has been a standard conservative line for many a decade now.  They have hated it since it started.

    But yeh, Bush's blather about privatizing SS and putting it in the hands of Wall Street sure seems to have disappeared from the discourse, huh?  It sounds more like a line from Leno now.  Cue howling laughter.

    Parent

    Resentment vs. wish for reform (none / 0) (#178)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 08:54:21 PM EST
    depends upon the side that you're on.  I see conservatives as full of resentment but see myself as wishing for reform.  They see me as resenting the conservative revolution for decades now, and they claim they're working for tax reform today.

    Parent
    But the truth is (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by eric on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:38:34 PM EST
    that these protests aren't organic and didn't develop on their own.  This was organized and financed by right-wing sponsors.  So, these demonstrations are not evidence of any "movement".  You can always put together a couple dozen or even a couple hundred people that are disaffected with the government.  But there is no movement here to speak of.

    Parent
    exactly correct (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:45:14 PM EST
    this is astroturf not grassroots.
    financed by organizations run by people like Newt and Dick Army.  
    and if a better name could be found for the crowds today, I would like to hear it.


    Parent
    Neither was (2.00 / 0) (#92)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:19:12 PM EST
    the Obama movement.  Actually, reading up on reform movement history, "spontaneity" is vastly overstated.

    Parent
    My thoughts exactly (3.50 / 2) (#108)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:36:25 PM EST
    Along with the record breaking crowd numbers (that weren't - just over inflated), the fainting girls at rallies ala The Beatles, the "greatest number of small donations" (which weren't).

    Not spontaneous.

    Parent

    Just listen to what's coming out of their mouths (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by Farmboy on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:46:07 PM EST
    and you'll learn that these folks are protesting taxes being at the highest level in history.  They're protesting an illegal secret Muslim in the White House.  They're protesting Democrats stealing elections, and their country, out from under them.  They're protesting that Democrats want to take away everybody's guns.  They're protesting that activist judges are forcing churches to perform gay marriages.  They're protesting that socialists like Obama won't allow them to protest.  They're protesting that fascists like Obama hate Real Americans.  

    They're protesting that their threats of violence against everyone who disagrees with them are taken seriously.  They're protesting about not knowing why folks are laughing whenever someone says, "teabagging."

    It doesn't matter that the only factual things about which they're protesting are the last two.  They're protesting because Fox and Rush told them to.  That's what grassroots means.  You betcha.

    Parent

    Sure they are resentful and some (none / 0) (#80)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:02:04 PM EST
    other people are hopeful.  Whatever.  The issue is whether or not these folks understand what really is at the root of their resentment - in other words whether or not they have an understanding of a clear path to fix the problems that have made them resentful.  I do not believe they are well informed.  It doesn't make the followers here bad people or negate their resentment per se.  It makes the leaders of these kinds of movements look like the manipulators that they really are.  This is an age old bait and switch movement strategy where a struggling population is identified, their resentment is cultivated and then the angry people are co-opted to both undermine themselves and other political enemies.  There are so many parallels to the death of the Grange and birth of the KKK here it is actually fairly troubling.

    Parent
    A south Carolina (none / 0) (#150)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 07:22:47 PM EST
    A state thats contributed so little and taken so much from our country.

    Parent
    Wow, what a mean thing to say (none / 0) (#196)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 10:00:38 PM EST
    Lots of poor black folks live in SC and for a long time they weren't able to contribute much because they weren't allowed to do much.  

    Parent
    I keep checking for news (none / 0) (#5)
    by lilburro on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:20:17 PM EST
    about Bo, the new dog.  But what kind of news can a dog possibly generate?  I can't help it, I'm obsessed.

    Jon Stewart apparently sd. it's the (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:21:40 PM EST
    first gay dog in the WH.  Maybe the bandana?  

    Parent
    its the haircut (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:23:03 PM EST


    Parent
    How about some raw video (none / 0) (#11)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:23:20 PM EST
    from yesterday?

    Very cute pup. Squeezable factor off the charts {grin}

    Parent

    Bo is a larger dog (none / 0) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:37:37 PM EST
    than what I imagined. Not familiar with that breed and for some reason I thought it was a little dog.

