Tea Party Lights Fuse for Rebellion on Right - NYT

[Veretax]

I don't know. Voting people out of office has worked better than armed insurrection for 235 years. Why do these people hate America? Because if they take up arms against the government because they don't like Barack Obama's policies or the course of the 2010 elections, they are traitors, not patriots.

Then your missing my point. Yes we elect people, but they are supposed to listen to their constituents when they tell them put the brakes on too. Let's not forget that before 1770s most americans considered themselves loyalists. So while I would prefer to make changes civily through the ballot box, I also understand that this country once had an election and elected a man named Abraham Lincoln. and Eleven (out of 23) states soon seceded. Now that is a gross over simplification, I realize, but you must also understand that a government that becomes intolerant of its own people, that refuses to redress the grievances of the people, is a government waiting to be in essence opposed.

Let's be clear, I'm not saying this needs to happen. I don't want it to happen, but I know far too many people who feel that their government doesn't represent them, that their represents do whatever is best for them, not for we who elected them. That's a very bad thing in our system of government, and absent correction, could indeed lead to violence. Like it or not, justified or not, this is reality.

[Larry]

Then your missing my point. Yes we elect people, but they are supposed to listen to their constituents when they tell them put the brakes on too.

Problem with your point is, the government is listening to their constituents.

[GibbsFactor]

Problem with your point is, the government is listening to their constituents.

The government is the constituency. That's the problem.

[Veretax]

if the government is listening, then they are turning a deaf ear and letting it go in one ear and out the other.

[mjah]

an object in motion stays in motion until acted upon by an outside force. For america this means that as our country is being pushed down a direction by the people currently in power, it will tend to continue to go that way unless acted upon by some force that can balance it. This is in effect what the Tea Party movement is about, an attempt to arrest some of this insane change and restore a balance of normalcy so we can leave in peace.

Can you give an example of the "insane change" to which you refer?

Since you referred to "the people currently in power," your answer cannot include the Bush Jr. administration's elective trillion-dollar war preceded by tax cuts, public state support for torture, stacking the Justice Department with political appointees, etc. No Clinton-era ignoring of terror threats or deregulation of the financial system, no Reagan-era pioneering of defense overspending or S&L crises.

Gotta pick only "insane change" from this administration -- and it has to be INSANE even in comparison with all those other guys' screw-ups. Otherwise, the Tea Party would have existed during the Bush Jr. administration, right?

I find this whole thing interesting because in my day-to-day life, it seems that most dyed-in-the-wool Republicans say Obama's problem lies in not getting enough done (as they secretly celebrate Congressional gridlock), not in some wildly rampaging torrential avalanche of "insane change" that is actually occurring right now.

If the Tea Party's options truly are limited to taking Sarah Palin's advice or engaging in armed revolt, they're going to render themselves irrelevant even faster than I expected. I figured it would take an economic recovery to do that.

[Dan T.]

Tea party Planner Calls for Hanging WA Senator

By NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS, Associated Press Writer

SPOKANE, Wash. – An organizer of a weekend "tea party" gathering in eastern Washington said Thursday she was the speaker who drew applause from the crowd by calling for one of the state's Democratic U.S. senators to be hanged. But Dianne Capps of Clarkston said her remark about Sen. Patty Murray was taken out of context, and what she meant was that Murray should be voted out of office in November.

"Nobody had a rope to hang Patty Murray," she said.

Capps' comment Saturday at the Lewis & Clark Tea Party Patriots meeting at the county fairgrounds in Asotin, Wash., were captured by television station KLEW of Lewiston, Idaho. While speaking to the crowd from the podium, Capps said Murray should suffer the same fate as the character Jake in the western "Lonesome Dove."

"What happened to Jake when he ran with the wrong crowd?" Capps asked. "He got hung. And that's what I want to do with Patty Murray." T

Rest of article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100219/ap_on_re_us/us_tea_party_hang_senator

[Corcaigh]

The bottom line, Isaac newton's laws of physics tell us one thing. an object at rest, stays at rest until acted upon by an outside force. If we are left alone to live our lives with out government insanity bothering us there would be no need to react, unless of course something happens to spur that movement.

The next part says that an object in motion stays in motion until acted upon by an outside force. For america this means that as our country is being pushed down a direction by the people currently in power, it will tend to continue to go that way unless acted upon by some force that can balance it. This is in effect what the Tea Party movement is about, an attempt to arrest some of this insane change and restore a balance of normalcy so we can leave in peace.

