Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The tea party movement, examined

1. A new Quinnipiac national poll provides us a detailed look into the composition of the nascent tea party movement. The conclusion? It looks a lot like the Republican party.

Nearly three-quarters of those who identify with the tea party movement say they are Republicans while just 16 percent describe themselves as Democrats and five percent call themselves independents.

Tea party types are also far more favorably inclined to the Republican party with 60 percent viewing the GOP in a favorable light as compared to just 20 percent who view the party unfavorably. Just eight percent of tea parties regard the Democratic party favorably while 82 percent view it unfavorably.

On the role of government, too, the views of the tea party movement and the GOP closely jibe. Fifteen percent of Republicans said that the "government should do more to solve problems" while only 11 percent of tea party activists said the same.

There are some small-ish divergences between the two groups. Those in the tea party movement see former Alaska governor Sarah Palin more favorably than self-identified Republicans by 12 percentage points and the tea party crowd is more likely to think that they can "hardly ever" trust the government to do what's right. (Palin will headline a major gathering of tea party activists on Saturday in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's hometown of Searchlight, Nev.)

The similarities between tea party activists and Republicans reinforce the idea that this latest grassroots movement could be either an opportunity or an onus for the GOP. While many tea party supporters share much in common with Republicans -- and many even think of themselves as members of the GOP -- there is also a significant number (40 percent) who said that they would vote for a tea party candidate if he/she was on the ballot while 31 percent said they would choose the Republican candidate.

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, the chairman of the Republican Governors Association, compared tea party activists to Ross Perot voters following his unsuccessful run for president in 1992. "They ought to be with us," Barbour said of the tea parties. "If they're not, it's our fault."

2. The Service Employees International Union is spending $700,000 on ads in five Democratic House districts thanking members for their vote in favor of President Obama's health care plan.

The ads, which will run in the districts of Reps. Tom Perriello (Va.), Dina Titus (Nev.), Betsy Markey (Colo.), John Boccieri (Ohio), Kathy Dahlkemper (Pa.) and Earl Pomeroy (N.D.), feature a narrator saying that "while Republicans in Washington stand with insurance companies and Wall Street" the targeted member of Congress "stood with us." (SEIU's New York affiliate -- SEIU 1199 -- will run its own ads in support of Reps. Scott Murphy, Bill Owens, Dan Maffei, Tim Bishop, and Steve Israel.)

Markey and Boccieri voted "no" on the health care bill in November 2009 but switched to "yes" on Sunday night. The other four Members getting thank you ads from SEIU voted "yes" both times.

The SEIU ads are the latest of several ad campaigns being funded by progressive groups in hopes of persuading voters in swing districts of the rightness of their respective member's vote. Health Care for America Now (HCAN) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) are spending seven figures on ads and the Democratic National Committee is set to launch television ads in 25 Democratic districts as well.

3. Florida Gov. Charlie Crist has launched the first television ad of his now-uphill Senate primary race against former state House speaker Marco Rubio, a direct attack on the legislator that seeks to use his national celebrity against him.

"We thought he was different, ideologically pure," said the ad's narrator. "Marco Rubio shot to national stardom . . . called the Republican Obama." The ad goes on to allege that not only was Rubio a registered lobbyist but that he also "used Republican political donations on his lavish lifestyle". OUCH.

Rubio, clearly expecting the hit, immediately responded with not one but two ads of his own. The ads -- both 15 seconds long -- use a close-up shot of Crist and President Obama together while chants of "yes we can" ring in the background.

Crist's decision to immediately go negative on Rubio speaks to the amazing role reversal in the race since its inception. At the start, Crist was regarded as the heavy favorite and Rubio had to withstand staff departures and calls for him to step aside after he struggled to compete with Crist's massive money machine.

But, Crist's support for the president's economic stimulus package badly damaged him in the eyes of Florida conservatives -- see Rubio's ads -- and the former state House speaker became the poster boy for conservatives trying to return the party to its roots.

Crist's ads make plain his strategy: use the millions he has raised to run an extended television campaign undermining the "Rubio as conservative icon" narrative that has led to the decline in the governor's political fortunes. It remains to be seen whether Crist can chip away or whether he let Rubio get too far ahead. But, we are guessing that there is a lot more where these three ads came from -- and the primary isn't until August 24!

4. A new poll done by the Public Policy Institute of California suggests that Democrats are in considerable jeopardy in both the governor's race and the Senate contest despite the clear Democratic lean of the state.

Former eBay executive Meg Whitman (R), who has spent $27 million (almost all of it from her own pocket) this year alone, has a 44 percent to 39 percent edge over state Attorney General Jerry Brown. Those numbers are similar to a the findings from Field Poll released last week.

(Whitman is absolutely crushing state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner in the coming June primary; she holds a remarkable 61 percent to 11 percent lead.)

On the Senate side, both former Hewlett Packard executive Carly Fiorina and former representative Tom Campbell are running in a dead heat against California Sen. Barbara Boxer. Campbell takes 44 percent to 43 percent for Boxer while the Democratic incumbent is at 44 percent to Fiorina's 43 percent.

Which of the two will get the chance to run against Boxer remains an open question, according to the PPIC poll. Fiorina takes 24 percent to Campbell's 23 percent and just eight percent for conservative state Assemblyman Chuck DeVore. Those numbers represent a considerable improvement for Fiorina from a January PPIC poll where Campbell led Fiorina 27 percent to 16 percent.

In both the gubernatorial and Senate races, the Republican candidates are likely benefiting in the polls from the press attention being paid to their respective primaries; neither Brown nor Boxer have an intraparty race to speak of.

But, the closeness of the races still should be a warning sign for Democrats that despite the state's clear lean toward their side that no race can be taken advantage of in this election cycle.

5. Former Bush adviser Dan Senor ruled out a challenge to appointed New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand on Wednesday just days before he was rumored to be entering the race. "I ultimately decided this wasn't the right time in my family and business life for me to run," he said in a statement.

Senor was bring touted within some Republican circles as someone who could quickly put together the money and organization to make a run at Gillibrand. A number of high profile Republican fundraisers (Paul Singer, Anne Dickerson) as well as GOP consultants (John McLaughlin, Kevin Madden) were involved in the planning of the Senor candidacy and expressed some surprise that he had decided against a bid.

Without Senor in the race, the Republican primary looks likely to be a three-way scrap between former representative Joe DioGuardi, who is best known as the father of "American Idol" judge Kara DioGuardi; former New York City mayoral candidate Bruce Blakeman; and Reagan administration official David Malpass.

None of the three are considered a serious threat to Gillibrand who has successfully fended off a series of primary challenges (Reps. Steve Israel and Carolyn Maloney, and former representative Harold Ford Jr.) and watched as top tier Republicans from former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani to publishing magnate Mort Zuckerman have taken a pass.

A recent Siena Research Institute poll showed Gillibrand with a comfortable lead over Blakeman and few national Republican strategists are optimistic about their chances of a serious race developing in the Empire State.

By Chris Cillizza  |  March 25, 2010; 5:55 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: And the winner is...
Next: Dan Coats, the anti-Obama

Comments

What about the terrorist orginization, "Tea-liban"?

Posted by: rooster54 | March 26, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

So much I could say..... but just reading the Progressive remarks speaks for it all... Some day you too will grow up and be a Conserative Independent.

Posted by: mlimberg | March 26, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Another difference between Republicans and Teabaggers: Teabaggers throw bricks overhand.

Posted by: molsonmich | March 26, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

2. Let the House races begin. Let the SEIU run ads touting that these congressmen support socialized medicine. That would be better than any Republican ad that could be ran. Nancy Pelosi better get used to a new title: Minority leader.

3. The Rubio vs. Crist race is really going to be a barns burner. Definately the #1 spot on the line. Unlike the Texas Gov. primary, I don't see Crist or Rubio to be a Rick Perry and pull away for a big win. I think it will be a very tough and nasty campaign, maybe coming all the way down to the wire on August 24. This is really a political junky dream, plus it is great for the Republican party. The Republican primary will dominate the state of Florida and Crist will get alot of Democrats and independents to register Republican to vote for him...and whomever wins the R primary will be leaps ahead of Democratic candidate Meeks. This is a great primary for the party with state and national implications. If Crist rebounds and wins this election, he will almost surely be a 2012 Presidential candidate while if Rubio wins he will automatically be on all of the 2012 hopeful VP list. Plus, he is a truly conservative hispanic that can help make GOP hispanic gains if he were on a national ticket. Great primary and great for the GOP. By the way, just view the comparision of the best GOP primary vs. the best Democratic primary: Crist vs. Rubio and Specter vs. Sestek. Old and arrogant vs. Younger and charasmatic! No contest!

Posted by: reason5 | March 26, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Anybody referring to president Obama as a
"Comrade" must be an absolute twit.

Posted by: Franktheliberal | March 26, 2010 12:42 AM | Report abuse

I joined the Teabagger Party because I really enjoy having my b---s s----d. Imagine my surprise when I found out everyone at the meeting was angry, racist and retarded!

Posted by: lithium452 | March 25, 2010 11:15 PM | Report abuse


Which political Party is fanning the flames of Violence? Vote

http://www.youpolls.com/default.asp
.

Posted by: usadblake | March 25, 2010 10:27 PM | Report abuse

JRM2:

Thank you for answering why he didn't report the incident. It comes with the job. At least now drindl won't think Cantor was lying.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 25, 2010 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Bricks, bullets, death threats on voicemail. With millions of angry subhumans-with-guns having been stoked up for a solid year and consumed with paranoia about dictatorships and storm troopers it's only a matter of time before people get killed.

Most grotesque of all are threats to lawmakers' families. Imagine someone getting a call .. your young daughter has been shot and killed at school.

By some tebagger all amped up about his f ucking "freedom."

Posted by: Noacoler | March 25, 2010 8:47 PM | Report abuse

BTW: The bullet hit an adjacent building which Cantor "sometimes" uses. The bullet fell on a downward trajectory and "cracked" the glass but did not go through it. Police do not suspect it was intentional.

Posted by: JRM2 | March 25, 2010 8:20 PM | Report abuse

No, THIS is the tea party "movement" examined.

From Olbermann's Special Comment

"But in a backwards, sick-to-my-stomach way, I would like to thank whoever shouted at Mr. Lewis and Mr. Carson for proving my previous point. If racism is not the whole of the Tea Party, it is in its heart, along with blind hatred, a total disinterest in the welfare of others, and a full- flowered, self-rationalizing refusal to accept the outcomes of elections, or the reality of democracy, or the narrowness of their minds and the equal narrowness of their public support." On Saturday, that support came from evolutionary regressives like Michele Bachmann and Jon Voight. On a daily basis that support comes from the racists and homophobes of radio and television: the Michael Savages and the Rush Limbaughs."

Posted by: broadwayjoe | March 25, 2010 7:57 PM | Report abuse


Rasmussen says 55% of Americans want to REPEAL the health care bill.

Obama has a little bump in the polls.

Once the American People start to realize what is really in the bill - and that premiums are not going to go down, then Obama and the democrats will have really hurt themselves.


The health care plan is going to place a DRAG ON HIRING.


The democrats do not understand that - you have to tell them that the costs of hiring are now HIGHER - so employers want to hire LESS PEOPLE - then they start to get it.


.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 25, 2010 6:47 PM | Report abuse

MDLaxer:
I am sorry but the definition of commerce was buying and selling as defined in the English language which our Founding Fathers spoke. They were all well read and conversant with the meaning of words and were basically well read. If you look back in the history of England (since that is the basis of our language) you will find that is how "commerce" was used. Methinks you are grasping at straws here.

Now I have no particular argument about commerce being used the way it is used now by the Federal Government and courts. Once can argue that can the Federal Government actually require you buy something from a private seller. I think there is something to that argument. Governments (state and federal) can require that you buy certain things from them, e.g., liquor, but requiring that buy a product or service from a private seller I think might be questionable. Maybe others have a better insight into this.

Posted by: RedRat | March 25, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

With so many democrats worried about their elections in November, Obama showed how much he really cares by going to ..... Iowa

To work on his own re-election.


It really is a joke.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 25, 2010 6:02 PM | Report abuse


I guess the democrats were not happy with the Tea Party Movement - making it clear that there will be opposition in November to the health care votes.

The democrats want everyone to forget.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 25, 2010 5:59 PM | Report abuse


I guess the democrats were not happy with the Tea Party Movement - making it clear that there will be opposition in November to the health care votes.

The democrats want everyone to forget.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 25, 2010 5:59 PM | Report abuse


I guess the democrats were not happy with the Tea Party Movement - making it clear that there will be opposition in November to the health care votes.

The democrats want everyone to forget.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 25, 2010 5:59 PM | Report abuse

David Frum expelled from the American Enterprise Institute Apologia Tank.

Killing the messenger?

Hear that sound? Thats' wagons being circled, conservatives in defiance. We're not doing anything wrong! Why, if anything we *weren't conservative enough*!!

Standing on the platform, distant whistle as the train leaves them further and further behind.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 25, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

I bet angry armpit is a bagger, whatya think? anyone with that level of impotent rage is bound to act out in some way. glad i'll never have to meet him.

==

My guess is that pegger regards himself as a libertarian, all pumped up on how independent an' self-reliant an' stuff he is.

No doubt though the anti-government stuff goes on break if his SSI check comes a day late.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 25, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

There is no long term storage in dribbls empty head. It is all rant rant rant. Wait for commie instruction. Rant. Drool. Repeat. Cut paste. Day after day. Year in. Year out.

She has chairman mao on her homepage. She has chairman Zero on her " brain".

Posted by: Moonbat | March 25, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

May the God I serve have mercy on their poor deluded souls

Posted by: cntnulprze | March 25, 2010 9:46 AM

must be the same "god" obama serves

Posted by: doof | March 25, 2010 9:51 AM

"doof" possibly short for doofus (slang : a stupid, incompetent, or foolish person.), you are possibly part of the KKK of whom I was referring. JMHO

Posted by: cntnulprze | March 25, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

I bet angry armpit is a bagger, whatya think? anyone with that level of impotent rage is bound to act out in some way. glad i'll never have to meet him.