    Parent
    Because of his shaggy look (none / 0) (#44)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:06:29 PM EST
    you really need to see him next to something to see his size. I'm glad they got an "older" puppy. So many people only want 8wk old puppies and kittens. Once they hit about 4.5 to 5 months, their adoptability drops, if you can believe that!

    The breed sounds like a fun breed. Of course I say that as a Dalmatian owner who likes high energy dogs with a quirky sense of humor :)

    Parent

    Bo is adorable! (none / 0) (#16)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:27:16 PM EST
    Just couldn't be cuter.  White House dogs always steal the show.  As well they should!  

    Parent
    Alan Berstin nominated (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:23:05 PM EST
    as border czar.  The teachers of San Diego Unified must be mystified.  They really detested this guy.

    Horserace news: (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:23:42 PM EST
    Mark Harris, the guy running Pat Toomey's campaign against Arlen Specter, has a knack for winning Republican primaries and then losing the general election. Fellow GWU alum, FWIW.

    My TeeVee's been highjacked! (none / 0) (#19)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:29:02 PM EST
    Seriously, must all channels air every moment of the new Catholic dude in town? Ah well, at least there's the Food Network and Animal Planet!

    You watching (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:30:41 PM EST
    Pitchmen tonight? I have it scheduled to record.

    Parent
    Oh man (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 03:34:16 PM EST
    I may just have to check it out :) Thanks for the heads up. I have to say, they do fascinate me a bit at 3AM!

    Parent
    Yeh, you got our dude (none / 0) (#139)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 07:01:19 PM EST
    from our town, and I'm tiring of the loooong teevee and print media farewell here, too.  But get ready, Dolan LOVES him the media face time.  He's very savvy to it, in part because a brother of his (who happens to live here) is in teevee.

    Btw, I went through the reverse of our exchange here seven years ago, when we got Dolan -- from a town of a brother of mine.  So I got a lot of the guy's history, especially in (mis)handling the issue of victims of priests' molestations.  Not pretty.

    Bottom line:  Dolan is very hail-fellow-well-met, but don't be fooled: He is arch-conservative.  That's why the pope picked him for the top spot in NYC, and Dolan is fast-tracking to cardinal.

    Parent

    For the new mother in your life (none / 0) (#51)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:15:31 PM EST
    Coming soon - a line of baby clothing and diapers known as "Octomom"

    That's right - Nadia Suleman has applied to trademark the name and plans to sell Octomom-brand dresses, pants, shirts, as well as cloth and disposable diapers.

    it would be more appropriate (none / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:19:31 PM EST
    if she could trade mark the contents of the disposable diapers.

    Parent
    doesn't she know disposable diapers (none / 0) (#60)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:31:01 PM EST
    are a huge no-no? Lordy, she could prob fill a landf . . . . ooops!

    Parent
    Cloth diapers (none / 0) (#127)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 06:12:24 PM EST
    Are just as bad for the environment - washing them out uses electricity, detergent and bleach get in the water supply. dryer sheet gets thrown out.  Or, if you use a service, all that stuff plus the emissions from the van that delivers and picks up.

    Basically, babies should do without.  ;)

    Parent

    Ahhh, BUT! (none / 0) (#128)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 06:20:54 PM EST
    solar power, green detergent, no need for bleach (lemon juice also works) and line dry  ;)

    Parent
    Man booted from Yankee Stadium.... (none / 0) (#72)
    by desertswine on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:49:00 PM EST
    for leaving his seat while "God Bless America" was playing. You gotta be kidding me.

    I was gonna say (none / 0) (#74)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:52:17 PM EST
    that I remember hearing about an incident just like that from last season, but actually this looks to be the same story.  It's pretty ridiculous but I don't know that the guy ought to be allowed to get a boatload of cash just because he was wrongfully denied the right to watch the last 2 innings.

    Parent
    Yes, this was last season that it happened. (none / 0) (#77)
    by desertswine on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:58:48 PM EST


    Parent
    I have been threatened (none / 0) (#75)
    by eric on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:53:15 PM EST
    at baseball games by fans because I refuse to stand up during that stupid song.  Usually, though, I would just take that time to go up and get a hot dog.  Causes less trouble.

    One other thing that I would do is I would sing along, but change the lyrics slightly, to "God-less America".