The problem is law 2, The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector. So the directoin the country is going is directly proportional to the vectors of force acting upon it. And this is the problem. Even as the tea partiers try to arrest this change and prevent us from going over a perceived cliff, many in power have said and reacted in a way that sounds like thug politics, fight back harder, push harder and faster, in essence applying more force in their original vector. This would have the effect of continuing to push the country in that direction, unless there is sufficient escalation from countering Vectors (not all need be in the directly opposite vector) to halt or even reverse its current course.

Thus we realize law 3 which is that for every action there is an equal or opposite reaction.

Your analysis is faulty as it neglects both quantum mechanics and general relativity.

[Fergasun]

Palin's right, for now oddly enough.

Tea partier's best strategy should be to abstain their votes from candidates they don't like, complain loudly, and vote and support candidates they like. If they can grab 20-30% of the "old Independents" they can become the new "Independent" force.

But in the long run they need to figure out how to build a viable 3rd party... perhaps that is the way. If they simply want to vote Obama out they can go to the Republicans. If they want to be a new political force they need a long term strategy.

[Veretax]

Can you give an example of the "insane change" to which you refer?

Since you referred to "the people currently in power," your answer cannot include the Bush Jr. administration's elective trillion-dollar war preceded by tax cuts, public state support for torture, stacking the Justice Department with political appointees, etc. No Clinton-era ignoring of terror threats or deregulation of the financial system, no Reagan-era pioneering of defense overspending or S&L crises.

Gotta pick only "insane change" from this administration -- and it has to be INSANE even in comparison with all those other guys' screw-ups. Otherwise, the Tea Party would have existed during the Bush Jr. administration, right?

I find this whole thing interesting because in my day-to-day life, it seems that most dyed-in-the-wool Republicans say Obama's problem lies in not getting enough done (as they secretly celebrate Congressional gridlock), not in some wildly rampaging torrential avalanche of "insane change" that is actually occurring right now.

If the Tea Party's options truly are limited to taking Sarah Palin's advice or engaging in armed revolt, they're going to render themselves irrelevant even faster than I expected. I figured it would take an economic recovery to do that.

Elective war? We were attacked on our own soil by terrorists, and lest we forget Bush was elected because he promised to deal with Saddam. I find it odd that people forget he campaigned on that issue. War is messy, and sometimes things get broken or beat on to wage that war. These terrorists certainly do not show any compassion for our citizens, they don't put on uniforms so that we can tell them from the populace over seas. Why should they be granted the same protections we would afford true prisoners of war?

As for stacking the DOJ with political appointees, oh yeah Clinton never did that. keep dreaming. Selective memory I'd call that. Furthermore, the financial system was not deregulated by Bush, if anything regulation increased on regular businesses, but ignored the FSAs like Fannie and Freddie, which were the very culprits behind the debacle. People were crying about the problems there before Bush had even been in office a year.

and then I read the rest of your post and can't help see it as an epic fail. You missed the subject we were discussing, which was the topic of some libertarians (not necessarily tea partiers) who were stocking up on weapons and ammo, and ow some people think that with how crazy things are in the country that violence could erupt. In no way was I suggesting that the Tea Party in general feels this way, nor was I saying that failure to get candidates elected is enough of a reason to do this. Stop looking through your partisan lense for a second, and look at it as an american whose freedoms have been stomped upon by decades of judicial fiat. There are plenty of things in this country that people are upset over, the question is, and this is what I thought the discussion had turned too, what, where, or when could the final straw fall, where is the point of no return. That I don't have an answer.

The people that I have talked to that feel this way don't have an answer for that question either. Which tells me it is not yet an inevitability and can be forestalled if the party in power stops ramming through idealogical issues without having true debate and discussion, freezing out other legislators just because they were from another party, and some such. Most of us believe this is wrong, and unjust for those who are represented in the halls of congress.

Your analysis is faulty as it neglects both quantum mechanics and general relativity.

While that may be true, I'd prefer not to bore everyone to death as it would likely extend the post several pages LOL

[Pskins]

Elective war? We were attacked on our own soil by terrorists, and lest we forget Bush was elected because he promised to deal with Saddam. I find it odd that people forget he campaigned on that issue. War is messy, and sometimes things get broken or beat on to wage that war. These terrorists certainly do not show any compassion for our citizens, they don't put on uniforms so that we can tell them from the populace over seas. Why should they be granted the same protections we would afford true prisoners of war?

