Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Poll deflates "Obama's Katrina" meme

Yes, it's Rasmussen, but this is worth a look, since it's the first effort I've seen to gauge the public's perception of Obama's handling of the Gulf spill:

How do you rate President Obama's response to the major oil leak off Lousiana's coast -- excellent, good, fair or poor?

20% Excellent

23% Good

28% Fair

26% Poor

Given that barely more than a fourth say Obama's response was "poor," it would be hard to argue that the "Obama's Katrina" meme has gained any traction. That may explain why Rasmussen buried that finding and didn't trumpet it in any headline.

On the other hand, presuming this is an accurate reflection of public opinion, the numbers are somewhat problematic for Obama. A majority, 54%, say his handling was "fair" or "poor," while 43% say it was "good" or "excellent."

So in political terms White House advisers were right to recognize that they had to start aggressively showcasing their response, particularly since the disaster will continue and public opinion could shift in either direction down the road.

But still: Not Obama's Katrina.

By Greg Sargent  |  May 6, 2010; 11:27 AM ET
Categories:  Climate change  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: SEIU ad contradicts Obama on Blanche Lincoln
Next: Franken, Feingold sign on to big-bank-busting measure, bringing total to 11 Senators


Ahh..that magical 26% who supported Bush to the end, believe Obama was born in Kenya, think dino bones are only 7000 years old and that Sarah Palin is greatest leader since George Washington.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | May 6, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

And Greg, why are you grouping fair with poor apart from them being next to each other.

fair (from
1   /fɛər/ Show Spelled [fair] Show IPA adjective,-er, -est, adverb,-er, -est, noun, verb
1. free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge.
2. legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight.
3. moderately large; ample: a fair income.
4. neither excellent nor poor; moderately or tolerably good: fair health.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | May 6, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

As you noted, "it's Rasmussen"
Enough said

Posted by: j21j7507 | May 6, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse


Poll: Support For Offshore Drilling Takes Big Hit After Gulf Spill

"Americans are much less interested in supporting off-shore drilling in he wake of the calamitous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. That's according to a new poll from Rasmussen, which shows support for drilling has dropped by 14% since late March. The number of Americans who say they're concerned about the environmental impact of offshore drilling jumped 20% in the same period.

A majority of Americans, 58%, still support adding more oil wells to the nation's coastal waters. But that's down from 72% less than Ramussen's March poll. Less than half in that poll, 49%, said the were "at least somewhat concerned about environmental problems caused by drilling. In the new poll, 69% say they're concerned about the environmental impact of drilling.

The Rasmussen poll was conducted among 1000 likely voters on May 4-5. The margin of error is 3%."

More here:

Posted by: suekzoo1 | May 6, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

sue -- surprising that a majority still supports it.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | May 6, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Given the media's rush to ask the leading question "Is THIS Obama's Katrina?" without any factual support (because, you know, it's an easy phrase to say), I'm surprised it's not much worse.

False assumptions driving uninformed narrative. Morning in America.

Posted by: BGinCHI | May 6, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

But "fair" is pretty good in the circumstances.

I think Bush got "poor" far more then Obama did during Katrina.

It is indeed smart for the Obama team to kick it into high gear in terms of taking care of the problem.

Posted by: maritza1 | May 6, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

What do the Deep Horizon disaster and the Wall Street collapse have in common?

Both times the Govn't had to step in to save America.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | May 6, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Another deregulation mess this admin will have to clean up. First our financial system, now this.

"The BP well did not have any remote-control or acoustically-activated backup blowout preventer switch for use in case of an emergency requiring a rig to be evacuated. The countries of Norway and Brazil require the device on all offshore rigs, but when the Minerals Management Service considered requiring the device, a report commissioned by the agency, as well as drilling companies, questioned its cost (approximately $500,000) and effectiveness. In 2003 the agency ultimately determined that the device would not be required because rigs had other back-up systems to cut off a well"

Posted by: mikefromArlington | May 6, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Emerging propaganda thrust. Rove (in WSJ editorial), FOX and Norquist's ATR group all now pushing to create narrative that use of "tea baggers" is rude, uncivil, offensive and like using the "n" word.