Posted by: drindl

------------------------------------------
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/08/20/media-didnt-care-about-protest-signs-threatening-bush

Check out the angry progressives !!!

Posted by: leapin | March 25, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Let the airports hire their own security. I don't fly, I live in a small town. So it's very unlikely to be a target of a sleeper cell.

==

Wow. We should eliminate all national standards for airport safety because you're too poor to buy a ticket.

So when you hear about a plane going down do you gloat that a bunch of "elitists" who can afford to fly got killed?

Giving new depth to the phrase "Ugly American."

Posted by: Noacoler | March 25, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

nunya1 writes
"Let the airports hire their own security. I don't fly, I live in a small town. So it's very unlikely to be a target of a sleeper cell. Why am I helping to pay for these TSA thugs? As far as INS? Yeah that can go to. The border patrol can stay. That is part of the Federial Governments job."


Thank you for illustrating the point. If we eliminate every government program that one guy thinks doesn't impact him, we can just abandon the whole experiment.

Every man for himself!

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 25, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

"But, we are guessing that there is a lot more
where these three ads came from --
and the primary isn't until August 24!"

Such guessing suggests the writer is hoping
That Rubio has less money than Crist
And that by the time Aug. 24 rolls around
Crist won't have the will to resist.

That aside, there can be little doubt
That should Tea Party folks go it alone
They'll re-elect Barack H. Obama
And for that venial sin must then atone.

Posted by: Gonzage1 | March 25, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

`Take some more tea,' the March Hare said to Alice, very earnestly.

`I've had nothing yet,' Alice replied in an offended tone, `so I can't take more.'

`You mean you can't take less,' said the Hatter: `it's very easy to take more than nothing.'

(A Mad Tea Party..)

Posted by: newbeeboy | March 25, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

"impotent rage"

I'd post the link the the that
remarkably well illustrated
Understanding Erectile Dysfunction
site, but I have timed out.

No time to say hello,
good by
I'm late,
I'm late.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 25, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

I'm going back to Cali, Cali, Cali
I'm going back to Cali.. I don't think so
I'm going back to Cali, Cali, Cali
I'm going back to Cali.. I don't think so

Going back to Cali, stylin, profilin
Growlin, and smilin, while in the sun
The top is down, on the black Corvette
And it's fly, cause it's sittin on Dayton's
Laurents steering wheel, plushed out, gold-leaf phantom top
and three girls wait
Engine's blowin, the chrome, is shining
Passing all the cars on the way
Movement of the wind, back wheels spin
Pop in a cassette and push play

(Sorry.. I know I'm a bit off topic today.. allow me this one .. thinking about Nancy P... Some legal cali 'dro.. a little Barbara Boxer.. s'all Cali 2-day folx)

Posted by: newbeeboy | March 25, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

more bagger threats:

Over the weekend, the tea party protests — organized by corporate lobbyist-run groups Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks — were scenes of violence and hate towards gay and African American Democratic members of Congress. Around the same time, acts of vandalism have occurred around the country against local Democratic Party offices and against Democratic members of Congress. As the Washington Post reported today, “some of the vandalism appears to have been instigated by an Alabama blogger, Mike Vanderboegh, who encouraged his readers to throw bricks at the windows of Democratic headquarters across the country.”

Vanderboegh is a member of an Alabama militia group who is headlining an open-carry gun rally in Northern Virginia next month. In an interview with Alan Colmes yesterday, Vanderboegh justified his call for vandalism and said the attacks are warning shots because people like him will next threaten the life of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and fight health reform with “a thousand little Waco’s”:

VANDERBOEGH: I am telling you we are motivated to break windows, we feel a deadly threat from the Federal government and the orders that the Democrat party has given us. [...]

COLMES: You’re telling people to break the windows of Democratic headquarters. You’re telling people to commit acts of vandalism. You’re supporting breaking the law.

VANDERBOEGH: May I tell you my personal motive for doing this? I’m trying to save the lives of Nancy Pelosi, and every one of these people who do not understand the unintended consequences of their actions. [...] Because they are not paying attention to the million of people across this deepening divide that politics no longer avails them. [...] We refuse to participate in the system, and we refuse to pay the fines, and we refuse arrest. Now where do you suppose that’s going but a thousand little Wacos."

you knew it was only a matter of time before they started threatening to kill pelosi.

Posted by: drindl | March 25, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

I bet angry armpit is a bagger, whatya think? anyone with that level of impotent rage is bound to act out in some way. glad i'll never have to meet him.

Posted by: drindl | March 25, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Osama bin Laden is without a doubt a Comrade Barack Obama supporter, and loves how he's screwing up our country.
In a news report by the 'Muslim Media Network' of 11/7/2008 in a poll done by "The American Muslim Taskforce on Civil Rights and Elections", American--Muslims voted for Comrade Barack Obama by 89%. Only 2% voted for John McCain.
It figures that America's Muslims and the Muslim terrorists, like bin Laden et al, who have been at war with us for over 35 years and have done everything they could to kill Americans, would favor the person and the political party who would do the most harm to our country. No wonder that the ones who could vote in our election, practically all voted for Comrade Obama ("Birds of a feather, flock together").

Posted by: armpeg | March 25, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Like I said (I don't speak for my "ilk"), I have never cheered assassins either. That hasn't been "shown" on this thread or any other.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 25, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

No, I wouldn't cheer Cantor's death (there would be a Special Election though ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 25, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

"The record" shows you to be a liar, Jake, but that's even less news than that the teabaggers are Republicans.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 25, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Cantor is Jewish, of course jaked would cheer his death. So laughably obvious.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 25, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

For the record, I have never cheered assassins, and my "WOO HOO!!!" was for Special Elections (I enjoy the game of politics even more than our gracious host does), not for the deaths of Ted Kennedy or John Murtha. If anyone ELSE has a questions about any of that, please let me know.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 25, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

"Bin Laden Derides Obama and Threatens Americans"

Just to be clear, we don't need to see the paperwork proving Osama bin Laden is not being paid by the Republican National Committee, nor is there any evidence he a member of the TEA "party", so we don't need to see the evidence.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 25, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

"Irish Pubs to Open on Good Friday
for First Time"

God willing.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 25, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

That's right, drindl, you wouldn't be happy unless Cantor was actually killed.

==

this from the subhuman cretin who posted "woo hoo" when Teddy Kennedy died, after hoping for his quick death while he was still alive, and who posted "woo hoo" when John Murtha died, and who wished death on the operating table for this writer, and who wishes death on millions of people at a time just to get attention.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 25, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Jake, unlike you and your ilk I don't cheer on assassins. You are a sick man and the gop is right now a sick party.

Posted by: drindl | March 25, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

RedRat wrote: “Your definition of "commerce" relating to only transportation is based on what?”

Reading that I have done. I am currently unable to cite the sources (I’m not at home), but in the 1790’s “commerce” did not reference buying and selling. Only the transportation of goods. It was a separate definition from Manufacture, Agriculture or the actual exchange of goods.

Of course back then, not all “commerce” was “with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes”. Some of it would have been entirely within the boundary of one state and thus, not under the regulation of the Federal Government.

Today commerce is defined as “the interchange (reciprocal exchange) of goods and commodities (and I assume services).

I would say that the Commerce Clause goes even beyond that since the government can “regulate” manufacturing and the growing of crops (all done well before there’s any exchange).

Certainly the meaning of words change over time. I’m not a lawyer but I suspect that even when a word’s meaning does change, that doesn’t change a written contract unless all parties to the contract agree to the new terms.

The Federal Government agreed to the new definition of commerce. But I don't believe the States were ever given a chance to.

Posted by: MDLaxer | March 25, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Knowing the future implications of the HC obamanation the effort from the DNC is now to yell “racist” in order to polarize their base for the next election. Bring out the minorities for the election then send them back to the failed liberal run big cities and school systems. (The worst racism of all, school systems that produce “graduates” that can hardly read or write, a sentence to failure, but a desired DNC voting profile).

Remember Bush Derangement Syndrome ? No anger there (g). Violence is no solution but one cannot ignore pushing people to the boiling point after they have seen an America where the giving and receiving of bribes by their “public servants: using taxpayer funds is openly seen for all to view.

Posted by: leapin | March 25, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

That the Tea Party movement is about three--quarters Republican, 16% Democrap Socialist, and 5% Independent is no big deal, and probably true.
These numbers though are probably also about how the Democrap Socialist Party--controlled Main Stream Media's journalists, reporters, publishers, and TV News talking heads break down, only in favor of Democrap Socialists and for Comrade Obama. Three--quarters are Democrap Socialist Party shills, while only about 16% are Republican, and 5% Independents. The big difference is that while the Tea Party members are honest about their political perspective when polled, the overwhelming number of Main Stream Media types cloak themselves in a mantle of supposed objectivism and fairness, when they're in fact nothing more than the Democrap Socialist Parties and Comrade Obama's propaganda arm and cheering section.
These MSM pro--Democrap Socialist Party and Comrade Obama poll numbers, are probably also true for the members of Academia.

Posted by: armpeg | March 25, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

That's right, drindl, you wouldn't be happy unless Cantor was actually killed.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 25, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

nunya1 writes
"Ok I'll bite.
Eliminate:
1) The Dept. of Education.
2) The IRS
3) NASA
4) The Dept. of Homeland Sec.
5) The war on drugs
6) The war on terror
7) The federal reserve <-this should be 1st
8) The presidents working group.
9) Leave NATO & The UN

And for more savings, bring every American soldier home plus all the equipment, and close every base not in America. (basicly stop being the worlds police)

This is just a few things off the top of my head."


And what do you think the impact of those policy changes would be?

For instance, if you eliminate the Dept of Homeland Security, are you also eliminating the border patrol & INS? The TSA? Hey, I don't like them either, but I also don't like the idea of eliminating passenger & baggage screening on commercial aircraft.
..........................................

Let the airports hire their own security. I don't fly, I live in a small town. So it's very unlikely to be a target of a sleeper cell. Why am I helping to pay for these TSA thugs? As far as INS? Yeah that can go to. The border patrol can stay. That is part of the Federial Governments job.

Posted by: nunya1 | March 25, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Why would I be happy, when I have been doing nothing but condemning violence all along? Why would I be happy that someone would shoot through an elected official's window? I think you're projecting.

However, the Capitol police were not called. Cantor didn't call them. How odd, hmm? Maybe it didn't really happen, becuase surely he would have called the authorities if it had. And he says,

'So, he says, it's not just Democrats who have been targets of violence and party leaders should stop "dangerously fanning the flames" by blaming Republicans for threats against House Democrats who voted for the health care legislation.'

A bit disingenuous. Continuing to excuse the violence against democrats by saying it's their own fault.. old strategy called 'blaming the victim' -- trying to change the subject. I don't buy it.

Posted by: drindl | March 25, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1 wrote: “If the rules within the document have already solved the problem - i.e. judicial review of legislative expansion of the commerce clause - I don't see the need for an amendment to codify what the courts have already clarified."

The result is that the Federal Government (Legislative Branch) proposed legislation which by expanding the definition of the commerce clause, created new powers for the Federal Government. The Federal Government (Executive Branch) signed that legislation into law. When that law was challenged, the Federal Government (Judicial Branch) said that the new definition (and its accompanying powers) was acceptable. (A ruling I obviously dissagree with.)

Left out was any recourse for the State’s to challenge what was ultimately an amending of the Constitution. The Constitution was an agreement (I think a contract) by the States to create a Federal Government.

The 10th Amendment says “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” Nowhere in the Constitution does it give any branch of the Federal Government the power or authority to expand their own powers. So per the 10th Amendment, that power must rest with the States or the People.

Posted by: MDLaxer | March 25, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

To all of the hard working volunteers at the 37thandOstreet project...

Why would it matter to the WaPo if some people were paid to write stuff on blogs and others were not?

We have learned today that people paid by corporate entities to speak and someone standing on a street corner making an unpaid speech are pretty much interchangeable as far as political influence is concerned.

All over the world people have been paid to promote, protest and otherwise advocate for political interests, as if they cared.
Iran comes to mind.

In fact, I'm wondering whether Oregon's law that prevents citizen initiative signature gatherers from being paid is constitutional.

Sure Oregon's Constitution is silent on the topic, but the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights does not say commercial interests are protected by the First Amendment either.

Yet now we are obliged to take for granted that the founders would have figured, with regard to electoral politics anyway, that corporate money and free speech are pretty much the same thing.

So what if someone or some group here were paid to represent Democratic talking points? Why would that matter to Republicans? Why wouldn't they pay their own blog spammers if they thought that mattered?

Point is, why are you guys volunteering?
You should get paid. If you can't, is that the only reason you care?

Posted by: shrink2 | March 25, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Another day, another insult to the readers' intelligence. The tea partiers a political movement? Nonsense. Political movements have political goals, the TP area an angry rabble. They behave like nothing other than a mob, they are racist to their very core, and most saliently they are politically incoherent.

What did they bring to the town halls last August? Guns, yes, chanting, yes, disruption, yes, arguments no.

Stop trying to dignify angry racists as some sort of movement.

Posted by: Noacoler | March 25, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

I really wonder if indeed 16% of the Tea-party are really Democrats. This sounds like just one more deception coming from Tea-party members who have dissembled. Looking at the Tea-party basic tenets, I can't really believe that one who claims to be a Democrat could possibly be a Tea-party member, they are the antithesis of each other. Not possible. Either that or they are so-called Dixiecrats who still believe in segregation and secretly believe that the "South will rise again".

Herein lies the great problem of all polling: How do you know you are getting a straight and honest answer from those being questioned. Years ago, I saw a cartoon, I think it was in the New Yorker, of a pollster at the front door asking about religion and the person answering the door had their Bible in hand but sticking out the back was a copy of Playboy. We all present an outward social face and then there is the real us behind the facade.

Posted by: RedRat | March 25, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1:

I wouldn't be so quick to speak for her (she was claiming just yesterday that the left never has raised a hand in volence, Kum-ba-ya, etc., etc. ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 25, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

"cantor-reports-bullet-being-fired-at-campaign-office

Happy now, drindl?"