    Parent

    I think that's pretty outrageous (none / 0) (#79)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:59:59 PM EST


    Parent
    More evidence... (none / 0) (#131)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 06:26:31 PM EST
    that the yankees are the evil empire...you can p*ss whenever you want at Shea, and I assume New Shea.

    Yankees stink.

    Parent

    Mets (none / 0) (#137)
    by CoralGables on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 06:54:20 PM EST
    currently on ESPN2 from the new Shea against Oculus's christian clergyman.

    Parent
    Go Metropolitans! (none / 0) (#154)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 07:28:04 PM EST
    Sorry oculus, but there's a division to be won.

    Parent
    I'll pull (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by CoralGables on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 08:12:37 PM EST
    for the Metropolitans to finish ahead of the Indian Warriors in the division but have to hope they finish behind the Pescado.

    Parent
    speaking of things long overdue (none / 0) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:51:21 PM EST
    THIS is awsum.

    I am damn sick and tired of some fat POS taking up their seat and 3/4 of mine.  you want to let you a$$ grow to a double wide, buy two tickets.

    As a skinny person (none / 0) (#76)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:58:03 PM EST
    YES!!!! Just because someone doesn't fit in their seat, doesn't mean I want them in mine. Now if we could just get other forms of paid transportation to do the same . . .   :)

    Parent
    I would not say I was skinny (none / 0) (#78)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 04:59:28 PM EST
    but I fit in one seat.

    Parent
    I'm a target. (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:03:12 PM EST
    I also get the people that carry boatloads of crap with them, cause ya know, they can use some of my space!

    Parent
    ha (none / 0) (#86)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:05:45 PM EST
    "you gonna eat that?"

    Parent
    lol!~ anyone that knows me (none / 0) (#109)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:37:10 PM EST
    knows the answer to that question without asking! ;)

    Parent
    As a not so skinny person (none / 0) (#90)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:18:32 PM EST
    I sympathize, and trust me, I'm not comfortable either, but complain to management for making the seats only 17-18 inches across.  Most adult human a$$es are not that small.

    Parent
    listen (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:23:16 PM EST
    I am not so skinny either.  but that is not what they are talking about.  they are talking about people who literally cant fit in one seat.  as it happens I was seated next to one of those the last time I flew.  she would not put the armrest down (because she couldn't) and she literally took up half my 17 inch seat.
    not acceptable.  I paid good money for that seat.  if she had PAID for half my seat it would have been a completely different story.

    Parent
    Oh, I understand (none / 0) (#97)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:25:41 PM EST
    But they need to make the seats bigger to accommodate most people. I dread being on the Metro when I see a large man come to sit with me and we are both squeezed in the seat.

    Parent
    the metro is much cheaper (none / 0) (#100)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:28:49 PM EST
    you dont buy a "seat" on the metro.

    Parent
    Same on Northwest Airlines. (none / 0) (#103)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:32:03 PM EST


    Parent
    And as a long-legged person (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:25:01 PM EST
    can we talk?  Yeh, the seats are smaller -- I read the comparative measurements before and now on a lot of airline, as they squeezed in more seats on older planes.

    I don't get why the airlines get to do that after federal laws in effect for classroooms where, because people are so much bigger today, we are required in any remodeling to put in larger and fewer seats.  (And than add all those coats and backpacks and laptops, and it's still quite a squeeze.)  Some of our smaller classrooms ended up just unusable as that anymore, too few seats even for smaller classes, so they're offices now . . . reducing the number of classrooms at the same time that enrollments grew.  Ah well, the economy may take care of that for us now, with enrollments crashing for fall.  More room!

    Parent

    whenever I can (none / 0) (#99)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:27:37 PM EST
    I fly midwest air.  they have, or did the last time I used them, first class size seats in coach on many of their flights.


    Parent
    That's my hometown airline (none / 0) (#119)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:56:40 PM EST
    and we loved it -- until the new ownership. Flown it recently?