This is an absolutely typical strategy from the right. Where some unwanted narrative is taking hold (or might) they immediately leap to the attack and portray it as some form of bullying or injustice - in a nutshell, "we are victims". The hope, often realized, is that people in the media will self-censor.

As always, facts (the term was originated by teabag folks themselves) do not matter at all, merely political advantage.

Posted by: bernielatham | May 6, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

These polls are getting more and more worthless. No offense Greg, I read these too and look for some kind of meaning. But unless there's a partisan breakdown, it doesn't matter.

I'm sure most mainstream dems gave Obama good marks and far lefties and conservatives said poor or fair, with independents saying good or fair. Everyone's got an opinion of Obama, it's pretty much a 50-50 split on anything, give or take a few percentage points.

The independent voters are the only votes who really matter, and they're so unreliable, firmly rejecting republicans the past two cycles and now considering embracing them again. They have no clue.

Posted by: SDJeff | May 6, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Katrina was like a spring flood. It was predicted days in advance of the event so officials had plenty of time to mobilize. Forecasters were predicting a bad hurricane for days before the storm struck. Still, the bushies couldn't get it together to do anything to minimize the human suffering. Walmart did a better job of staging supplies than FEMA did.

The oil slick is another toxic legacy from the no regulation bush energy policy. Obama was on top of this crisis as soon as the estimates of the spill by BP was shown to be grossly underestimated.

Posted by: srw3 | May 6, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Good MJ piece on what Norquist is up to this week...

Posted by: bernielatham | May 6, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Lunch time chuckle:

"Congressional Dems to Jindal: Oh, Now You Want Federal Help?"

In Louisiana, Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) has been a vocal critic of federal spending under President Obama, but as the state closest to the undersea leak, he already has requested various forms of federal disaster assistance. He's also anticipating the possibility that British Petroleum either won't, or won't have to under the law, foot the the full cost of all the damages associated with the spill.

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) took a swipe at Jindal when I asked during a brief interview this week if Congress was considering any funding to add to what BP will do. "Well you know, here we go. You know, the governor of Louisiana says the federal government should stay out of the state's business," Menendez told me Tuesday night. Jindal's office said they would respond but haven't yet gotten back to me. We'll update if they do.

More at:

And's Rassmussen... :o)

Posted by: suekzoo1 | May 6, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

@Greg - Have you noticed that it has been since about 7 PM Saturday when the car bomb in Times Square was found and we haven't heard a peep from Liz Cheney yet?

I set up a google news alert for her about four weeks ago and she has been MIA. Not her usual pattern. Hard to know just why but the fall off in her media appearances is coincident with the al qaeda 7 mistake.

Posted by: bernielatham | May 6, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Sue, shorter Jindal: "free market/states rights unless we need something, in which case, welfare please!"

Posted by: BGinCHI | May 6, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

I have to second the question about why you would include "fair" with "poor" in this poll. It makes no sense. "Fair" means fine. Not great, but certainly not a negative.

I'd be willing to bet that the people who answered "poor" closely matches those that think Pres. Obama wasn't born in the US.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | May 6, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

"This is an absolutely typical strategy from the right. Where some unwanted narrative is taking hold (or might) they immediately leap to the attack and portray it as some form of bullying or injustice - in a nutshell, "we are victims". The hope, often realized, is that people in the media will self-censor."

Bullseye, Bernie. And it will continue to work until the Right's propaganda techniques are fully exposed and recognized.

That's why we're here.

Posted by: wbgonne | May 6, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Hey bernielatham...
It's Tea Party, not teabagger. You just participated in the kind of name calling that drives independents away from your party. In case you haven't heard, the vast majority to people in the TEA PARTY movement are independents. We reject both the far right and the far left, so we are treated with disrespect by both parties. Just check out the comments on any of the subjects in this blog and you will find degrading comments just like yours. How do you expect to win independents to any of your causes when you guys act like that. It may console you a bit to know that the far right blogs treat us much the same as you guys do. Want to bet we can change things after the next elections?