I doubt it. The ongoing descent of civil discourse towards a 'shoot it out' mentality does none of us any good. Irrational violence is irrational, no matter at whom it is directed. See the "RNC Welcoming Committee" in St Paul last year.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 25, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

nunya1 writes
"Ok I'll bite.
Eliminate:
1) The Dept. of Education.
2) The IRS
3) NASA
4) The Dept. of Homeland Sec.
5) The war on drugs
6) The war on terror
7) The federal reserve <-this should be 1st
8) The presidents working group.
9) Leave NATO & The UN

And for more savings, bring every American soldier home plus all the equipment, and close every base not in America. (basicly stop being the worlds police)

This is just a few things off the top of my head."


And what do you think the impact of those policy changes would be?

For instance, if you eliminate the Dept of Homeland Security, are you also eliminating the border patrol & INS? The TSA? Hey, I don't like them either, but I also don't like the idea of eliminating passenger & baggage screening on commercial aircraft.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 25, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck! The Tea-party is nothing more than a part of the Republican party. Cleverly, the Republican Party is treating it as some sort of independent party in order to preserve its own plausible deniability, this is the oldest trick in the bureaucratic handbook of Washington. Give me break.

Posted by: RedRat | March 25, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

"Heh, you needed a poll to tell you that the tea party movement was predominantly composed of Republicans?

The debate over who started the whole tea party movement is between two choices...Mary Rakovich or Keli Carender... both of whom are Republican activists.

Grass roots indeed.

Posted by: trident420"

I'm actually more surprised that there are so many Democrats and so few independents. I always took teabaggers to be jaked type independents. People who are actually Republicans, but pretend to be independents.

But 16% Democrats? 1/6 of teabaggers are Democrats?

Posted by: DDAWD | March 25, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 25, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

MDLaxer
Your definition of "commerce" relating to only transportation is based on what? It seems to me that commerce means buying and selling, even in the 18th Century. At least it does in my reading of political philosopers of the time. Of course, transporation is commerce, you pay for someone to haul your stuff. But commerce is commerce, buying and selling both services and stuff. I really don't know where you got that strange idea.

Posted by: RedRat | March 25, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

"Remember Jim Bunning's one-man government shut down earlier this month? Remember how everyone -- even Republicans -- condemned it?

Well, it seems the GOP has had a change of heart. According to a report by Politico's Manu Raju this morning, multiple Republicans in the Senate are now preparing to repeat Bunning's scheme to block unemployment benefits if Democrats attempt to pass an emergency extension of them again, a move that could come as early as this week.

Playing the role of Bunning next time will likely be Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK). But he'll have an ensemble cast to help."

So now when people's unemployment runs out, they know exactly who to thank for it. Sounds like really smart politics.

Posted by: drindl | March 25, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

MDLaxer writes
"at the time the Constitution was ratified, those who wrote it, and those state representatives who ratified it, understood “commerce” to mean “the transportation of goods”. That’s what they ratified.

In the 1930’s, the Federal Government changed the meaning of the word “commerce” to mean something to the effect of “any gainful activity. The States were never given an opportunity to ratify this change. Thus, the Federal Government expanded its’ own powers."


I understand your point, but don't share your conclusion. If the rules within the document have already solved the problem - i.e. judicial review of legislative expansion of the commerce clause - I don't see the need for an amendment to codify what the courts have already clarified.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 25, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Teabaggers continue to pour gas on the flames:

In a blog post yesterday on the climate of threats surrounding health care reform, an editor and radio host employed by the Pajamas Media conservative blog outlet called for a return to the "fine tradition" of tar and feathering, and potentially even more extreme acts of violence.

In the post, titled "Put the Fear of Something Into Them," Pajamas' Denver Editor Stephen Green riffed on the recent threats and attacks on Democrats and concluded:

"If this abominable, unconstitutional, usurperous, injurious, unsustainable and ruinous new health care law has a mere ten legislatures afraid for their safety, then this country might already be too far gone to save itself."

Then, in a comments section exchange with a reader, Green, who calls himself "Vodkapundit," took it further.

"This country has a fine tradition of tarring & feathering, and one I've come to the reluctant conclusion needs to come back," he wrote in response to a reader named Geekesque. "If the US Government considers that terrorism, consider the source."

Asked by another reader how far Green's "condoning of violence against us 'Nazi' liberals" goes, Green responded:

"That depends entirely on how much violence is done to our liberties by your idiotic policies. Right now, tar & feathers still seem extreme. Tomorrow? It's in your hands."

Posted by: drindl | March 25, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

I wonder how the Congressional democrats feel - seeing Obama sacrifice their careers by jamming the health care bill down everyone's throats.

And what does Obama do? Obama is off to Iowa to run for re-election.


It is a little disgusting.


.


.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 25, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

"I'm still waiting for TP folks to say just one sacrifice they'd be willng to make in order to have smaller government, lower taxes and a lower deficit."

Ok I'll bite.
Eliminate:
1) The Dept. of Education.
2) The IRS
3) NASA
4) The Dept. of Homeland Sec.
5) The war on drugs
6) The war on terror
7) The federal reserve <-this should be 1st
8) The presidents working group.
9) Leave NATO & The UN

And for more savings, bring every American soldier home plus all the equipment, and close every base not in America. (basicly stop being the worlds police)

This is just a few things off the top of my head.

Posted by: nunya1 | March 25, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

The Washington Post should investigate how many of the bloggers here are paid for by OFA or the DNA - this is an organized, paid operation.


Yes these people are ASTROTURFING this blog.

.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 25, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

To bsimon1:

I understood your question to be that since the States ratified the Constitution; didn’t they also accept the Commerce Clause”? (help me if I misunderstood).

My answer is yes, they did. But it is my opinion that at the time the Constitution was ratified, those who wrote it, and those state representatives who ratified it, understood “commerce” to mean “the transportation of goods”. That’s what they ratified.

In the 1930’s, the Federal Government changed the meaning of the word “commerce” to mean something to the effect of “any gainful activity. The States were never given an opportunity to ratify this change. Thus, the Federal Government expanded its’ own powers.

You wrote: “I don't know how you could try to delineate between goods & services with regards to which is 'commerce' that can be regulated by Congress & which is not.”

Under the “modern” definition of commerce,
I don’t know either. This has worked well for the Federal Government whose power over just about everything has been continually expanding.

Posted by: MDLaxer | March 25, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1


Patents are covered by an entirely different clause in the Constitution.


Now on to the other issue.

The issue is not "commerce" - it is "interstate commerce" - and for a century and a half, there was a division between "interstate commerce" and the commerce which was regulated by the States.


In 1995 - the Supreme Court attempted to add a test to the division - in those areas in which there as a question, those powers which were "traditionally" handled by the States were not part of "interstate commerce."

One has to recognize that selling health insurance across State lines is illegal - and the regulation of health insurance has traditionally been handled by the States.


This perhaps may become a larger issue if the Courts decide to take up the case - and when Congressional leaders were questioned on the subject last summer and fall, they really did not have an answer as to where this fell in the Constitution.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 25, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Heh, you needed a poll to tell you that the tea party movement was predominantly composed of Republicans?

The debate over who started the whole tea party movement is between two choices...Mary Rakovich or Keli Carender... both of whom are Republican activists.

Grass roots indeed.

Posted by: trident420 | March 25, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

"Thanks, but no thanks."

You know I was trying to pour irony all over that.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 25, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Firstly, on the commerce clause being part of the original constitution; please pardon my fat-fingering. Also, that detail seems to support my point that the states ratified the contract.

MDLaxer writes
"In the 1930’s, commerce was redefined by the Federal Government to mean “any gainful activity”. (note: interestingly, the dictionary definition hasn’t changed all that much). Thus allowing the Federal Government to regulate (now meaning control) any gainful activity of anyone.

Since that change was not accomplished via a Constitutional Amendment, the States did not agree to it. (I believe it was a Supreme Court that made this official)"


I don't know how you could try to delineate between goods & services with regards to which is 'commerce' that can be regulated by Congress & which is not. For instance, the patent office. The granting of patents is intended to reward innovation by protecting the innovator's exclusive right to produce a product for a limited period of time. While ostensibly patents only cover things, what they really cover are ideas. Is the USPTO then an overreach on the part of the Fed gov't? Should patents not protect against producing someone else's invention, if the production is limited to one state? Or is this an area where the Federal jurisdition is the proper one? Another example might be the obscure law that some wanted to use against former Gov Spitzer, in which he allegedly trafficked a prostitute across state lines. Is prostitution commerce? Or is it a service, not a 'good', and thus outside the domain of federal law - whether or not the service spans state borders?

It makes far more sense to me to view the exchange of money as an indicator of whether commerce has occured. (Sorry Elliot)

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 25, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

To the Fix: continued pretense that the Tea Party is some entity other than the Republican party returning to its Dixiecrat roots is downright silly.

The Tea Party "looks a lot like the Republican party" because it is the Republican party. It is financed by Republican party interest groups, supported by members of the Republican party, and espouses Republican platform ideas and talking points.

When you take your blinders off, you'll see that underlying the Tea Party -- with its claims of "wanting their country" back -- are the same themes shouted during the civil rights and concurrent anti-war movement ("America, love it or leave it") complete with a pervasive "states' rights" argument that nothing the federal government wanted to do was "constitutional."

Time to stop pretending these are members of an informed populace. They have been misled -- LIED TO -- by Fox News AND their own party leadership and members. They have been incited to violence, encouraged to use race, ethnicity and sexual preference to gin up their cohorts and tricked into believing they are "patriots" defending the nation.

They are ignorant cowards willing to follow a pack of rabid jackals called the Republican party.

Posted by: jade_7243 | March 25, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

To the Fix: continued pretense that the Tea Party is some entity other than the Republican party returning to its Dixiecrat roots is downright silly.

The Tea Party "looks a lot like the Republican party" because it is the Republican party. It is financed by Republican party interest groups, supported by members of the Republican party, and espouses Republican platform ideas and talking points.

When you take your blinders off, you'll see that underlying the Tea Party -- with its claims of "wanting their country" back -- are the same themes shouted during the civil rights and concurrent anti-war movement ("America, love it or leave it") complete with a pervasive "states' rights" argument that nothing the federal government wanted to do was "constitutional."

Time to stop pretending these are members of an informed populace. They have been misled -- LIED TO -- by Fox News AND their own party leadership and members. They have been incited to violence, encouraged to use race, ethnicity and sexual preference to gin up their cohorts and tricked into believing they are "patriots" defending the nation.

They are ignorant cowards willing to follow a pack of rabid jackals called the Republican party.

Posted by: jade_7243 | March 25, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

"Awhile ago, up in Seattle's Highlands, a scion of (a whole lot of) Old Money explained to me one afternoon how multinational corporations are the only entities both organized and powerful enough to save nations from themselves. Hope he was right."

Thanks, but no thanks. I spent more than 20 years working in management for megacorporations and I can tell you that while they are powerful -- oh that is for sure -- organized is another thing altogether.

Focused on making gobs of money any was possible -- oh you bet. Spending as much time playing golf as working -- that too.

I don't really see this as a model of good governance.

Posted by: drindl | March 25, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

TEA PARTY?
This is the KKK in disguise. As soon as folks gets blatantly nasty with themselves, knowing that society has unravelled their ploy, they get a NEW NAME
The Tea Party is a bunch of right wing conservatives, bent in the re- institution of Slavery, & the re- convention of the Jim Crow era and WORSE.
They think they are better than God, let alone a poor person. They rather perish, than be like the Messiah, who:
Served the poor. Fed the poor. Ate with the poor. Gave FREE HEALTH CARE to the poor.And forgave the poor.
In contradiction to MJatthew 5, we dare the so called hard line conservatives, white & black to take a good look at themselves, and be like the King, Messiah & Lord.
Are'n you ashamed of your DAMMMMN selves?

Posted by: olafaux | March 25, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

This says a lot about the state of DC pundits-- a whole lot of them angling for a spot on FOX and hence the constant barrage of rightwing talking points at so many MSM outlets:

"’ve been taking in a lot of right-wing media the last few days because I was curious to see how the wingers would defend the death threats and so on that some on the right have been making against Democratic Congressmen. So I had Laura Ingraham on the radio this morning as I drove to work.

She was ranting and raving about how the threats weren’t really happening and if they did happen, they didn’t come from the right, and if they were happening and they did come from the right, then they weren’t as bad as ACORN or the guy who threw the shoe at George W. Bush. She had a guest named Jake, who seemed a little more reasonable than her but who didn’t dispute anything she said and said things like “Well, I’m sure you’ve received threats too.”

When Ingraham suggested that Hoyer scheduled the news conference to discuss the threats in order to score political points, she asked Jake what he thought, and he said “I only report the facts, but I do have an opinion”, suggesting he agreed with Ingram but couldn’t say so explicitly (you probably have to listen to the tape to see what I mean about this).

Turns out it was Jake Tapper.

I doubt Tapper is that much of a right-winger, but he knows which side his bread is buttered on. He knows that national tv news is a dying medium and that he may have to jump on the Murdoch crazy train at some point in order to pay the bills. In short, he’s a careerist sociopath, ready to dance on the graves of Congressmen if it means he can keep a Fox gig lined up down the road.

Update. One thing in particular that Ingraham said, and which Tapper didn’t dispute was (I’m paraphrasing) “if you defy the will of the people, you have to expect that a few people will come after you."

http://www.balloon-juice.com/

Posted by: drindl | March 25, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1,

I wanted to praise the 37th crew for allowing a little more time today before spamming the board.

This issue of whether we are threatened by totalitarian federal power, as the TEA people say they fear, or totalitarian corporate interests (a single party politic: crony capitalism), my fear, seemed to have a few people interested in doing something more than exchanging insults.

MDL says there might not be much difference between the two bad outcomes. He says an amendment to the Constitution would be required to protect us from corporate "speech", which, of course, isn't going to happen.

