28
   

IS THE "TEA PARTY" REALLY A POPULIST MOVEMENT?

 
 
parados
 
  3  
Sat 30 Oct, 2010 09:17 am
@parados,
http://www.longislandpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/rally-180x300.jpg
parados
 
  2  
Sat 30 Oct, 2010 01:58 pm
@parados,
I stopped down at my local "Rally to Restore Sanity". (Note the use of quotation marks that look out of place.) It was so sane it was boring. There was no one there to stomp on heads.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  2  
Sat 30 Oct, 2010 02:08 pm
@High Seas,
Quote:

Read - can't be bothered to repeat my own posts. And have a good day.


Thank god, because no one else wants to read them either.

Why this alleged female has to follow me and comment upon me can only point to her own feelings of inadequacy. They must have been at bay today because she managed to post without name-dropping.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Sat 30 Oct, 2010 02:09 pm
@Setanta,
She may always be at an airport because people run her out of town.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Sat 30 Oct, 2010 02:11 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
Apparently you're not so pressed for time that you could resist another response.


I suspect all of her meetings are fictions. Why would anyone want to talk to her? She has nothing but abuse for the rest of the world.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Sat 30 Oct, 2010 02:13 pm
@parados,
"Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear"

There! All grounds are covered! Look, Ma, no plagiarism!
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Sat 30 Oct, 2010 02:19 pm
@plainoldme,
Still more projection from the master of it.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  2  
Sun 31 Oct, 2010 09:05 am
From Salon.com:

Jon Stewart didn't lie. His "Rally to Restore Sanity" was aggressively non-partisan. But while none of the participants had anything to say about the upcoming midterm elections (besides a brief shout of "vote!" by American treasure and '60s civil rights marcher Tony Bennett), there was a quiet political message. And, honestly, it's a message that Democrats should be happy with.

An endorsement of civility and reason is basically an endorsement of Barack Obama. "Reason and civility" are practically the Democratic party's platform. The rally was a call to keep fighting for the things that make educated young liberals support Democrats in the first place.

The Republican midterm strategy is based on anger and resentment. A celebration of the idea that basically everyone's pretty OK at heart is a pretty liberal message. Some of the comedy (most of it involving Stephen Colbert) was explicitly against Republican midterm fear-mongering campaigns involving the demonization of Islam -- like bringing on Yusef Islam and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar to drive home the apparently controversial point that Muslims are nice, pleasant people.

Stewart's final monologue -- his serious, Mr. Smith moment -- was less a political message than an extended bit of media criticism. It was a sequel, really to his famous "Crossfire" appearance. 24-hour media doesn't cause problems, Stewart argued, but its existence makes solving them that much harder. The mainstream press has been this rally's greatest critic (Stewart's too political/too naive/too serious/hurting his "brand") and they ended up being -- much more than, say, Glenn Beck -- its biggest target. The nonpartisan establishment press is a thousand times more cynical than Stewart the irony-drenched comedian, and that's in part why they hate it when he gets "preachy."

"The only place people don't work together to get things done," Stewart said, "is here," gesturing to the Capitol, "and on cable TV."

The metaphor Stewart used to prove his point about the essential reasonableness of the American people? Cars merging into single lanes to enter tunnels. Trust me, it actually worked. (Though perhaps it works better if you live on the eastern seaboard, and drive.)

What about the guys who drive up the shoulder and try to cut in at the last possible second? "That individual is rare, and scorned, and not hired as an analyst."

While there will be plenty of (completely reasonable) disagreement about this rally's goals and whether it helped or hurt the progressive cause (and whether or not anyone involved even had a responsibility to help the progressive cause), there's already been a bit of aggressive point-missing by a couple liberal critics. (One recurring topic among disgruntled progressives on Twitter: MoveOn's urgent need for phone-bankers. As if, if it weren't for this annoying rally, these hundreds of thousands of people would've spent the weekend before Halloween canvassing.) Stewart occasionally preaches Broderian false equivalence, and it's easily his most annoying trait, but while the Broders beg for a Serious Grownup to rescue idiot Americans from their own passions, Stewart's message is basically that all Americans have the ability to just not be assholes, and the press has a responsibility to not reward being an asshole.

(The only actual moment where everyone's worst fears about the event came true was the horrible Kid Rock song about how influential millionaires can't do anything to make the world a better place besides care, a bunch, about war and stuff.)

As a piece of politicking, the Rally to Restore Sanity got a couple hundred thousand young liberals excited about sincerity and inspired about their nation on the eve of the midterm elections. I can't really see a downside, unless you think tepid criticisms of MSNBC's tone will convince liberals not to vote this Tuesday.

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon. Email him at [email protected] and follow him on Twitter @pareene
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Sun 31 Oct, 2010 10:14 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
From Salon.com:

Jon Stewart didn't lie. His "Rally to Restore Sanity" was aggressively non-partisan. But while none of the participants had anything to say about the upcoming midterm elections (besides a brief shout of "vote!" by American treasure and '60s civil rights marcher Tony Bennett), there was a quiet political message.
OK; I promise to VOTE!!!!!