Posted by: larbo | May 6, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Greg, do you have access to the cross tabs on the Rassmussen poll?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | May 6, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

larbo, please give us an explanation of what, as a Tea Party person, you are FOR.


Posted by: BGinCHI | May 6, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

larbo, and then follow up with SPECIFIC public policy you propose, i.e. what spending cuts you would make, how you would get medical care to the masses, etc. You know...all the important stuff about actual governing.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | May 6, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Clearly the "Obama's Katrina" meme is going nowhere except as a way to delay and deny the real discussion we need to be having about our dependence on fossil fuels and the risks involved. Between the mine disaster and BP spill our conversation should return to serious debate about energy legislation.

This is an opportunity for Obama and Dems to push once again for the carbon tax. It's the only way to really wean ourselves off our huge reliance on fossil fuels. I will be pleasantly surprised if this happens however.

Posted by: lmsinca | May 6, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Last year the Obama administration granted oil giant BP a special exemption from a legal requirement that it produce a detailed environmental impact study on the possible effects of its Deepwater Horizon drilling operation in the Gulf of Mexico, an article Wednesday in the Washington Post reveals.

Federal documents show that the Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service (MMS) gave BP a "categorical exclusion" on April 6, 2009 to commence drilling with Deepwater Horizon even though it had not produced the impact study required by a law known as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The report would have included probable ecological consequences in the event of a spill.

President Barack Obama is the biggest recipient of BP political action committee donations of any political candidate in the last 20 years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics and an analysis published Wednesday by Politico.

Posted by: obrier2 | May 6, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

"In case you haven't heard, the vast majority to people in the TEA PARTY movement are independents. We reject both the far right and the far left, so we are treated with disrespect by both parties. Just check out the comments on any of the subjects in this blog and you will find degrading comments just like yours. How do you expect to win independents to any of your causes when you guys act like that."

What a crock. You Teabaggers are a bunch of ultra-conservatives who find even the insane GOP too moderate. You wouldn't vote for a Democrat if your hair was on fire. I don't even WANT your support.

Posted by: wbgonne | May 6, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

"This is an opportunity for Obama and Dems to push once again for the carbon tax. It's the only way to really wean ourselves off our huge reliance on fossil fuels."

Yes. And here's another way of looking at it: Why should the Federal government -- meaning all of us -- have to pay to cleanup messes caused by stupid and greedy states like Louisiana that invite drilling in the Gulf? And if the oil wrecks the Florida Keys, for example, why shouldn't the state of Florida sue the state of Louisiana?

Posted by: wbgonne | May 6, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

obrier2: Excellent points but they make me wonder why Obama blew up BP's oil rig in the first place. Or is that no longer the GOP's operative propaganda?

Posted by: wbgonne | May 6, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

All, Sherrod Brown's amendment to bust up the big banks gains big momentum:

Posted by: Greg Sargent | May 6, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

No, it was "teabaggers," it is "teabaggers," and it will always be "teabaggers." It was the teabaggers themselves that came up with the moniker. It is not our fault if they were too stupid to realize that there was a more "prosaic" meaning to the word. You can thank the fine upstanding seditious traitors at FauxNews for that handle. It was they who hyped the term. They created and branded the movement. If you are really that upset about the name, then you aren't independent, you are a teabagger.

I've had this argument at least a dozen times with other 'baggers and I can trot out all of the links again. Griff Jenkins himself waved teabags on FauxNews. Charles Krauthammer has referred to "teabaggers." I have MANY pictures that I have downloaded from teabager events where the 'baggers themselves have festooned their caps and hats with teabags.

I realize that it must really suck to be associated with such a tribe of morons, but hey, you're the teabagger, not me. The latest data on actual dues paying members of the teabaggers places their numbers from a low of about 60,000 to a high of no more than 100K. Sure, more attend rallies, but the commitment to ‘bagger philosophy doesn’t run very deep. It is an incoherent collection of disaffected, ill informed bigots who complain about “big government giveaways” while on the way to cash their Social Security checks. They rail about Obama’s big government and are not troubled in the least about the intrusive “papers please” law in AZ or the idea of stripping citizenship on the basis of suspicion. They are hypocritical and utterly ignorant about the Constitution or reality in general.