The monied interests love the battle between the Ds and the Rs, they own them equally. Sure the Ds and the Rs have different ideas on where the spoils end up, but that isn't the point.

To get back to what Mark said, the reason people keep voting for people who promise them something for nothing has nothing to do with political parties, though there was that greed-is-good, celebratory period in Republican circles.

Awhile ago, up in Seattle's Highlands, a scion of (a whole lot of) Old Money explained to me one afternoon how multinational corporations are the only entities both organized and powerful enough to save nations from themselves. Hope he was right.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 25, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

"there are a number of Republicans who went along with the strategy of ‘just say no’ who were never really happy with it, but if it worked they would go along. They saw it fail. And now they’ve had enough of it. and they really want to be involved in crafting things."

I think there are a few Republicans who saw health care as a one-shot chance to derail the Obama agenda. They could repeat 1994. But since they failed, they would rather push their ideas from now on rather than just block everything. But I think this is just a few Republicans. The Main Senators, Brown, Gregg at times, Graham. I don't think McConnell will ever be receptive to actually trying to work with Dems. You can probably add in another 25 Republicans in that permanent obstruction bloc. Our own pride and joy David Vitter seems to be more interested in single-handedly keeping the prostitution industry afloat rather than pass laws.

But we don't need those 25. Again, the public isn't going to give a crap about bipartisanship if Congress is getting stuff done. And Democrats still have a huge majority in the Senate.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 25, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1:

The Commerce Clause was NOT an Amendment.

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 25, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1 wrote: “But through the ratification of the amendments that gave us the commerce clause & direct election of senators, didn't the states agree to the contract changes as well? “

The Commerce Clause was not an amendment and is in the original Constitution (Art 1, Sect 8): “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;”

From books that I have read: at the time the Constitution was written and ratified, the word commerce meant: the transportation of goods. Thus, the Federal Government could regulate (or make regular) the transportation of goods so as to ensure fairness.

In the 1930’s, commerce was redefined by the Federal Government to mean “any gainful activity”. (note: interestingly, the dictionary definition hasn’t changed all that much). Thus allowing the Federal Government to regulate (now meaning control) any gainful activity of anyone.

Since that change was not accomplished via a Constitutional Amendment, the States did not agree to it. (I believe it was a Supreme Court that made this official)

Election of Senators. I didn’t mean to imply that the 17th Amendment was in any way unconstitutional. It certainly is constitutional. I just believe it was the wrong thing to do because it has led to the decline in influence of the States’ legislatures. I don’t think this has been a good thing.

Posted by: MDLaxer | March 25, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps that Waterloo that was HCR for republicans has changed some minds:


"The conventional wisdom was that if the Dems did get Health Care Reform through, that would be it. The solid phalanx of No would clamp down even harder. But it’s not looking that way. Sen. Dodd (D-CT) says that post-Health Care a number of his Republican colleagues have had enough.

“The health care thing kind of changed the atmospherics around here,” Dodd told reporters today. “I think, frankly, there are a number of Republicans who went along with the strategy of ‘just say no’ who were never really happy with it, but if it worked they would go along. They saw it fail. And now they’ve had enough of it. and they really want to be involved in crafting things.”

On the plus side, having Snowe ready to cooperate will make it possible to pass laws again. On the minus side every law will read a little bit more like something that Olympia Snowe wrote.

Naturally teabaggers will go absolutely frothing apesh*t every time Scott Brown or Lindsey Graham or a Mainer joins with Democrats to pass something, and that is pretty awesome. Their tears of futile rage will never get old."

Posted by: drindl | March 25, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

gop continues to fan flames:

"Just as disturbing as comments tacitly egging on the anger are ones that blame the Democratic lawmakers themselves for the incidents:

– The spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee said that while his organization doesn’t condone the harassment, it should be pointed out that Periello and others aren’t the real victims. “Central and Southside Virginians are the ones who are going to have the bear the burden of increased taxes,” he said. “What you’re seeing is a frustration among his constituents who believe he’s not listening to them.”

– Fox News host Greta Van Susteren asked Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) yesterday about his “response” to the news that Stupak and others had been “threatened or intimidated.” Hatch immediately responded, “People are upset and really angry, and they’re tired of people making promises and not living up to them,” and only after additional questioning by Van Susteren, finally replied, “I think people have to quit doing things like that.”

– Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) condemned the “inappropriate behavior,” but blamed Democrats for “fanning these flames.” “I’m a bit concerned about how it’s been handled around here in a public way because I think it just tends to fan the flames,” he told The Hill."

Posted by: drindl | March 25, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

universal suffrage is a bad idea.

Posted by: _BSH

that is why we have annointed the proletariat, to lead us to the promised land.

All praise chairman Zero.

Posted by: Zouk_is_King | March 25, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

shrink2 writes
"37th, I see your point..."


Banner day for shrink!

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 25, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

If they overstep the Constitution, that's what the judicial branch is for.”


Loud and dumb expresses her own brand of ignorance again.

It is the Veto of the Executive branch that is intended as the first bulwark against unconstitutional behavior. Only Dear comrade chairman Zero, being a "constitutional scholar", actually a community agonizer, doesn't seem to know what his role is. He thinks it is to give speeches, and offer threats and bribes.

Posted by: Zouk_is_King | March 25, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

MDLaxer writes
"I see the Constitution as a contract between the states and the Federal Government. As such, I don’t believe that one side of the contract can change the terms on its own."


But through the ratification of the amendments that gave us the commerce clause & direct election of senators, didn't the states agree to the contract changes as well?

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 25, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

The quantity of dumb, hate-filled statements in the comments, from both right and left, is all the evidence anyone should need that universal suffrage is a bad idea.

Posted by: _BSH | March 25, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

koolkat_1960 wrote: “If you're referring to powers created by legislation, those are the acts of a lawfully elected Congress. If they overstep the Constitution, that's what the judicial branch is for.”

Just because legislation is enacted legally, doesn’t make it constitutional.

Not all laws ever go before the Supreme Court for review. And of those that do, not all are decided correctly.

“decided correctly” is, of course, my opinion.

Posted by: MDLaxer | March 25, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

37th, I see your point, I agree with it and I understand the reason for your choice of that particular year. Thanks.

Just as an aside, except in certain niche type jobs, doctors really can't work without a DEA number, so in a way, we already need a federal license.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 25, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

"Fourth, this column doesn't predict elections, but there are many reasons to doubt that the enactment of Obamacare will lead to the triumphs Republicans dream of come November. Did you know that 13 percent of the 59 percent who opposed the Democrats' bill in that famous CNN poll did so because it wasn't liberal enough? Asked who they trusted more to fix healthcare, President Obama or congressional Republicans, respondents chose the White House 51-39.

It will be interesting to see how the numbers trend in the wake of a Democratic victory. Gallup daily tracking polls show Obama's job approval up 5 points over the past week.

Finally, conservative thinkers such as David Frum and Bruce Bartlett have begun warning that Republicans are foolish to make themselves captive to the "hysterical accusations and pseudo-information" of the party's entertainment and tea party wing. "Talk radio," the former Bush speechwriter argues on his FrumForum blog, "thrives on confrontation and recrimination" rather than governing.

Bartlett cites a survey of tea partiers at a recent Washington demonstration that shows most know nothing about the policies they so noisily abhor. Almost none realize, for example, that Obama's jobs stimulus plan gave "90 percent of all taxpayers ... a tax cut last year and almost 100 percent of those in the $50,000 income range." When people resort to racial epithets and sexual insults, it's normally a sign they've got nothing else to say."

Posted by: drindl | March 25, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1 wrote: “My understanding of the Constitution is that it lays out a basic framework,…”

I see the Constitution as a contract between the states and the Federal Government. As such, I don’t believe that one side of the contract can change the terms on its own. I realize that others disagree, but I think that when the Federal Government enacts laws that give it powers that it did not have prior to that law, it is changing the terms of the contract.

Thus, I definitely believe “that the federal government has somehow grown beyond its constitutionally mandated 'size' or purview.” That’s not the same as saying we don’t need a “larger” Federal Government today than was needed in 1790. But we could have achieved that larger government constitutionally in my view.

Posted by: MDLaxer | March 25, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Don't forget that Bush was the original "Chimp" President too ; )

Posted by: JakeD2


that seems awfully racist. Isn't it? I have trouble keeping up.

Posted by: Zouk_is_King | March 25, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

No Obamacare for Obama
...And for you, dear serfs, some cake: Obamaniks write themselves out of new health care laws

always remember, there are rules for US and then there are rules for THEM.

apparently, Ponzi schemes are OK for THEM. Isn't Amway outlawed in much of the world now? Except in US government programs, of course.

you could always tell an amway salesman by the line "I own several businesses".

Recently overheard inside the white house:

"I own several businesses"

- comrade Chairman Zero

Cars, banks, mail, trains, housing, energy, now hospitals.

Posted by: Zouk_is_King | March 25, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse


The language used by the democrats to describe the Tea Party Movement is nothing less than HATE SPEECH - complete with SEXUAL SLURS.


OH, the media would be crazy if that kind of speech was used against a democratic group.

The hypocrisy is so thick.

Eric Cantor is right - the DEMOCRATS ARE FANNING THESE FLAMES - by sending out press releases and attacking the Republicans.


Rep. Clyburn - he went on CNN last night and said the protests were "not about health care - but about race." So you have a member of the DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP calling the opposition over health care a bunch of racists. This is NOT HELPING.


This is organized by the democratic - look at their message machine.


I don't know how good a strategy it is to point out how ANGRY THE NATION IS AT THE DEMOCRATS - but this is out-of-control. This is the POST-RACIAL OBAMA ERA - THIS IS HOW OBAMA APPROACHES BEING POST-RACIAL.


.


.


.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 25, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

"Again, a great argument for an Amendment to give the Federal Government the power to deny special interests (corps., lobbyists, etc) the “right” to this sort of free speech. The danger, as I see it, is that we won’t take that route. We’ll just pass more laws."

Ah ha! Now I see your point from much earlier. It is a very good one and a terrible paradox. The die is cast,
isn't it.

Sorry it took so long
(I'll blame multi-tasking),
thanks for the chat.


Posted by: shrink2 | March 25, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

usadblake:

No. Next question?

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 25, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

"Several things need saying. First, this latter-day GOP enthusiasm for governing by CNN poll stands the Constitution on its head. We determine who holds power in this country through biennial elections, not telephone surveys. Besides, where was all this solicitude for the randomly selected will of the people back when Republicans impeached Bill Clinton while polls showed that two-thirds of Americans opposed it?

Second, GOP paranoia over Democratic improvements to the nation's social contract is nothing new. In 1935, Republican congressmen greeted Social Security by invoking the "lash of the dictator," the "enslavement of workers" and similar nonsense.

In 1965, Ronald Reagan warned that unless Medicare was defeated, "You and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was like in America when men were free." Instead, Reagan spent his sunset years as president making people forget he'd said anything so silly.

Third, Republicans won't repeal "Obamacare" either. They'll get nowhere near the two-thirds Senate vote needed to override a presidential veto, and by 2012 -- imaginary horrors such as "death panels," rationing and global Armageddon having failed to materialize -- the presidential campaign will be contested over different issues."

Posted by: drindl | March 25, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse


VIDEO

Is Boehner's statement emboldening & inciting violent behavior?

http://www.youpolls.com/default.asp

.

Posted by: usadblake | March 25, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

"What rights have been “delineated by the Supreme Court”? The 9th Amendment states “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” That means you and I already had/have those rights. "

Right to privacy. I'm not saying that the Supreme Court made it up, but it's a kind of Euclidean logical progression from the bill of rights to actual privacy. Yeah, it might be a logical step, but in order to have Constitutional heft, the court had to actually delineate it, which it did.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 25, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Zouk_is_King:

Don't forget that Bush was the original "Chimp" President too ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 25, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

shrink2


There was a case in 1995 in which a federal law was struck down as not being a part of interstate commerce.

The caselaw goes a little like this - there was a case in which Federal anti-trust law was decided to apply to fire insurance.

The ERISA laws, and Cobra really goes under labor law - and applies to interstate corporations.

The licensing of doctors is a state power - is this now a Federal power ?

I think it is a valid question for court review - we will have to see. Health insurance has traditionally been within the regulatory power of the States - so there is some weight to that side of the discussion.

.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 25, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

shrink2


There was a case in 1995 in which a federal law was struck down as not being a part of interstate commerce.

The caselaw goes a little like this - there was a case in which Federal anti-trust law was decided to apply to fire insurance.

The ERISA laws, and Cobra really goes under labor law - and applies to interstate corporations.

The licensing of doctors is a state power - is this now a Federal power ?

I think it is a valid question for court review - we will have to see. Health insurance has traditionally been within the regulatory power of the States - so there is some weight to that side of the discussion.

.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 25, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

corps=people?

Posted by: DDAWD


after they are dead according to Dear comrade Reader.

Posted by: Zouk_is_King | March 25, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

"It doesn’t. The House and Senate can make their own rules. Democrats and Republicans have done that. They (and we) now have to deal with it.

Posted by: MDLaxer "

And they also made reconciliation rules...

Posted by: DDAWD | March 25, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

"In past eras leaders the media, the partisan and ideological punditry, and leaders of both parties would move on a dime to unify and to denounce it in no uncertain terms — particularly if this had occured during the late 60s, when Americans saw left-right confrontations in the streets, huge demonstrations on campuses, and the assassinations of a host of political and African American leaders. Those of us who lived in that era in both parties often asked:”What is HAPPENING to our politics and our democracy?”

This was particularly asked by people in the middle. The danger for the GOP now is: this question could start coming up again. And it’s most likely to be asked by the independent voters who now seem to be leaning the GOP’s.

The reason: the bottom lines are this:

1. Our political debate has gotten more personal and more angry and the pattern is that it will continue in this direction.