Yes tragically we were attacked on our own soil by SAUDI ARABIAN terrorists, led by a member of the SAUDI royal family. The invasion of Iraq was

completely unnecessary and looking back, the reasons for the invasion seem more and more dubious.

[Madison Redskin]

Elective war? We were attacked on our own soil by terrorists, and lest we forget Bush was elected because he promised to deal with Saddam. I find it odd that people forget he campaigned on that issue. War is messy, and sometimes things get broken or beat on to wage that war. These terrorists certainly do not show any compassion for our citizens, they don't put on uniforms so that we can tell them from the populace over seas. Why should they be granted the same protections we would afford true prisoners of war?

Are you really trying to link 9/11 and Iraq? Are you also going to tell us that we had to get rid of the WMDs?

[mjah]

Elective war? We were attacked on our own soil by terrorists, and lest we forget Bush was elected because he promised to deal with Saddam.

I'm amazed that there are still people who believe in the link between 9/11 and Saddam, much less that they actually show their faces in public. The viewpoint is devoid of substantial credibility of any kind. It's hard to say "don't take this personally," but honestly I feel sad for you.

And LOL at the idea that Bush's "promise to deal with Saddam" resembled in any way the second simultaneous Asian land war that his free-Iraq fantasy became. It was a trillion-dollar distraction that has cost 4,000 brave American lives and tens of thousands of others' lives.

Please don't claim that others' posts are overly partisan when you can only offer these kinds of claims in reply.

Furthermore, the financial system was not deregulated by Bush

Whose post are you referring to here? Not mine. Maybe you're arguing with someone else's claim.

Of course, W's response to the looming disaster which his administration correctly predicted was wholly inadequate. And blaming Congress doesn't help his image one bit on that front. Doesn't help Clinton's either.

Stop looking through your partisan lense for a second, and look at it as an american whose freedoms have been stomped upon by decades of judicial fiat.

The first sentence of that passage is pure ironic gold, by the way -- particularly given that I was pointing out screw-ups by both sides.

As for "judicial fiat" -- you mean like the recent corporate campaign finance decision, courtesy of the conservative Supreme Court justices? If there's any one recent action that Tea Party subscribers should be steaming mad about, it's that one. A principle-led movement would be absolutely furious and outspoken on that topic. They wouldn't let a day go by without hammering it mercilessly. So why is Sarah Palin telling Tea Partiers to "pick a party," when at least one of the parties has "activist judges" on the Supreme Court whose leanings directly support the idea of tipping the scales of democracy in favor of corporations and unions? How could a principled movement possibly pick that party? It doesn't make any sense at all.

By the way, are you going to reply to my original request or not? Please list your examples of INSANE CHANGE under Obama. Change so INSANE that it even looks INSANE in comparison with the screwups of the previous 20 years.

[Destino]

Wait, so because libertarians aren't the populous, they are idiots?

Now that's rich.

No it's because their platform is illogical and has never worked. People that hate government tend to not be well suited to run a government. That's like a man with peanut allergies taking over quality control at the reese's pieces plant.

Their great ideas for the economy? Hands completely off. A great idea until a market sector gets slammed and because of wonderful libertarian logic is allowed to domino related sectors dragging the US economy, and then the world's economy, into the crapper. But no worries global community... in a decade or so we'll be back stronger than ever. I'm sure the starving families will take comfort in the ideological purity.

[Destino]

Elective war? We were attacked on our own soil by terrorists, and lest we forget Bush was elected because he promised to deal with Saddam.

No. What time warp did you fall out of? Bush if anything on the subject campaigned on a focus on the US and reducing foreign entanglements. Then 9/11 happened (after the Bush election mind you) and the invasion of Iraq happened prior to Bush's second election.

[NoCalMike]

Of course Sarah Palin wants the tea party folks to "choose a side" and I am sure she has a suggestion for just what side that should be.

It is about to be put up or shut up time for these tea party activists. Either they continue to "hold both parties accountable" or they show their true partisan selves and just vote for every ® on the ballot even though most of those ®s have had every bit as much of their hands in the honey pot as any (D) over the last ten years.

Why aren't the tea party activists OUTRAGED at the supreme court decision to give corporations and unions free reign to buy and rig elections with their money? Why aren't the speakers at tea parties even bringing this up? Hmmm...maybe because it is the corporations and wealthy connected folks pulling the strings from behind the curtain, taking advantage of the populist anger directed at this vague group of people called "government"

The tea party is populist anger machine being used a smokescreen in order to get conservatives back into power. It is one of the most dishonest "movements" of recent times. Using people's ignorance about how the system works, against them. Yes, go vote in the wealthy and well-connected, I am sure they are looking out for the interests of the middle and lower-middle class.