Teabaggers are selfish petulant buffoons who like the toddlers they are, throw tantrums when life doesn’t go exactly like they want it to. If their candidate loses, it is evidence that the country is being “stolen” from them and that socialism, communism, fascism, and vegetarianism are just around the bend. They are birthers, deathers, and support every brainless conspiracy theory that emerges. Guess what? Teabaggers are also politically impotent: not a single ‘bagger candidate won in Tuesday’s elections. Not one.

Most of all, they ARE teabaggers. No matter how much you howl, ya’ll are stuck with that name. Suck it up, buttercup.

Posted by: Gasman1 | May 6, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

FALSE EQUIVALENCE: Aside from the 11 unfortunate employees on the rig, nobody died! Now about those 1500 during Katrina...JF

Posted by: rjfowler2 | May 6, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Wow gassman, you sure must be afraid of us, very afraid. That was a typical response from someone who doesn't have any respect for other peoples ideas. What ever gave you the impression that all Tea Party members agree with Fox? Or even if we think they represent our views?
To the others out there...You asked the question about what we Tea Partiers are for... so let me drive you off the deep end again.
Most of us are for most, but not all, of the independent, but most assuredly conservstive wiews of Sara Palin.
There, now squeal loudly and longly about blah, blah, blah, just like I expect you to. Not a one of you left wing radicals will admit that there may be other valid, honest, well thought out points of view other than your own. That is why you are so confused as to why independents just may vote massively Repub this next election.

Posted by: larbo | May 6, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

"Most of us are for most, but not all, of the independent, but most assuredly conservstive wiews of Sara Palin."


Sorry dude, you just proved and underlined Gasman's post.

Sarah Palin...LMAO. As Andrew Sullivan noted yesterday..."brainless boobage."

Posted by: suekzoo1 | May 6, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Obama's Katrina? Katrina was a natural disaster while this oil spill is a man made disaster. Why should the government be held more responsible for a private companies mess. BP should be held totally responsible and should reimburse the government for their help in the clean up. Why is it that when large corporations screw up, we have to socialize that effort, but that same corporation will piss and moan about taxes and regulations?

Posted by: republicrat | May 6, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

larbo: FAIL.

Some policy points please?

You can't hide behind Palin, since she just doesn't have very many. Not too good at the details, y'know.

You have been found unconvincing.

Posted by: BGinCHI | May 6, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse answering you are FOR the conservative policies of Sarah Palin you dodge the original question...what are you for?

The only thing Palin has clearly supported is the drill baby drill...fill us all snark intended...what is Palin for?

We get a feeling she wouldn't mind a preemptive military attack on that a position you feel comfortable with...

That she supports Israel regardless of what they may do because the Bible tells her to do so...And so because of the Bible Palestinians have zero rights and Israel can annex whatever amount of disputed land they wish?

Sarah talks a lot about "real" Americans...does that mean East Coast people who have progressive ideas are elitists without a right to call themselves "real" Americans.

We know Sister Sarah doesn't want scientists and Doctors determining who should get end of life treatment and when that treatment might actually be a waste of money...she calls those "death panels" but she doesn't have any problem when and insurance company denies a young woman coverage with recission when they find out she has breast cancer.

What do you believe in terms of substantive policy larbo. Do you appreciate that Bush's two huge tax cuts for the wealthiest amongst us have resulted in the worst wealth disparity since just before 1929? Do you appreciate the Republicans completely dismantling our middle class? What are YOUR solutions larbo...Sister Sarah certainly hasn't articulated even ONE SOLUTION to any of our problems.

Posted by: rukidding7 | May 6, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

As my main man Rep. Grayson said of Sister Sarah:

I'd love to have a policy debate with her. As soon as she learns something about policy.