    (Btw, my really long-limbed brothers learned the trick, which was to seek flights on the Midwest plane that was modified for use by the Milwaukee Bucks basketball team -- for the dates when they weren't using it. :-)

    Parent

    As a skinny mofo... (none / 0) (#133)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 06:32:49 PM EST
    That ain't right...they should make the seats bigger to accomodate the bigger folks, and then the skinny folks would have mad room making flying a little less sh*tty:)

    Parent
    Sounds Like A Good Argument (none / 0) (#85)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:04:56 PM EST
    For benches.

    Parent
    Then I'd be squished inbetween! (none / 0) (#110)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:38:22 PM EST


    Parent
    When Crowded (none / 0) (#117)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:53:18 PM EST
    But then everyone will be equally squished.

    Parent
    Believe me, it never seems to work (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 06:03:40 PM EST
    out that way! I apparently don't need space . . .

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 06:06:27 PM EST
    You could wear an inflatable fat suit and when squished deflate it, so you have extra room. lol

    Parent
    lol!~ I would prob be a lot more (none / 0) (#126)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 06:11:19 PM EST
    comfortable!

    I have a tote bag with a graphic I made that says "Alpha B!tch". Makes the guys on the subway think twice before they do the "full body lean from behind". {grin} Who knew a canine term could be so effective!

    Parent

    Bo Knows... (none / 0) (#111)
    by CoralGables on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 05:41:08 PM EST
    We could have a whole new advertising campaign. Just have to replace Bo Jackson with Bo The Dog.

    More nonsense coming (none / 0) (#129)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 06:24:17 PM EST
    Now the judges are being closely looked at in Minnesota for any "gotcha" items someone can come up with in the Coleman-Franken fiasco.

    Not nearly as lengthy (none / 0) (#157)
    by CoralGables on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 07:41:35 PM EST
    as Minnesota tallying, but Scott Murphy (D) had an 86 vote lead as of late Wednesday afternoon in NY-20 even after Saratoga County (Tedisco's Best County) had added in their absentee totals.

    MN is just starting to get sad (none / 0) (#159)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 07:48:32 PM EST
    Remember 8 years ago when Gore fighting half-heartedly for little more than a month made him a sore loser- its been nearly half a year now, and Coleman still wont face reality- heck if he can just draw it out a little longer he can run as an incumbent in the 2010 (I think Kloubacher's up then) GOP Senatorial primary.

    Parent
    Nah (5.00 / 0) (#161)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 07:53:35 PM EST
    I doubt it has as much to do with Coleman as with the GOP. They will keep Franken out as long as they can. One less vote.

    Parent
    The GOP is fighting for... (none / 0) (#166)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 08:01:32 PM EST
    ...that one less vote, but Coleman and to an extent Pawlenty are gambling with their politican futures.  Minnesotans are patient, tolerent people on the whole, but they have little use for nonsense.  And that's what this is quickly becoming.  

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 0) (#172)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 08:23:19 PM EST
    Coleman is being used, after this he will have been chewed and spit out as a useless wad of party loyalty. What a clown. If I were a voter in that state I would be horrified about the waste of time and money Coleman is spending at this point, and I would not forget it. It is dirty pool, and everyone knows it.

    Parent
    Minnewisowa is so purple (none / 0) (#171)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 08:16:09 PM EST
    as the pundits called the three states along the Upper Mississippi (except for the state that is so dominated by that toddlin' town on Lake Mich) that it's hard to explain elsewhere.  So this sort of battle was almost inevitable.

    The 2008 presidential election did not bring an end to the down-the-middle split of so many states, by any means.  It was a fluke, as the splits at a lot of lower levels, like the MN Senate race, show.  The long reign of the Repubs in the rural areas, now bolstered by the burbs, is not over.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#179)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 08:59:40 PM EST
    Obama was an exceptionally strong canidate- but Minnesota has gone red since 1972- its hard to consider the state purple on a national election level, Wisconsin's been close only once (2000) and hasn't gone Red since the Reagan landslide in 1984- its been Blue 6 presidential elections in a row- Iowa is a true swing state.  I think you can use Senators as a leading edge indicator (if they win in open seat elections) but the power of incumbency is such that its hard to regard them as having a definitive say on the composition of a state- especially if its gone one way for nearly a quarter century- to use an example Maine has two Republican Senators but most people consider it a Blue State because its been Blue every year since 1992.