2. A whole industry (talk radio and cable political shows) and a new part of the media that is essentially op-ed writing, in many cases by outright partisans (cyberspace), has a vested interest in appealing to specific segments of society, in effect sawing them off, and trying to keep and expand upon getting their attention. Some in this industry simply state their views; some others may seek to increase audience share by significantly pushing the envelope since to be noticed over the others means you have to be more and more outrageous. The common factor in attracting such an audience is often tapping into resentment and rage by articulating it and providing a gathering point. This does not lend itself to talk about common ground or criticizing one’s own side strongly.

3. The “yes but” brigade is out in force. It’s the “yes, but under Clinton” or “yes, but under Bush.” Earth to apologists: there is NO YES BUT when elected officials homes and families are being threatened and bricks are being thrown through windows.

3. It is CLEAR where this is HEADING if the trend continues. If this escalates, someone could be seriously hurt, injured or assassinated. And then it’ll be defense-position time for whatever side’s person was responsible for it."

Posted by: drindl | March 25, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

shrink2 wrote: “The ongoing concentration of money in the hands of a few sends money to create elected officials who oversee the ongoing concentration of money in the hands of a few.”

Again, a great argument for an Amendment to give the Federal Government the power to deny special interests (corps., lobbyists, etc) the “right” to this sort of free speech. The danger, as I see it, is that we won’t take that route. We’ll just pass more laws.

Posted by: MDLaxer | March 25, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

This week’s talking point is the sudden danger of new right-wing violence, and the inflammatory push-back against health care. I’m sorry, but all this concern is a day late and a dollar short. The subtext is really one of class — right-wing radio talk-show hosts, Glenn Beck idiots, and crass tea-party yokels are foaming at the mouth and dangerous to progressives. In contrast, write a book in which you muse about killing George Bush, and its Knopf imprint proves it is merely sophisticated literary speculation; do a docudrama about killing George Bush, and it will win a Toronto film prize for its artistic value rather than shock from the liberal community about over-the-top discourse.


Like it or not, between 2001 and 2008, the “progressive” community redefined what is acceptable and not acceptable in political and public discourse about their elected officials. Slurs like “Nazi” and “fascist” and “I hate” were no longer the old street-theater derangement of the 1960s, but were elevated to high-society novels, films, political journalism, and vein-bulging outbursts of our elites. If one were to take the word "Bush" and replace it with "Obama" in the work of a Nicholson Baker, or director Gabriel Range, or Garrison Keillor or Jonathan Chait, or in the rhetoic of a Gore or Moore, we would be presently in a national crisis, witnessing summits on the epidemic of "hate speech."

A modest suggestion: If the liberal community wishes to be more credible in its concern about contemporary extremist anti-administration rhetoric, then they might try the following: “Please, let us avoid extremism and do not fall into the same trap as Baker, Chait, Keillor, Gore, Moore, or Range when they either expressed open hatred toward their president, or speculated about the assassination of their president, or compared their president to a fascist. We must disown such extremism, past and present."

Posted by: Zouk_is_King | March 25, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Could some particularly extremist members of the Republican party’s talk radio political culture scare away crucial swing voters who might swing the GOP’s way come November? If the pattern of independent voter behavior and preferences in the past is any indication, the answer is yes.

The news that some House members voted for health care reform now find themselves and their families threatened (verbal threats, emails, phone calls, a blatantly racist fax and bricks through windows are among some of the reports so far) and that House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer estimates it involves some 10 members was eyebrow raising enough. Then came details that House members were offered more security and talking with local police and the FBI since these threats are being taken seriously. CBS even posted this audio of a threatening call to Bart Stupak.

You listen to that video and you think: so THIS is what "democracy has come to mean to some people? Vote our way the we want or someone will bump you off you piece of $*&! and there are millions of us.. "

Democracy at work? Hardly."

http://themoderatevoice.com/67307/could-threats-to-democrats-start-scaring-independent-voters-away/

In past eras leaders the media, the partisan and ideological punditry, and leaders of both parties would move on a dime to unify and to denounce it in no uncertain terms — particularly if this had occured during the late 60s, when Americans saw left-right confrontations in the streets, huge demonstrations on campuses, and the assassinations of a host of political and African American leaders. Those of us who lived in that era in both parties often asked:”What is HAPPENING to our politics and our democracy?”

This was particularly asked by people in the middle. The danger for the GOP now is: this question could start coming up again. And it’s most likely to be asked by the independent voters who now seem to be leaning the GOP’s.

Posted by: drindl | March 25, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD2 | March 25, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Part of the problem is that the average American voter is pretty uninformed on a lot of issues. I don't know whether it's unreasonable to expect everyone to be fully informed, but it is what it is. In 2008, even if corporations made every single ad that I ever watched an ad for McCain, I'm still not voting for him since I know what McCain's policies and ideas are. I'm not voting for Bush in 2004 since he screwed up his first term so badly. No amount corporate ads can really change that. I think that's implicit in the SCOTUS' argument. It's speech, but it's also just speech. No one is compelling anyone to vote for anyone. Gene Weingarten made the point - is free speech wrong just because some megaphones are bigger than others? Are newspaper endorsements wrong? An editorial board certainly has a louder voice than any of us do.

Obviously this ruling is bad for the country, but I'm not so sure it was the wrong ruling for the SCOTUS to have made. It's their job to call balls and strikes, but it's in the power of the legislature to delineate the strike zone. I'm no Constitutional law expert, but that's my impression.

Although it might be impossible for the legislature to do anything if the recognition of corporations as individuals is a court granted recognition rather than a legislative one. Does anyone know how it came to be that corps=people?

Posted by: DDAWD | March 25, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

"koolkat_1960 “The "Federal Government" does not "expand it's [sic] powers on its own."”

I would disagree and say that you haven’t been paying attention."

If you're referring to powers created by legislation, those are the acts of a lawfully elected Congress. If they overstep the Constitution, that's what the judicial branch is for.


Posted by: koolkat_1960 | March 25, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Zouk wrote:

"And that may be the ultimate irony of Obamacare – that it is funding tomorrow’s big government obligations with the failed promises of yesterday."

Today we smash the mold.
Zouk, I agree with your statement,
100% right. Prediciton: If this approach to health care is around a decade from now, it will have caused a massive shift in how America spends its money.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 25, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Hayek’s greatest insight in The Road to Serfdom is psychological: “There is one aspect of the change in moral values brought about by the advance of collectivism which at the present time provides special food for thought,” he wrote with an immigrant’s eye on the Britain of 1944. “It is that the virtues which are held less and less in esteem and which consequently become rarer are precisely those on which the British people justly prided themselves and in which they were generally agreed to excel.

The virtues possessed by Anglo-Saxons in a higher degree than most other people, excepting only a few of the smaller nations, like the Swiss and the Dutch, were independence and self-reliance, individual initiative and local responsibility, the successful reliance on voluntary activity, noninterference with one’s neighbor and tolerance of the different and queer, respect for custom and tradition, and a healthy suspicion of power and authority.”

Two-thirds of a century on, almost every item on the list has been abandoned, from “independence and self-reliance” (40 percent of people receive state handouts) to “a healthy suspicion of power and authority” — the reflex response now to almost any passing inconvenience is to demand the government “do something,” the cost to individual liberty be damned. American exceptionalism would have to be awfully exceptional to suffer a similar expansion of government and not witness, in enough of the populace, the same descent into dependency and fatalism.

As Europe demonstrates, a determined state can change the character of a people in the space of a generation or two. Look at what the Great Society did to the black family and imagine it applied to the general population: That’s what happened in Britain.

Posted by: Zouk_is_King | March 25, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD wrote: “The PATRIOT act argument is nonsense. It violates rights that, while not explicit in the Constitution, were delineated by the Supreme Court.”

What rights have been “delineated by the Supreme Court”? The 9th Amendment states “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” That means you and I already had/have those rights.

“MDLaxer was also the one complaining that passing votes with 51% of the vote was unconstitutional.”

I’m not sure that’s exactly what I meant. To clarify, electing our president with 51% of the popular vote (and ignoring the Electoral College) would be unconstitutional. Good? Bad? I don’t know, but it would be unconstitutional.

“Show me one place in the Constitution articles that mentions a filibuster.”

It doesn’t. The House and Senate can make their own rules. Democrats and Republicans have done that. They (and we) now have to deal with it.

Posted by: MDLaxer | March 25, 2010 12:08 PM | Report abuse

MDLaxer asks
"why does a Federal Government, whose actions are limited to that authorized by a written constitution necessarily have to be “small”? Couldn’t that written constitution create a large government as well?"


It sounds like where we disagree is on whether the current form of our federal government is legal. My understanding of the Constitution is that it lays out a basic framework, including the rules for how the details are fleshed out; i.e. the general rules for the balance of powers between executive, lege & judiciary; and how those rules can be changed (amendments). Therefore, I don't agree with the view that the federal government has somehow grown beyond its constitutionally mandated 'size' or purview.

Coming at the issue from a different angle, I am of the view that the gov't should generally default to not getting involved - i.e. not regulate & not legislate, until the actions of some are negatively impacting the rights of others. As these kinds of problems start happening, the normal progression would be action by local gov't, then the state, then - if the problems/organizations/impacts grow large enough, the feds step in. The traditional view of the commerce clause supports this interpretation: when actions are small & intrastate, the Feds don't get to get involved. But when it becomes an interstate issue, it enters the Fed domain. So small government is a good default, but as we've grown as a country & become interconnected from state to state, Fed power has understandably grown as well.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 25, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Tea Party = Fearful middle-aged white folks that can't handle change in their world. Nobody asked their permission, so they're angry.

Posted by: jckdoors | March 25, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Furthermore, is “a large Sweden” even possible? Insofar as it works at all, Big Government works best in small countries, with a sufficiently homogeneous population to have common interests. There’s a fascinating book by Alberto Alesina and Enrico Spolaore called The Size of Nations, in which the authors note that, of the ten richest countries in the world, only four have populations above 1 million: America (300 million people), Switzerland (7 million), Norway (4 million), and Singapore (3 million). Small nations, they argue, are more cohesive and have less need for buying off ethnic and regional factions. America has been the exception that proves the rule because it’s a highly decentralized federation. But, as Messrs. Alesina and Spolaore put it, if America were as centrally governed as France, it would break up. That theory is now being tested by the Obamacare Democrats, and, as we see with the wretched Ben Nelson’s cornhusker kickback or the blank check given to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, when American-style Big Government starts “buying off ethnic and regional factions,” the sky’s the limit. To attempt to impose European-style centralized government on a third of a billion people from Maine to Hawaii is to invite failure on a scale unknown to history. Which is to say that, domestically, Washington’s retreat from la gloire will be of an entirely different order of business from Paris’s.


the great one

Posted by: Zouk_is_King | March 25, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Is there not someway for rational, sane, but very angry Independents to organize and turn this government back to the people? I want nothing to do with the tea partiers and their radical, extreme politics (not to mention Sarah Palin...I might as well run for office as I have more education that Ms. Palin does and I can speak in a rational manner). I am looking for a way to "clean house" via upcoming elections. I want to organize people to vote for NO ONE who is an incumbent, whether Republican or Democrat...If they have held office-VOTE them out! Mr. Obama is hoping the American people will come to "apprciate" this health care legislation. I don't think so. It was too partisan and divisive in it's enactment. Who paid the most money for this...the insurance companies, the medical associations, or ?...I voted for Mr. Obama (even changing my party affiliation to do so). I am sorely disappointed in his actions so far. I wanted the troops out of the Middle East (he added more), improved education processes (not even started), a better economy (haven't seen any improvement)...these are just a few of my disappointments.

Posted by: sleverma | March 25, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

The language used by the democrats to describe the Tea Party Movement is nothing less than HATE SPEECH - complete with SEXUAL SLURS.

OH, the media would be crazy if that kind of speech was used against a democratic group.

The hypocrisy is so thick.


.


.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 25, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

throw em all out. vote 3rd party.

Posted by: millionea7 | March 25, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

MDL, we are making progress.

We agree this is not a D nor R, nor liberal, nor conservative political problem. We agree Congress does a poor job representing the interests of States.

You cite the 17th amendment, I have cited the Supreme Courts' ongoing decisions. They have enabled a peculiar, vicious cycle.

The ongoing concentration of money in the hands of a few sends money to create elected officials who oversee the ongoing concentration of money in the hands of a few.

The point of Democracy is to separate the concentration of wealth from the concentration of political power. If wealth is power, we are done with the American experiment.

Again, I see the threat we face in neither communism, nor fascism, not going to happen here. It is ending up like Mexico, Russia, Nigeria, China, Brazil and all the other utterly corrupt, crony capitalist states. But we agree on one more thing, our freedom is at stake.


Posted by: shrink2 | March 25, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Is America set for decline? It’s been a grand run. The country’s been the leading economic power since it overtook Britain in the 1880s. That’s impressive. Nevertheless, over the course of that century and a quarter, Detroit went from the world’s industrial powerhouse to an urban wasteland, and the once-golden state of California atrophied into a land of government run by the government for the government. What happens when the policies that brought ruin to Detroit and sclerosis to California become the basis for the nation at large? Strictly on the numbers, the United States is in the express lane to Declinistan: unsustainable entitlements, the remorseless governmentalization of the economy and individual liberty, and a centralization of power that will cripple a nation of this size. Decline is the way to bet. But what will ensure it is if the American people accept decline as a price worth paying for European social democracy.

Posted by: Zouk_is_King | March 25, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

dirndl wrote: “I am simply saying that there are instances where government is better and more efficient in delivering services than the private sector, which will always see profit, and only profit, as a goal.

I don’t disagree with this (though I will say that I believe those instances are few). However, when an instance like this arises, I would submit that we should still require there by a Constitutional Amendment to give the Federal Government this new power, rather than allow the Federal Government to give it to themselves.

Also, your faith in a repeal of the PATRIOT Act is much greater than mine. I think our only hope was shortly after Obama’s inauguration. Now I fear, it has become completely institutionalized

Posted by: MDLaxer | March 25, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Once again corporations win while Americans waste their focus on the politics of us vs. them. Want jobs back? Want to feel like you are more in charge of your own destiny? Then stop immediately buying stuff made in China, especially under American companies that manufacture there. If we as a country did it for a week, corporations would raise an eyebrow. If we did it for a month, we could force a discussion of policy. If we could do it for longer, we might be able to rebuild a manufacturing base here. We won't survive much longer as a services industry based economy. Buy Amercian! or do without.