[Nickclone]

appealing to numbers, eh?

Libertarians aren't idiots because they're the minority (as someone else tried to explain my words), they're idiots because they believe libertarianism would work when there hasn't been a libertarian country ever. Its human nature to have some type of hierarchy or a system of running things.

[Burgold]

Palin's right, for now oddly enough.

Tea partier's best strategy should be to abstain their votes from candidates they don't like, complain loudly, and vote and support candidates they like. If they can grab 20-30% of the "old Independents" they can become the new "Independent" force.

But in the long run they need to figure out how to build a viable 3rd party... perhaps that is the way. If they simply want to vote Obama out they can go to the Republicans. If they want to be a new political force they need a long term strategy.

It's a dangerous strategy. If they only go anti-Obama, then they are relegated to a sub wing of the GOP and all their ideas and noise becomes irrelevant because the GOP knows that they will vote for them no matter what because they will always be the "better" conservative option.

If they really want to stand for something, then they need to stand now while they still have some momentum and take their lumps while building something. Otherwise, they will forever be pawns to the GOP and their voices will be marginalized at best.

[Larry]

Libertarians [are] idiots because they believe libertarianism would work when there hasn't been a libertarian country ever.

So, what does that say about people who claim that something cannot possibly work because it's never been tried?

[Thiebear]

I've been saying this for a long time.

Every Libertarian that I personally know talks about buying guns and ammo. The more rational (although still miss-guided) ones just say it cant hurt.

Every generalization about an entire group of people is easy to point out the falsehoods.

Not every Jewish person is cheap, Black people don't all run faster, math is not the favorite sport of asians.

As a libertarian i have foaming pepperspray as opposed to a gun.

(Even after 11 years in the Army) and my father/Brother being cops.

Generalizations are too easy and often wrong.

Originally Posted by Nickclone

Libertarians [are] idiots because they believe libertarianism would work when there hasn't been a libertarian country ever.

I don't want to undo everything and start over... we just need to scale it back to the levels before the Cold War. You know its bad when i think Clinton was the last fiscally responsible President.

[alexey]

THe people I know and talk to many think that this country is just waiting for an excuse to blow up into some kind of armed conflict. What would that look like? I dunno. I think it is a possibility, and is a reason that the people in power should start listening to the people rather than forcably ramming their agendas down our throats.

Majority of the people voted for Obama and his policies. More over, Obama is actually on the right side of public opinion more often than not:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/02/republicans-not-obama-more-often-on.html

That's how I feel about it any ways, and it scares the crap out of me to tell you the truth, because if indeed an uprising happens, and a new civil war

Do not worry, our military is very good at fighting insurgencies

Seriously though, please reconsider your view of reality if you think that there is a chance of anything but a few violent acts by a few people or groups of people.

[alexey]

Stop looking through your partisan lense for a second, and look at it as an american whose freedoms have been stomped upon by decades of judicial fiat.

What freedoms have been stomped upon?

[ABQCOWBOY]

It's a dangerous strategy. If they only go anti-Obama, then they are relegated to a sub wing of the GOP and all their ideas and noise becomes irrelevant because the GOP knows that they will vote for them no matter what because they will always be the "better" conservative option.

If they really want to stand for something, then they need to stand now while they still have some momentum and take their lumps while building something. Otherwise, they will forever be pawns to the GOP and their voices will be marginalized at best.

This assumes that President Obama will not change the way he Governs. It's possible that President Obama will make changes to his recent platforms in favor of a more bipartisan approach.

To me, this is the future of this movement.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Majority of the people voted for Obama and his policies. More over, Obama is actually on the right side of public opinion more often than not:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/02/republicans-not-obama-more-often-on.html

Do not worry, our military is very good at fighting insurgencies

Seriously though, please reconsider your view of reality if you think that there is a chance of anything but a few violent acts by a few people or groups of people.

Speaking of reality, why do think that President Obama is on the right side of public opinion more times then not? What specific issues do you think most Americans are in support of, when it comes to the President's stance?

[alexey]

Speaking of reality, why do think that President Obama is on the right side of public opinion more times then not? What specific issues do you think most Americans are in support of, when it comes to the President's stance?

The link i posted contains the answer. Here it is, again:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/...-often-on.html

I am not sure why you would ask me this, but alright, I will post some things from the link.