David
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Sun 31 Oct, 2010 04:02 pm
Two prominent conservatives, humorist P. J. O'Rourke and commentator Garry Wills (as well as a third, Christopher Hitchens) gave interviews this week: O'Rourke to Scott Simon and Wills to Stephen Colbert.

O'Rourke said that government should answer the will of the people but not the whim of the people. Wills reported to Colbert that the extreme of the American right objects to Obama because he is black.

While there is no leader of the right, and while O'Rourke and Wills do not necessarily appeal to the masses, everyone . . . left, right or indifferent . . . would be better off if the extreme right were to listen to and reason out what O'Rourke and Wills have to say.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Mon 1 Nov, 2010 06:46 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
Two prominent conservatives, humorist P. J. O'Rourke and commentator Garry Wills (as well as a third, Christopher Hitchens) gave interviews this week: O'Rourke to Scott Simon and Wills to Stephen Colbert.

O'Rourke said that government should answer the will of the people but not the whim of the people. Wills reported to Colbert that the extreme of the American right objects to Obama because he is black.
Let the record indicate that if Condi Rice and Alan Keys ran for the Presidency n VP against Joe Biden,
I 'd vote for the blacks.





David
revelette
 
  1  
Mon 1 Nov, 2010 07:00 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Let the record indicate that if Condi Rice and Alan Keys ran for the Presidency n VP against Joe Biden,
I 'd vote for the blacks.



If it was Rice and Powell I might too if Powell was in the Presidential slot. Omsigdavid, I didn't know you were for affirmative action as both Rice and Powell are.
Setanta
 
  3  
Mon 1 Nov, 2010 07:08 am
After his performance at the UN, i wouldn't vote for Powell for dog-catcher.
High Seas
 
  2  
Mon 1 Nov, 2010 07:14 am
@Setanta,
Ditto for Rice, after her congressional testimony on Iraq's fictional "WMDs" where she brought up that "mushroom cloud".
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Mon 1 Nov, 2010 07:16 am
@Setanta,
YEh, he turned out to be a lying sack of ****. I had a lot of faith in him in the early days. He let us down the river with his "Airphotos showing WMD's"

Meanwhile, the economic effect of aspending 3/4 BILLION dollars A fuckin DAY had not been factored into the recession .
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Mon 1 Nov, 2010 07:59 am
@Setanta,
really sad about Powell, lots of folks really trusted him, Condi Rice, not so much.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Mon 1 Nov, 2010 08:02 am
@revelette,
Quote:
Let the record indicate that if Condi Rice and Alan Keys ran for the Presidency n VP against Joe Biden,
I 'd vote for the blacks.
revelette wrote:

If it was Rice and Powell I might too if Powell was in the Presidential slot. Omsigdavid, I didn't know you were for affirmative action as both Rice and Powell are.
I support neither Powell nor "affirmative action." I support laissez faire capitalism,
but I support Condi Rice over Obama, who is much further left.

What r the chances that I 'm gonna get EVERYTHING, perfectly exactly the way I want them. Someone once defined politics as being "the art of the possible."





David
High Seas
 
  1  
Mon 1 Nov, 2010 08:12 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Speaking of the possible, can you please give me your legal opinion on whether, if the suspicions expressed in this post are proven >
http://able2know.org/topic/121621-367#post-4399500
> and if Obama can be shown to be linked to a (hypothetical at this point) cover-up, that would constitute an impeachable offense?
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Mon 1 Nov, 2010 08:13 am

I no longer support the 2nd Gulf War.
I have withdrawn my earlier support of it.
Our mission WAS ACCOMPLISHED,
if not when Saddam was overthrown,
then certainly when he was hanged.
Enuf is enuf.

I can 't see them continuing to fight until thay run out of Moslems.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Mon 1 Nov, 2010 08:33 am
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:
Speaking of the possible, can you please give me your legal opinion on whether,
if the suspicions expressed in this post are proven >
http://able2know.org/topic/121621-367#post-4399500
> and if Obama can be shown to be linked to a (hypothetical at this point) cover-up,
that would constitute an impeachable offense?
I 'm not sure whether I 'm following the reasoning here:
something about a plane crash involved with a hoax relating to election fraud ?

If the White House perpetrated a hoax, to influence the elections,
then that coud give rise to demands for impeachment.

I saw something about failure to reveal evidence,
but I don 't know to whom it shoud have been revealed.

In any case, the Democrats in the House r not going to impeach
the leader of their party. I see no chance of that.

In the new Congress, the GOP can review at leisure,
the totality of the evidence n consider any appropriate decisions.

(Where 'd that leave Joe Biden, qua the election of 2012? Incumbent ?)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 03:36:23