Posted by: Angoose | March 25, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Once again corporations win while Americans waste their focus on the politics of us vs. them. Want jobs back? Want to feel like you are more in charge of your own destiny? Then stop immediately buying stuff made in China, especially under American companies that manufacture there. If we as a country did it for a week, corporations would raise an eyebrow. If we did it for a month, we could force a discussion of policy. If we could do it for longer, we might be able to rebuild a manufacturing base here. We won't survive much longer as a services industry based economy. Buy Amercian! or do without.

Posted by: Angoose | March 25, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

MDLaxwer writes, about direct election of senators:
"The Senate thus became more like the House. I think this also made it much easier for lobbyists who can now pretty much ignore state legislatures and concentrate on Congress."


That is an interesting point.


.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 25, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Obama's inept handling of Israel, his many-faceted fantasies about how to achieve peace in the Middle East, are dangerous, because he is forcing the Israelis to think in terms of existential survival.

Why are politicians so prone to stupidities where Israel is concerned? The answer, I think, lies in the refusal to understand that Islamism and terror are strengthening their hold throughout the Muslim world, and it is going to take a long time and much clear thinking and willpower to deal with this. The faking of passports, like the location of settlements in Jerusalem, is incidental in a much larger process with fateful implications, and to magnify such things out of all proportion only invites yet more Islamism and terror.

Indirect negotiations, proximity talks, the Road Map, the Quartet, shelf agreements, the freelancing of Senator Mitchell and Tony Blair, and the drills of General Dayton have exhausted the lexicon of diplomacy and the ingenuity of lawyers. The reason for this should be crystal clear. The Palestinians are happy with the way things are; they see no reason for change; the present situation is playing profitably into their hands. If they'd really wanted a state, they could have had one any time since the 1992 Oslo Accords. Israel, the United States, the European Union, and even Saudi Arabia implore them to have a state. But why should they? All these well-wishers are pumping money to them, and a state would force them to spend it on administration rather than themselves. They also have the pleasure of observing everyone — and specially Washington — putting pressure on Israel and making it unpopular. Sixteen-hundred more settlements gives them grounds for 1,600 more complaints, and then sitting down and rubbing their hands in expectation of commiseration and rewards. A state would oblige them to pull their own chestnuts out of the fire.

Posted by: Zouk_is_King | March 25, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

"I love the sound of Republicans whining in the morning. Boo-hoo-hoo. The GOP lost the presidency and a big congressional election back in 2008. With the passage of President Obama's healthcare bill, they've now lost the most significant domestic political battle since the 1960s. So naturally the light of freedom has been extinguished, the U.S. Constitution voided, capitalism doomed and the nation fallen into a dark totalitarian nightmare.

Party leaders are increasingly solemn, diminishingly serious. The GOP's entertainment wing, its crack team of right-wing radio/TV melodramatists, has been thrown into a competitive frenzy. For sheer entertainment value, this stuff is hard to top. Surely some dark beast shuffles toward Washington to be born. Rush Limbaugh predicts that the nation's private insurance industry will be bankrupted. (Oddly, insurance company stocks continue to rise.)

A couple of weeks ago, Limbaugh even vowed to leave the United States and move to Costa Rica if healthcare reform passed. Evidently, nobody told him Costa Rica has a government-funded, single-payer healthcare system. He has since recanted"

dang.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/republican_party/index.html?story=/opinion/feature/2010/03/24/gop_whine

Posted by: drindl | March 25, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

koolkat_1960 “The "Federal Government" does not "expand it's [sic] powers on its own."”

I would disagree and say that you haven’t been paying attention.

Posted by: MDLaxer | March 25, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Looks like cilizza's days are numbered. will he outlast Olbermann?

WaPo Hires Weigel to Blog the Tea Party [Daniel Foster]

The Washington Post has hired former Reason contributor David Weigel to cover the right in a new blog.

Be ambivalent. Be very ambivalent:

David Weigel, who’s been covering the right for the Washington Independent, will soon be heading to the Washington Post.

Weigel joins the Post on April 5, and will be launching a blog focused on the conservative movement, tea party activists, and how the GOP's preparing for November.

National editor Kevin Merida confirmed the news to POLITICO and said that Weigel will be “a voice on our politics page online and a presence that will add to our robust coverage of the 2010 midterm elections.”

Weigel will primarily write online, but like Chris Cillizza—and other bloggers—could still contribute to the print edition when needed.

"I've been lucky to cover a really amazing, surprising political story in the remaking of the GOP and the rise of the Tea Parties," Weigel told POLITICO. "I take them seriously; they're building something brand new, something that defies conventional wisdom. If readers get a deeper understanding of these people, their strategy, and their ideas, then I'm doing my job."

Posted by: Zouk_is_King | March 25, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

jaxas70, I thought you were a better person than one who would insult an entire group of Americans on the basis of national origin or married name. Incendiary, foolish, hateful, and beneath you.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 25, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

The likelehood of New Yorkers voting for Dan Senor for Senate was always between slim and none.
Who would vote for the spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority who along with his band of war profiteers let Iraq be looted and cost American it's blood and treasure.

Bruce Blakeman was never officially a mayoral candidate, he dropped out when Bloomberg and the council changed the term limts law.

He currently serves on the Port Authority's board, Blakeman was a Councilman on the Hempstead Town Board and was a member of the Nassau County Legislature, holding the positions of Presiding Officer and Majority Leader from 1996 to 1999. In 1998, he was the Republican candidate for New York State Comptroller but lost the election to H. Carl McCall.

Posted by: MerrillFrank | March 25, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Bsimon1 wrote: “The so-called originalists on the supreme court just decided that corporations have the same speech rights as the people, where money equals speech.”

Obviously I think that is wrong. I believe that the Supreme Court has long held that the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) applies to groups as well as individuals. Understanding that, this court (by a very slim majority) said that the Constitution doesn’t give the Federal Government the power to limit such “free speech”

The logical answer is a Constitutional Amendment that would (however it was worded) allow the Federal Government to deny such “free speech”.

“If that interpretation is within the bounds of what is constitutional, arguing that special interests will be 'hampered' is ridiculous.”

What I’m saying is that if the Federal Government’s powers can only be increased (expanded) by an amendment, then a “special interest” would have to get an amendment approved to expand the Federal Government’s powers to their benefit. I see that as being much more difficult than what we have now.

“small-government types” why does a Federal Government, whose actions are limited to that authorized by a written constitution necessarily have to be “small”? Couldn’t that written constitution create a large government as well?

Posted by: MDLaxer | March 25, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

We cannot sit back and allow for this anger, mongering and festering to continue. Something has to change…or something is going to happen. And it will not be pretty. So they must all go. Sarah Palin must go. Her publicist daughter, Bristol Palin, must go. And they can pack up the rest of their Northern Lights, hillbilly family while they are at it and just get out of Dodge. Read more of my rantings at Huffington Post approved Blog, IMeanWhat?!? at http://bit.ly/d6ZGH5

Posted by: imeanwhat | March 25, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Another in the long line of empty promises from chairman Zero:

Hours after President Barack Obama signed historic health care legislation, a potential problem emerged. Administration officials are now scrambling to fix a gap in highly touted benefits for children.

Obama made better coverage for children a centerpiece of his health care remake, but it turns out the letter of the law provided a less-than-complete guarantee that kids with health problems would not be shut out of coverage.


I doubt he ever read the bill. two days before he had no idea what was in it.

Posted by: Zouk_is_King | March 25, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

37th if I talk to *you* will you be ok?
This is going very well so far today.
Attacks on ideas, groups, but not posters.
Thank you for doing your part 37th.

[I never thought I would say that.]

Ahem...

"It is entirely appropriate to include a review of the interstate commerce clause in the Court challenges.

The idea of an indefinitely expansive interstate commerce clause is one area in which everyone, when first hearing of it, takes a second look to make sure it is right.

Logically, there must be some line between Federal power and state power - or the Federal government could take over all the powers of the states. In 1995 the Court started to delineate this line."

This is a valid point (but that the SCOTUS did not start to delineate the line in 1995). I am at the point where I am looking forward to the Court taking up this health care bill.

Never in history has an industry written itself into law to this extent. Sure they write themselves into law, that is, in a way, what law has become; the representations of special interest battles. The "free market" lives in the halls of the Capitol.

Now be nice. We don't have to agree.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 25, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

"FB:-Much of this is due to the interconnected nature of the nation and world.

MDL-I’m not sure if I wholly agree with this argument, but it would be a good argument for a Constitutional Amendment expanding the Federal Government’s powers relative to economic activity. It’s not a good argument (to me) for realizing such an expansion of power is unconstitutional, but shrugging your shoulders and saying “but it’s for a good cause”."

That's not exactly what I meant. My thinking is more along the lines that economic activity that is apparently within one jurisdiction has interjurisdictional consequences. Therefore a federal role is permitted. Given this discussion, it would be helpful for C-SPAN to broadcast a forum addressing topics such as these soon. Their weekend coverage of the Supreme Court and judicial issues is illuminating.

---

MDL: True, but those countries are set up that way. Our constitution establishes a Constitutional Republic. As we continue to become more of a democracy (majority rules) without addressing the Constitution, what affect does that have?

A very interesting point. We have certainly see positive aspects to the move towards direct democracy--individual campaign contributions overwhelming the traditional power structure. [Though the Supremes haven't helped there.] Congressfolks have been more responsive to constituents during this debate. We've also seen the ugly aspects. Jake's warnings of there will be blood are proving all too true. He just doesn't realize the ugliness of it all. This is a time of transition.

MDL: I’m not sure I follow you here [re: marriage]. I don’t see marriage as commerce. Personally, people should be able to marry whomever they want.

I think I picked out the word social from your previous comment, but given the web of legal and financial issues associated with marriage, it has commercial implications. Providing it's not interspecies or with a minor, I'm not too bothered.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | March 25, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Jaxas, I find it hard to beleive that what the founders had in mind with the Second Amendment was to allow a group of belligerent bozos with assault weapons to threaten, bully, intimidate and harrass their fellow citizens.

Posted by: drindl | March 25, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

shrink2 wrote: “The Congress is supposed to be of the States, representing States' interests? Why don't they, why are they complicit in the accumulation of Federal authority?”

I’m not sure I agree with this. The House of Representatives, represents the People.

Again often I hear the lament “Why does Wyoming get the same number of Senators as California when their populations are so different?

The answer is that the Senate was established to represent the States. Not the People. Thus each state is represented equally. And the Senators were beholden to their state’s legislators – who were the ones who elected them.

We changed that with the 17th Amendment (1913) which changed the way senators were elected (directly instead of by the state's legislature). I believe this weakened the power of the states because the State’s legislatures are now left out of the process. Would the Senator be less likely to support a law with an unfunded state mandate if he/she knew that he/she needed the state’s legislature to get re-elected?

The Senate thus became more like the House. I think this also made it much easier for lobbyists who can now pretty much ignore state legislatures and concentrate on Congress.

Posted by: MDLaxer | March 25, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

The PATRIOT act argument is nonsense. It violates rights that, while not explicit in the Constitution, were delineated by the Supreme Court. I'm against the PATRIOT act, but I'm not against the existence of a CIA, even though I'm sure that's not in the Constitution. The Federal Government does a lot that isn't in the Constitution. It's universally accepted and only challenged on a piecemeal basis by people who don't like a certain bill or another.

Of course, MDLaxer was also the one complaining that passing votes with 51% of the vote was unConstitutional. Yeah? Really? Show me one place in the Constitution articles that mentions a filibuster.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 25, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Meanwhile, as the teabaggers, repukes, and other assorted conservotards continue to make fools out of themselves, the Dow Jones is continuing its recovery from the disaster created by the Bush/Cheney/Rove regime. It will soon cross the psychologically important 11,000 barrier.

Another huge defeat for unamerican rightwingnuts. When America wins, they lose!

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | March 25, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

KofZ@1109, if the GOP is really so set on any of those ammendments they could have proposed them as bills at any time, and they can certainly put them forward now and in the future.

When they are not purposely proposed to stall legislation I'm sure Democrats would be happy to vote for them. In the meantime the GOP continues to look like tantruming children.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | March 25, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

something Liberals are good at - finally:

Our federal debt load is set to surge from $7.5 trillion in 2009 to $20.3 trillion in 2020. Spending is simply out of control. Averaging just 20% of GDP over the last half-century, it will leap to 30% of GDP by 2030 — a 50% real gain in government's presence.

Meanwhile, total U.S. debt is set to swell from about 60% of GDP just three years ago to 115% or higher by 2014, according to IMF estimates. "For all intents and purposes," says Cato Institute economist Daniel J. Mitchell, "America is on a path to become a European-style welfare state."

In liberal lalaland it is now time to raise taxes, increase regulations, stomp on some small business and expand the IRS.

Posted by: Zouk_is_King | March 25, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Is there anyone, really, that ever believed that the TP'rs were ever anything but elements of the angriest and most far-right of the GOP anyway? Please.

Posted by: Angoose | March 25, 2010 11:31 AM | Report abuse

ATTENTION THREATENED CONGRESSPEOPLE:

JOURNO EXPOSING U.S. GOV'T MICROWAVE/LASER CELL 'TORTURE' TOWER WEAPON SYSTEM DESCRIBES LATEST ASSAULTS -- AND WHO MAY BE RUNNING AN 'AMERICAN GESTAPO.'

See articles, latest comments:

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-govt-uses-cbs-news-cover-microwave-cell-tower-torture

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves

OR NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA" (see "stories")

Posted by: scrivener50 | March 25, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

The fund-raising propaganda heisted from the NCR conference, and released to the public, were part of the catalist of hate and racism that the teabonkers have taken and run with. The repukicans cannot seperate themselves from the terrorist-like tactics of the radical teabonkers, it was they who perpetuated them. All in the same reprehensible bag, shake em' up, they all fall out with the same stench.