Afghanistan Troop Escalation. An average of seven polls taken since President Obama's speech on Afghanistan in December show a 54-41 majority of the public in favor of escalating troop commitments.

Bank Tax. An NPR poll found a 57-39 majority in favor of the bank tax proposal, which the Congress has yet to consider, after being read arguments both for and against the program. (An ABC/Post poll found a 73-26 majority in favor of taxing financial sector bonuses over $1 million dollars, although the White House has not advocated for that measure.)

Bush Tax Cuts. Although this polling is somewhat out of date, a CBS/NYT poll in April found 74 percent in favor, and 23 percent opposed, to raising taxes on those making more than $250,000 per year, as Obama's budget would do. A Newsweek poll in March, with somewhat different phrasing, found 49 percent in favor of letting the tax cuts on the wealthy expire and 42 percent opposed.

Campaign Finance. The only poll to have asked directly about the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision is from FOX News, which found voters disapproving of the decision 53-27. A Gallup poll conducted last month found that, while most Americans consider campaign finance to be a form of free speech, they nevertheless by a 52-41 margin felt that the ability to place limits on political contributions was the higher priority.

Cap-and-Trade. The last five organizations to release polls on cap-and-trade (AP/Stanford, ABC/Post, CNN, Pew, Rasmussen) actually show it favored by the public by a 51-40 margin, on average.

Cash-for-Clunkers. The only organization to poll on this was Rasmussen, which found voters opposed to the program 35-54 in June, but a 44-38 plurality favoring the program in retrospect after it had been implemented.

Credit Card Protections. 77 percent of respondents favored the Credit Card Protection Act, according to a poll by Open Congress. The bill was approved 90-5 by the Senate in May, as well as by a 105-69 majority of House Republicans.

D.C. Voting Rights. 58 percent of the public favored, and 35 percent opposed, giving an a House seat to D.C. in a nationwide Washington Post poll conducted last February.

Financial Regulation. A Time/SRBI poll in October found that 59 percent of the public favors more regulation of Wall Street versus 13 percent favoring less and 22 percent the same amount. A CNN poll two weeks ago found 62 percent in favor of greater regulations and 35 percent opposed. House Republicans opposed the financial regulation bill unanimously.

Gays in the Military. Four organizations -- FOX, Gallup, Quinnipiac, and CNN -- have released polls on Don't Ask Don't Tell since Obama's inauguration. They show an average of 58 percent saying that Don't Ask Don't Tell should be repealed and that gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military, and 35 percent opposed.

Hate Crimes. Although there have been no recent polls on the subject, a Gallup survey in May 2007 found a 68-27 majority in favor of expanding hate crimes statues to include sexual and gender identity.

Mortgage Relief. Senate Republican unanimously voted against the Durbin Amendment to provide mortgage relief in April, as did 12 Senate Democrats. However, four organizations which polled on mortgage relief in February through April found an average of 60 percent of Americans in support of additional assistance versus 34 percent opposed.

SCHIP. Although there have been no recent polls on SCHIP (children's health care), an ABC/Post poll in September, 2007 found it supported 72-25 by the public, and a CNN poll in October, 2007 found that the public wanted by a 61-35 margin for the Congress to override President Bush's veto of the program. Nine Republican Senators voted to extend SCHIP in February as did 40 House Republicans.

Sonia Sotomayor. The last five polls to be released on Sonia Sotmayor in advance of her confirmation showed 52 percent in favor of her confirmation and 30 percent opposed, on average. Senate Republicans opposed her confirmation 31-9.

[ABQCOWBOY]

The link i posted contains the answer. Here it is, again:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/...-often-on.html

I am not sure why you would ask me this, but alright, I will post some things from the link.

I guess because I don't see this as the most important issues of the day for most Americans.

I see the following as major issues.

Health Care Reform

39% Favor 58% Oppose

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

Global Warming/Cape and Trade

An older study says that most Americans who favor Cap and Trade don't know much about it and 55% don't know anything about it. Of those who claim to know about it, 64% oppose it and 32% favor it.

http://people-press.org/report/556/global-warming

Iran

42 Favor 50% disapprove

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125678/Obama-Approval-Economy-Down-Foreign-Affairs-Up.aspx

Economy and Jobs

36% favor 61% disapprove of the way the Job the President is doing.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125678/Obama-Approval-Economy-Down-Foreign-Affairs-Up.aspx

National Debt

32% favor 64% disapprove

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125678/Obama-Approval-Economy-Down-Foreign-Affairs-Up.aspx

To me, these are the issues that are of most importance.