Posted by: wbgonne | May 6, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

See, I told you so. You guys just don't listen. You hear what you want to hear regardless of what is actually said.
The Arab nations have consistantly stated their determination to wipe out Israel as a nation, even though they have inhabited that land since 1000 years before Christ. What of their rights?
Substantive policy? Sara states it time and again. The ones I agree with are:
**Israels right to exist. They are in a war for that very right. Any support for the Palistinians, who by the way have broken every promise and agreement they have ever made, is support for the elimination of Israel as a nation. All you have to do is listen to the Arabs. Any "disputed land" is simply land the Arabs wish to have because they happened to build a mosque there after they stole the land from Israel in the early middle ages, and Israel won it back in the seven day war.
**Smaller Federal Government and more power to the States. The Feds never do anything until a state does something they don't like, no matter if the Dems or Repubs are running it.
**'Real Americans" = Those who are neither far left or far right. You guys brand her a right winger for the same reason you brand me as such. We just aren't as into the socialist thing like you are.
**Health care? Millions of us believe it could have been fixed simply without all the trillions of dollars just waiting to be taken out of our pockets. I agree with her stance that Obamacare desperately needs fixing, and firmly support most of her often stated "fixes".
That enough substantive points for you guys to go ballistic over?

Posted by: larbo | May 6, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Actually, more like the ANTI-KATRINA.

Do you approve or disapprove of how the Obama administration is dealing with the oil spill in the gulf coast?

50% Approve, 29% Disapprove


Fox News / Opinion Dynamics


Posted by: Ethan2010 | May 6, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

"29% Disapprove"

That's the same 29% who disapprove of every breath Obama takes. They don't count.

Posted by: wbgonne | May 6, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Isn’t it coincidence that the WORST environmental disaster in human history will affect “drill baby DRILL” Red States Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia and crazy South Carolina? Not to mention Tennessee and Kentucky getting hit with un-heard-of flooding.
(Lloyd the Baptist was right… see: post on

Progressives have been WARNING you ignorant rednecks for decades but you HARDHEADS choose to listen to the corporate spokespersons like Limbaugh, Palin, Beck, Robertson, Hagee etc… HOW’S THAT WORKING FOR YA? (…and FOX News is owned by the Saudi Royals) TAKE A HINT!

It’s as though GOD himself has come down from heaven to rub Republican/Conservative noses in the evil BS they’ve spewed for the last few years. It seems like just yesterday that Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck worked their groupies into a cult frenzy with calls for off-shore oil DRILLING.

IF Democrats/Progressives were degenerates like Republicans/Conservatives we’d probably come up with something vicious and cruel like “we don’t want our tax dollars used to save your Red State fishing or tourism industry”. But the LEFT-WING really DOES love the USA and wouldn’t kick our fellow citizens when they’re down like the right-wing mental deficient’s do.

Get the government out of your lives, right? LET the Corporations have their way? THIS IS WHAT YOU GET! Profits over patriotism or the least bit of human dignity, social or environmental concerns. You think the multi-national corporations care about the American PEOPLE? Hell NO! Maybe you Conservative wackos didn’t notice but Corporations are the ones who moved all your good paying jobs to Communist China and caused the meltdown of our economy WITH THE HELP OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY…

I want to know something else… WHY is it that every other civilized nation on the planet, EXCEPT the USA, REQUIRES Oil drilling operations to have back up plans and top shelf shut off valves in case of emergency? I guess British Petroleum thought $500,000 was TOO MUCH for a workable shut off system. I know they LOBBIED in 2003 against the US government putting such REGULATION into place… (and I heard Cheney’s Halliburton is involved with this and other spills)
NOTE: search Greg Palast
Ohhhh and isn’t it telling the Times Square idiot bomber tried to make a hasty escape to Dubai? …Just like Dick Cheney’s Halliburton. A corporation who made a fortune from shoddy workmanship. Unlike the average American, corporations like Halliburton, Massey Energy and British Petroleum can get away with shoddy workmanship, mining explosions and oil spill disasters because the Republican Party (and some Blue Dog Democrats) are their paid for Ho’s…
IT’S ACCOUNTABILITY TIME! If the PEOPLE don’t DEMAND IT now then you don’t deserve rights and freedoms the USA represents.