Posted by: patriotgmalou | March 25, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

And FOX, terrorists' favorite station, fans the flames:

'In the past few days, a rash of disturbing threats have been reported against House Democrats who voted for health care reform on Sunday. At least 10 House Democrats have reported death threats or incidents of harassment or vandalism at their district offices over the past week, including images of nooses faxed to Reps. James Clyburn (R-SC) and Bart Stupak (D-MI). Fox and Friends discussed the story extensively this morning. Though they repeatedly denounced the violent threats, the co-hosts also broadcast e-mails suggesting that this is what Democrats should “expect” for passing health care reform:

KILMEADE: Over in Kentucky, J says, “while I don’t condone the threats in any way, what do they expect when they basically stole from the American people? What do they think 1776 was all about and wasn’t there some violence back then?” But true, but that was a revolution against an occupier.

CARLSON: Uh huh.

KILMEADE: This is a policy.'

Posted by: drindl | March 25, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

I agree with bsimon1. I don't think most of these Tea Party Bozos can begin to understand the ins and outs of Constitutional law, and the two major methodologies involved int eh interpetation of the Constitution.

Indeed, the term "originalism" has no legal meaning at all because it assumes that one, tiny, marginalized little group of ideologues on the far right have some innate, superior near psychic ability to place themselves inside the minds of the original writers of the Constitution that no one else has. The apparently do not understand that the original intent of the framers is itself a matter of interpretation based on one of those two major methodologies of interpreting the Constitution.

Strict Construction of the Constitution is a perfectly legitimate methodology as long as it is current with past precedents. But, what the "originalists" are proposing goes beyond strict construction and delves into an almost fundamentalist, religious method of looking at the Constitution that has similarities to how Biblical literalists interpret the Bible.

The expanded view of the Constitution that grew out of the Marshall Court in the early days of the Republic is now the dominant method for interpreting the Constitution because it is the only view that incorporates the evolving nature of society. Clearly, the Seond Amendment for example, does not envision an individual right to own Anthrax, which is in fact a biological weapon, an "arm" if you will. That is merely an example of a more evolved expansive view of the right to bear arms that the originalists would not allow for.

Posted by: jaxas70 | March 25, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Earlier this month The New York Times – ostensibly seeking to build momentum for universal coverage – published a story highlighting the un-sustainability of Medicaid. The story revealed that last year, while state governments were relying on bailout money to fund skyrocketing growth rates, the program added 3.3 million new members – raising its total enrollment to 47 million. It is going broke, clearly, although that didn’t stop Obama and his Congressional allies from raiding $202 billion from its coffers (as well as $53 billion from Social Security) to make their plan appear deficit neutral.

And that may be the ultimate irony of Obamacare – that it is funding tomorrow’s big government obligations with the failed promises of yesterday.

Posted by: Zouk_is_King | March 25, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade wrote: "Much of this is due to the interconnected nature of the nation and world.”

I’m not sure if I wholly agree with this argument, but it would be a good argument for a Constitutional Amendment expanding the Federal Government’s powers relative to economic activity. It’s not a good argument (to me) for realizing such an expansion of power is unconstitutional, but shrugging your shoulders and saying “but it’s for a good cause”.

“Various countries have parliaments with prime ministers and the the presidency is a ceremonial post.”

True, but those countries are set up that way. Our constitution establishes a Constitutional Republic. As we continue to become more of a democracy (majority rules) without addressing the Constitution, what affect does that have?

“I don't see how the federal government should have any role in such matters if we're considering commerce.”

I’m not sure I follow you here. I don’t see marriage as commerce. Personally, people should be able to marry whomever they want.

Posted by: MDLaxer | March 25, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

The Tea Party is the stormtroopers of the GOP.

Posted by: jckdoors | March 25, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Teabagger = Terrorist

" Republicans were fanning the anger with their fiery comments in recent days. Several GOP lawmakers stood on the speaker's balcony at the Capitol overlooking a tea party protest last weekend holding up signs that read "Kill the Bill." Below them, protesters were yelling "No! No! No!" and, referring to the House speaker, "Nancy, you will burn in hell for this!"

One of the more threatening incidents involved Perriello, whose older brother, Bo, came home Tuesday and smelled gas in the house. He discovered that a line to a propane tank had been cut. A threatening letter was also sent to the home that day. Federal and local authorities were investigating the incident.

Some of the vandalism appears to have been instigated by an Alabama blogger, Mike Vanderboegh, who encouraged his readers to throw bricks at the windows of Democratic headquarters across the country. Vanderboegh, a former leader of the Alabama Constitutional Militia who is headlining an open-carry gun rally in Northern Virginia next month, issued a call to the modern "Sons of Liberty" on his libertarian political blog to break windows nationwide to display opposition to health-care reform.


Vanderboegh did not respond to questions Wednesday from The Washington Post, but he took credit for the incident in an interview earlier this week with the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle. "I guess that guy's one of ours," he told the newspaper. "Glad to know people read my blog."

Nothing but violent mindless thugs.


Posted by: drindl | March 25, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Who were the repukicans waving the banners on the balconies of the state house, encouraging the Teabonkers on? Funny they have not been identified. They need to put on their sneakers and t-shirts and join the mob, they certainly are not doing
any good inside the chambers, other than to raucoulsy encourage the same type of behavior from their compadres.

Posted by: patriotgmalou | March 25, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

The pitched battle over health care has unleashed a rash of vandalism and attacks directed at politicians, with at least 10 House Democrats reporting death threats or incidents of harassment or vandalism at their district offices over the past week. More than 100 House Democrats met behind closed doors Wednesday afternoon with representatives of the FBI and the U.S. Capitol Police. The lawmakers voiced what one senior aide who was present described as "serious concern" about their security in Washington

we've gone from "we pledge our lives and our fortunes" to "hide me under your bed".

Looks like time for some surrender and apology again.

Posted by: Zouk_is_King | March 25, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

MD -- I agree with you regarding the Patriot Act, certainly, but it was passed in a climate of fear, and under most circumstances would not have passed and may still be repealed.

I am simply saying that there are instances where government is better and more efficient in delivering services than the private sector, which will always see profit, and only profit, as a goal.

Posted by: drindl | March 25, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

It is entirely appropriate to include a review of the interstate commerce clause in the Court challenges.

The idea of an indefinitely expansive interstate commerce clause is one area in which everyone, when first hearing of it, takes a second look to make sure it is right.


Logically, there must be some line between Federal power and state power - or the Federal government could take over all the powers of the states. In 1995 the Court started to delineate this line.


Health insurance is one area which has traditionally been a part of States' powers. Presently there is no health insurance sold across state lines.

This point has a great deal of merit. In just one aspect of this point - the Federal government has basically taken the position that just living - just being alive - is interstate commerce. How else can they base the individual mandate ?

In a sense, they have taken the "infinite" aspect of caselaw to its farthest point - just sitting in one place, never leaving a state - just being alive is a form of interstate commerce which can be regulated by the Federal government.

Health insurance has traditionally been regulated by the States. This power is now being taken from the States - which implies that Congress can take any power it wishes from the States.


Not only that - Congress is forcing the States to spend billions of dollars in UNFUNDED MANDATES - which is a taking of the States' taxing powers.

The Federal government is saying to the States - you can tax, but we will determine where the money goes. That is not right.


Even worse, the Federal government is taking away from the States the power to determine the LEVEL of its taxes. If a State wishes to choose lower taxes, it cannot, because it must cover the UNFUNDED MANDATES.

.

.
.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 25, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

The bursting of the real estate bubble and the ensuing recession have hurt jobs, home prices and now Social Security. This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

"the unemployment rate will not go above 8%, trust me"

"the HCR does not cost money, it makes money, trust me"

Liberals can't count to ten.

Posted by: Zouk_is_King | March 25, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

"Allowing the Federal Government to expand it's powers on its own, can only lead to it happening more often in other areas (i.e. the USA PATRIOT Act)."

The "Federal Government" does not "expand it's [sic] powers on its own."


Posted by: koolkat_1960 | March 25, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

The Tea Klux Klan has been overrun by Hatriots, not Patriots.

Posted by: VeloStrummer | March 25, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

milton seems to agree that this is a terrorist organization. he admits that it is comprised of groups or cells much like our islamic enemies or the militia groups which it is primary a voice for.

the posse commitatus believed in returning this nation to a christian nation and that there was no power higher than the sheriff of a county whom they controlled through intimidation and fear.

this is how the tea party is operating. make no mistake...the tea party is an enemy to democracy and liberty. it is a repressive movement of like-minded hate squads which take their marching orders from talking heads like tv/radio entertainers and common con artist like Palin.

it is not 'grassroots' and it is not 'growing' and it doesn't have 'millions' of followers. this movement has a few thousand vocal followers and interest from thousands more but this is not the view of the majority of the people in this nation.

this is the view of the people who make the off-color and politically incorrect jokes who want to take the rights and liberties away from the poor and working classes and replace them with an almost slavelike state where they work constantly for fewer rewards while the wealthy who are backing this movement receive all of the wealth this nation has to offer.

Posted by: UncleScrooge | March 25, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

The Republicans have offered a number of amendments to ObamaCare in the senate, all of which have been voted down by Democrats on Party Line Votes.

Amendment to Remove Sweetheart Deals, Bribes, and Payoffs - voted down by Democrats

Amendment to Bar Tax Hikes on Families Earning Under $250,000 - voted down by

Amendment to Remove the Employer Mandate - voted down by Democrats

Amendment to Require the President and Congress Enroll in Exchange - voted down by Democrats

Amendment to Prevent Sex Offenders from Receiving E.D. Drugs - voted down by Democrats on a party-line vote

Amendment to Remove New Taxes on Investments - voted down by Democrats

Amendment to Protect Wounded Soldiers from Medical Device Tax - voted down by Democrats

Amendment to Protect Pediatrics and Disabled from Medical Device Tax - voted down by Democrats

Amendment to Protect Cancer Patients from Medical Device Tax - voted down by Democrats

So, Democrats are no on record as supporting giving V!agra to sex offenders, support punishing taxes on wounded veterans, cancer patients, sick children, and the disabled. They are on record as supporting kickbacks and sweetheart deals for themselves.

Every one of these no votes is a campaign ad waiting to happen.

Posted by: Zouk_is_King | March 25, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

One of the greatest ironies of the Tea Party movement is that most of them are older white people who are on social security and medicare and do not seem to understand that these are wildly successful government programs.

This tells me something: These people are not angry over policy. Most of them have absolutely no concept of what the health care bill does or doesn't do and really don't care. Indeed, the single most important driver of all of this anger is that they lost in November, 2008 and they lost in March, 2010.

And it isn't just the tea party crowd. The entire GOP has a weed up its bloated a## simply because this young African American is there in the White House. John McCain is the worst of them. He looks as though any minute he is going to explode in a postal rage, pull out an M1 cannot and start wiping out every one of his past "enemies".

There is a solid majority in the GOP that is simply not equipped with the maturity and character to be there at all. They have absolutely scarred and defaced America to the point it is no longer recognizable. The republicans have turned Congress into a stinking, rural, backwater swamp where aging, pot bellied old white men become heroes by belching and flatulating and dragging both chambers into what can only be described as a romper room.

Posted by: jaxas70 | March 25, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

WOW!!!!!! Starting with the article's author and then the commenters who mention "bagger". "Teabaggers", etc, I have never read such a mish mash of incorrectness. I even got a few laughs out of it. It's like the CNN reporter talking about the nasty bigoted Tea Party member carrying the assault rifle as CNN showed a close up of the rifle. Thankfully, other news agencies spotted the same scene and showed the individual with the rifle. Guess what? He was black. The CNN reporter was guilty of advocacy journalism just as the author of this article is. It seems that Howell Raines influence over the media has spread.

Posted by: gfafblifr | March 25, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

The teabagger rabble are to Republicans what the Klan was to the White Citizens Councils.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | March 25, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

MDLaxer wrote:
"But the influence of special interests would be greatly hampered if the Federal Government's actions were confined to those authorized by the Constitution."


Hogwash. The so-called originalists on the supreme court just decided that corporations have the same speech rights as the people, where money equals speech. If that interpretation is within the bounds of what is constitutional, arguing that special interests will be 'hampered' is ridiculous. Lets imagine this theoretically limited Fed Government that is only protecting our borders. They have to buy materiel for said protections from someone. Gee, how do you think they're going to decide who to buy from - you think corporations won't exercise their 'free speech' rights to influence elections so their guy gets elected & coincidentally decides their product is the latest must-have gizmo for protecting our borders? But wait, how do we pay for those must-have gizmos? I know! How about a tax on the people, but not corporations, because that, of course, would destroy the economy.

The problem with the small-government types is they don't think through the impacts of their proposals.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 25, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

"But the influence of special interests would be greatly hampered if the Federal Government's actions were confined to those authorized by the Constitution. If so, then an expansion of the Government's powers (supported by a corporation or lobby) would have to be approved by an amendment. Much more difficult (and time consuming) to accomplish."

Thank you this is a good point.
I'll have to think about it and of course, work is always at hand.

First, I think we agree the two parties are complicit and practically indistinguishable with regard to the ascendancy of Federal and or corporate authority. Nor is this a "liberal v conservative" political problem.

Here is the start of a counterpoint. The Congress is supposed to be of the States, representing States' interests? Why don't they, why are they complicit in the accumulation of Federal authority?

Posted by: shrink2 | March 25, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

MDLaxer wrote: "For example, if the Federal Government, on its own, changes the meaning of the commerce clause, (as it did some 70 years ago) it can then regulate what happens completely within one state because that could (under the new definition of commerce) effect interstate commerce. Something it could not have done previously."

Much of this is due to the interconnected nature of the nation and world. I used to live near Pocatello, Idaho. Right on the county line, there were two phosphate plants owned by one J. R. Simplott (potato king). Pocatello was downwind of the plants and the majority of the workers at these plants lived in or near Pocatello. Guess who got the benefits of the property taxes? The economic activity was entirely within one county, but the impact wasn't.