    Parent
    Repub gov (none / 0) (#185)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:20:05 PM EST
    It's split in the weird way that Upper Mississippi states go.  Wisconsin had the longest-serving governor in history, a Repub, with two Dem Senators.  Etc.

    Parent
    I like our chances there (none / 0) (#163)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 07:57:27 PM EST
    My normally very reasonable Republican colleague went a little bananas today when I scoffed at the GOP's challenge to Sen. Gillibrand's absentee ballot.  "She lied to obtain the ballot!  It's not a legal vote!!!"  Yeah, right.  Good luck with that argument.

    Another thing that's going on in that race is that the GOP is adopting the Coleman strategy of challenging as many ballots as possible, in hopes that the first number that gets announced will show them ahead so they can claim victory.  I read that Republican challenges are outpacing Democratic challenges by something like a 10 to 1 margin.

    Parent

    Geez, that's nuts (none / 0) (#173)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 08:23:40 PM EST
    Honestly, I sincerely believed that Tedisco would win it with the absentees. Republicans have traditionally had the advantage there.

    Obviously we have to throw out old assumptions like that.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#174)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 08:27:51 PM EST
    Many of the absentee may have been Republicans, but are sick of the party and want a change. So in a way it could be that the Republicans continue to have the traditional advantage as absentees, just that this time they are voting D.

    Parent
    What am I missing here? (none / 0) (#183)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:12:51 PM EST
    "She lied to obtain the ballot!  It's not a legal vote!!!"

    How can her ballot be challenged? She didn't move her main residence, right? Is everyone just losing their minds on the right?

    Parent

    She voted (none / 0) (#187)
    by CoralGables on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:33:37 PM EST
    absentee and their beef is she wasn't out of town the day of the election. Good luck fighting that. If they threw out every absentee ballot of people that were actually in town they'd be throwing out half the absentee ballots.

    Tedisco has challenged more ballots and challenged ballots aren't included in the totals. The lead should keep growing.

    Parent

    The absentee argument is nuts (none / 0) (#191)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:43:52 PM EST
    especially when the ballot in question is a US Senator who happens to be extremely popular in her district!

    I just searched around and he called it "inappropriate", lol!~  Maybe next he'll start counting Republicans that stayed home, because, ya' know, they would have voted for him . . . ?

    Parent

    Will the Mets best the Padres? (none / 0) (#175)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 08:38:44 PM EST
    Looks like it.  Padres are making lots of messups in the field.  6 to 1, bottom of the 7th, 2 outs, nobody on.  

    Doesn't look good... (none / 0) (#180)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:01:01 PM EST
    ...for you.  The Rockies gain a game in the standings, which is good for me.  Now, I just need the Giants to beat the Dodgers and it will be a good day.  

     

    Parent

    Stop the Presses (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by CoralGables on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:38:00 PM EST
    The team with the lowest payroll in all of baseball has the best record... at least for another day.

    Parent
    My Fish-lovin' brother says (none / 0) (#190)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:42:53 PM EST
    the Marlins are on a 7-yr. cycle and its their year again.  off to a great start.

    Parent
    And my Orioles... (none / 0) (#194)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:50:56 PM EST
    ...are right behind them.  Talk about a surprise story.  

    Also nice to see the team with the highest payroll barely over .500.

    Parent

    Teabagging? (none / 0) (#199)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 10:05:58 PM EST
    I never heard the term before I heard it today on CNN.  I know that I'm an old ignoramus, but what does it mean?  I didn't know before today that it was a sex term.

    My kids just shake their heads at me and won't tell me.  

    I don't think that all these republicans know what it means either.  

    Comments close automatically (none / 0) (#201)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 11:09:24 PM EST
    at 200, but you can continue the discussions on our evening open thread.

    This is interesting (none / 0) (#202)
    by catmandu on Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 07:15:14 AM EST
    Most of you seem to have no problems with your congress signing and passing bills--without reading them--that costs you money.  Money you worked hard to earn.
    You know the stimulous and the budget is jam packed with pork, otherwise the good congresspersons would have read it.  
    Do you really believe the gov't is so perfect that you can ridicule people who protest paying the bills that congress so freely racks up?
    You do realize that this is not free money, and the bills will come due?  You will not have any choice but to pay these bills.  
    Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread | 201 comments (201 topical)