Posted by: SPO1 | May 6, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

"IF Democrats/Progressives were degenerates like Republicans/Conservatives we’d probably come up with something vicious and cruel like “we don’t want our tax dollars used to save your Red State fishing or tourism industry”. But the LEFT-WING really DOES love the USA and wouldn’t kick our fellow citizens when they’re down like the right-wing mental deficient’s do."

Well, maybe I'm a degenerate (probably) but I think that states that choose to take reckless chances with the environment should pay when that recklessness comes home to roost. it's called responsibility, something the Right Wing lost long ago.

Posted by: wbgonne | May 6, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

That's it, don't fight it, embrace your inner moron. Let it out. If you admit that you support Sarah Palin, that is the beginning of accepting that you indeed are a teabagger buffoon. You just run along and try not to slobber too much and we'll keep sharp objects away from you.

Aw, isn't it precious how their eyes spin counter clockwise when you mention President Obama?

Posted by: Gasman1 | May 6, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

I know we shouldn't feed the trolls, but this got me: "...after they ["the Arabs"] stole the land from Israel in the early middle ages, and Israel won it back in the seven day war."

Now, as any self-respecting Biblical historian can tell you, it was the ROMANS who 'stole' the land sometimes known as Palestine or Israel from the small Jewish kingdom that had been reestablished there during the growing fragmentation that followed the decline of the Macedonian-Hellenistic hegemony in the region. Tore down the Jewish Temple, killed and exiled a lot of folks, etc. From then until the mid-7th century, the region was Roman (then late Roman/Byzantine) imperial territory. Then, after six centuries of increasingly despotic maladministration, the region was conquered by tribal Arabs who followed the new religion of Islam. For the next thirteen centuries, it was administered or mal-administered by a bewildering series of Caliphates, Sultantes, Emirates, Crusading Kingdoms and Empires, before the past masters of Empire-building, the British, put their mark on it.

By larbo's tortured logic and history, we apparently need to break of diplomatic relations with Italy for 'stealing' Israel from the Jewish people, with strong consideration of cutting of Turkey, Britain, Iraq, and Egypt as well.

Posted by: PQuincy | May 9, 2010 2:14 AM | Report abuse

Do these number reflect the 5-6% Rasmussen loaded question anomaly? Or just their raw side-loaded numbers? It's a telling sign that Rasmussen is always first out, but in always the outlier in the final wash. Good strategy, especially when the numbers are actually against your minority agenda. Too bad conservatives can't earned their popularity instead of cooking the books to create the illusion. In other words, command respect rather demand it.

Posted by: sebert | May 9, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse


Your list of "policies" is a perfect illustration of the reason so many people find it hard to take the Tea Party seriously. They're not policies at all: they're principles.

Let me illustrate:

Principle: Israels [sic] right to exist.


- Israel's border should be set as follows...
- We should engage in negotiations with Palestine and Israel under the following conditions...

Principle: Smaller Federal Government and more power to the States


- We should cut military spending by $x billion in 2011 by cutting the following weapons programs...
- We should repeal No Child Left Behind and replace it with...

Principle: 'Real Americans"


- ??? This doesn't seem to even be a coherent principle, let alone have any concrete policies. Maybe it has something to do with immigration reform??

Principle: "ObamaCare" needs fixing


- Treatment for uninsured Americans should be paid for by...
- Insurance companies should be allowed to drop coverage under the following circumstances...

Once the Tea Party starts to come up with some actual policy positions, one of three things will happen:

1. It'll fall apart because the principles are self-contradictory when you actually try to implement them.

2. It'll be subsumed into one of the existing political parties (most likely the Republicans), because the actual policies will end up being indistinguishable from that party's existing policies.

3. It'll come up with a coherent set of polices that is sufficiently different from the Republicans and the Democrats that it will become a serious political movement.

Right now, to be frank, it seems as though the Tea Party is a group of people who don't know the difference between principle and policy, and can thus be exploited by media personalities out to make a quick buck. Everything I've seen written by anyone involved with the movement confirms that. But I am genuinely curious to see if it'll survive long enough to start agreeing on some actual policy positions.

Posted by: yetanotherpassword | May 9, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company