The web is that example writ large. Massachusetts winds up treating patients from neighboring states, driving up its costs. The healthcare system we have rewards practitioners (esp. specialists), producers of medical equipment, and drug makers. As a consequence, the US pays much more than other countries and gets much less out of it.

"I often hear cries to get rid of the Electoral College and go with strict majority. To get rid of the Senate or apportion it's representatives. Many people I come in contact with already believe we live in a Democracy (majority rules) rather than our actual Constitutional Republic. The MSM is no help."

Yes and no. It depends on how one defines democracy. A strict definition (all people vote on all matters) is only workable in very small groups. I would disagree with the notion that what we have is not a democracy, simply not a

Various countries have parliaments with prime ministers and the the presidency is a ceremonial post. Or there is a PM and a king or queen. Britain's House of Lords is entirely unelected and until very recently, included hereditary peers. All are various flavors of democracy and many include some nondemocratic elements. In our system, all officials are either elected or appointed by elected officials.

"I don't deny that is a major concern. But the influence of special interests would be greatly hampered if the Federal Government's actions were confined to those authorized by the Constitution. If so, then an expansion of the Government's powers (supported by a corporation or lobby) would have to be approved by an amendment. Much more difficult (and time consuming) to accomplish."

If we consider social interactions, then you hit a very old issue and a very new one--marriage. Gay marriage now, plural marriage then. Utah was blocked from statehood until the Mormon church agreed to abandon polygamy. [The prophet had a vision.] I don't see how the federal government should have any role in such matters if we're considering commerce.

Incidentally, thanks for taking the time to engage.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | March 25, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

(And let me answer my own question again: The Dramacrats have to attack the Tea Party patriots because they cannot win a straight-up argument on deficits, health care, or the size of Government. So, instead, they destroy the messenger.)

Posted by: Zouk_is_King | March 25, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

drindl wrote: "I have not met anyone who hates Medicare."

With the passage of Medicare, I believe that the Federal Government expanded it's own powers giving it the power to provide/manage healthcare for senior citizens. A power that did not exist prior to passage of Medicare.

The fact the people "like it" (or will like it in the case of HCR) is a good reason to support a Constitutional Amendment giving the Federal Government the power to provide/manage healthcare for senior citizens.

Allowing the Federal Government to expand it's powers on its own, can only lead to it happening more often in other areas (i.e. the USA PATRIOT Act).

Posted by: MDLaxer | March 25, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

The best person to examine the teabagger movement is a proctologist, someone who is used to looking at gaping buttholes.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | March 25, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Item #2: Ah, Flaming Hypocrisy

The Dramacrats are throwing a tantrum because an anti-ObamaCare activist published the address of a legislator who voted for it. They claim that the act of publishing the address of a legislator who voted for ObamaCare is tantamount to an act of violence.

These are the same people who support publicizing the names and addresses of people who oppose gay marriage; precisely so they can be targeted for harassment.

The left also applauds publishing the names and addresses of people who hold concealed carry permits. But CCW holders, unlike Dramacrats, are not known for being simpering little milk-babies who can't defend themselves

Posted by: Zouk_is_King | March 25, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

I hear they are busy building a Mom's mound at Nationals stadium.

Is is half way to the plate in case Dear Reader wants to throw out the first pitch again and actually make it to the plate this time.

Posted by: Zouk_is_King | March 25, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Utterly incompetent Libs forgot to include a severability clause.

One tiny crack brings the whole thing down.

Go Old Dominion. Stop socialism dead in its tracks.

Posted by: Zouk_is_King | March 25, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Vanderboegh, Neugebauer, Limbaugh--Do you see a pattern here? These names could have come right out of Hitler's Third Reich. I thought we wiped out these Nazi Krauts in WWII. Apparently some escaped to our shores and now their grand children are picking up Hitler's torch again.

One other thing: Hitler was very good at convincing the world that he spoke for all the German people--except for the 6 million he killed. For this rotten, miserable current crop of Nazis with their boozy breath and their beer bellies and their rotten redneck teeth, the new Final Solution will apply to liberals and anyone with a education beyond high school.

Posted by: jaxas70 | March 25, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Re tea baggers. They say they are all good middle-class citizens. They say they want to restore the sense of supremacy to real-American values. They say they are loyal guardians of liberty. This was all said before. It was said by six middle-class Civil War veterans from Pulaski, Tennessee in December 1865.

Posted by: whocares666 | March 25, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Funny how the democrats come up with a storyline that they are "afraid" of the Tea Party Movement - then someone on here within hours has a name called "Terrorified"


.

.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | March 25, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

JEP07 wrote: "Anarchy's" just another word for "small government."

Actually, Anarchy is just another word for no government.

Posted by: MDLaxer | March 25, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Well, MD, I have met lots of people who hate their insurance companies, with good reason. I have not met anyone who hates Medicare.

Posted by: drindl | March 25, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

shrink2 wrote: "But I see this as something mutually agreed between the POTUS, the Congress and the SCOTUS."

It (the increased power of the Federal Government) may well have been (and continues to be) agreed upon by the three branches of government. But I don't think it was agreed upon by the states.

"I don't see it as a problem of States' Rights erosion..."

For example, if the Federal Government, on its own, changes the meaning of the commerce clause, (as it did some 70 years ago) it can then regulate what happens completely within one state because that could (under the new definition of commerce) effect interstate commerce. Something it could not have done previously.

"...or majority rules,..."

I often hear cries to get rid of the Electoral College and go with strict majority. To get rid of the Senate or apportion it's representatives. Many people I come in contact with already believe we live in a Democracy (majority rules) rather than our actual Constitutional Republic. The MSM is no help.

"...I have seen it as a take over of government by special interests."

I don't deny that is a major concern. But the influence of special interests would be greatly hampered if the Federal Government's actions were confined to those authorized by the Constitution. If so, then an expansion of the Government's powers (supported by a corporation or lobby) would have to be approved by an amendment. Much more difficult (and time consuming) to accomplish.

"So unlike the TEA people, I don't worry about the risk of totalitarian -isms, the individual versus the state. I feel the danger from corporate interests more clearly."

Perhaps, but in the end I'm afrain one may look very much like the other.

Posted by: MDLaxer | March 25, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

failed CEO Fiorina will suffer the same outcome as Senator Huffington.

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 25, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

It has become clear that these tea-klanners and there violence need to be stopped. They're a bunch of cowards who hide behind guns and bricks and target children as well as adults. They're sick and need to be dealt with harshly.

Posted by: blarsen1 | March 25, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Terrorfied, yes indeed.

The human ability to hold oneself to a lower standard than one holds others is not one of our more endearing qualities.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 25, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

The Teamob's most provocative members ARE anarchists.

"Anarchy's" just another word for "small government."

Like most mobs, the teamob doesn't act on it's own, it is compelled to rioting by smarter, more pernicious people who you never see at the rallies.

Posted by: JEP07 | March 25, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Senator Grassley Expects 2012 Re-Election of POTUS Obama:

"Under another proposal, offered by Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), Obama and members of Congress would have been required to buy insurance through state-run exchanges that were created by the legislation and that will start in 2014. The amendment failed, but the White House announced that Obama would use the exchanges anyway"

Posted by: leichtman1 | March 25, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

For a time, it looked as though they had a shot at taking back both houses.

Posted by: jaxas70 | March 25, 2010 10:09 AM

california governor and senate seat are at stake for democrats. if democrats are in trouble here, they are in trouble everywhere. there's more than a shot at taking over both houses for republicans. senate will be toughest.

Posted by: doof | March 25, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

"Those in the tea party movement see former Alaska governor Sarah Palin more favorably than self-identified Republicans by 12 percentage points and the tea party crowd is more likely to think that they can "hardly ever" trust the government to do what's right."

I think that statement pretty much speaks for itself. F@#$ing retard(s). It's funny that they don't trust the government's effectiveness. That means they think the military, police, fire departments, FDA, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, CIA, FBI, DHS, ATF, DoT, USPS, etc are all incompetent. Sort of begs the question, why didn't they question Bush's "intelligence" a little more on Iraq?

Another part to their movement that doesn't make sense to me is why so many of them recieve government checks. Like the guy recieving social security checks and blogging that people should chuck bricks through senate office windows. Or like the correctional officer who told me yesterday that he wanted government out of his life: Dude, you WORK for the COUNTY GOVERNMENT. You ARE what you despise. How people like that can wake up in light of themselves is beyond me, but apparantly they make up 12% of the country.

Posted by: Terrorfied | March 25, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

AndyR3@9:05, when SSI was first established and the age for receiving benefits was set at 65 the average American didn't live to see 65. The retirement age does need to go to 70 (and I am 53, so I am not being self-serving here).

Posted by: margaretmeyers | March 25, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

The majority of Americans made it very clear they Want Reform, but NOT Obamacare. There are Better ways to Reform
But Instead... democrats continue to Thumb
their Nose at Americans, even bribed, cut deals, etc., to get this bill Passed.
If Americans are Angry-- its no one's fault except Pelosi/Obama.

Posted by: ohioan | March 25, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

So the Tea Party movement is less a new grassroots movement than just a bunch of sore loser republicans angry at the outcome of the 2008 election.

Look. The leaders of the Tea Party movement are old former congressional leaders like Dick Armey who just can't get over the fact that they have lost power. They are desperately trying to delegitimize President Obama and attempting to sabotage his agenda by pressuring the mainstream of the GOP into just sitting on their hands until after the November elections.

For a time, it looked as though they had a shot at taking back both houses. However, recent polling tends to suggest that this may turn into a traditional midterm with democrats ending up losing seats but not losing their majority.

The anger we see right now among the Tea Party groups is attributable to the loss of one of the major tactics in their take back the country strategy--Obama's major victory on his Health Care bill. What was supposed to be his Waterloo may yet turn out to be the GOP's.

Posted by: jaxas70 | March 25, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Tea partier is just another word for terrorist:

"Over the next 24 hours, thrown bricks shattered the glass doors and windows of party headquarters from Rochester, N.Y., to Cincinnati. A propane gas line at the Charlottesville home of Rep. Tom Perriello's brother was severed Tuesday after a self-identified "tea party" activist posted what he believed to be the Virginia Democrat's address on a Web site and urged opponents to "drop by" to convey their opposition to his yes vote on the health bill.

A brick was thrown through the Niagara Falls district office of Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (D-N.Y.), who also received a threatening voice-mail message referring to sniper attacks. The front door to the Tucson district office of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) was shattered. And Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), whose last-minute negotiations to bar federal funding of abortion helped secure the bill's passage, received a fax with a drawing of a noose and an anonymous voice mail saying: "You're dead. We know where you live. We'll get you."

Posted by: drindl | March 25, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Here is the Tea party for you -- a collection of incipient Timothy McVeighs:

"The pitched battle over health care has unleashed a rash of vandalism and attacks directed at politicians, with at least 10 House Democrats reporting death threats or incidents of harassment or vandalism at their district offices over the past week.

More than 100 House Democrats met behind closed doors Wednesday afternoon with representatives of the FBI and the U.S. Capitol Police. The lawmakers voiced what one senior aide who was present described as "serious concern" about their security in Washington and in their home districts when they return this weekend for the spring recess.

Usually only the congressional leadership has regular personal protection from the Capitol Police. But at least 10 lawmakers have been offered increased protection by law enforcement agencies, said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.).

Asked whether members are endangered, Hoyer said: "Yes. [There are] very serious incidents that have occurred."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/24/AR2010032402122.html?hpid=topnews

Posted by: drindl | March 25, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Terrorists, plain and simple. Those who published the officials' home addresses did not really expect the result to be reasoned discussions. The people could have gone to the official offices and made their feelings known. Instead they wanted to commit acts of vilence and worse, anonymously. These folks are as pro-democracy as those on the left in the 1960s who also called for a revolution rather than using peaceful means. I'm still waiting for TP folks to say just one sacrifice they'd be willng to make in order to have smaller government, lower taxes and a lower deficit.

Posted by: Sutter | March 25, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Wow, being in the minority really sucks. Reminds me of that one time I was saying that invading Iraq would be a pointless and expensive waste of time and lives, but some guy in the White House said the country was an imminent threat to us, and a bunch of scared @#$%less people believed him. I wonder, whatever happened to those people...? Surely the shame resulting from their gullibility has them hiding in caves.

Posted by: Terrorfied | March 25, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

@ Margret

That was a very astute analysis and I couldn't agree more. The GOP has a dismal economic record and now they advocate doing nothing amidst a serious economic crisis. I have written at length about that and other Progressive issues at http://dropdeadpolitics.com/ or you can follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/dropdeadpolitcs

Posted by: dropdeadpolitics | March 25, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Andy - I agree with your major thesis - that revenues must increase and expenditures must decrease. I believe your list is an illustration of how difficult this is to achieve, not how obvious. Further, every item of expenditure can be viewed as a moving target. Every method of raising revenue has merits and demerits. Every foreign policy decision creates unintended consequences because we never can control all the variables.

Examples abound. FP: We have interests in stability above all in the three mideast regions: Med Coast, Persian Gulf, and South Asia. We went into Iraq and strengthened its opposing force, Iran. Now we are stuck with restabilizing. We call Israel our special ally and wonder why we cannot broker an accord with its neighbors. We went after AQ in Afg and maybe, just maybe, after a decade we will see some stabilization of India-Pakistan, our true security need. The first decisions having been made, what is the best way to restabilize, taking into account our fiscal problems and the reluctance of others to help? If restabilization is a pipedream, then we can cut and run from the regions at no loss of national security - but we then must quickly find homegrown energy resources.

As to tax policy: WOW. Get two experts in a room and hear three opinions. I have my own pet:

http://www.apttax.com/

Then there is your idea of using VAT. or how about

http://wyden.senate.gov/issues/Legislation/wyden-gregg/index.cfm

I will bend to anything that would work, of course.

And as to cost cutting: the "easy" targets are farm bill waste and DOD waste. After that, replacing manned space exploration with unmanned for the foreseeable future. Then M/M abuse. After those biggies, it gets to be like shooting ants with shotguns.

I think it is obvious what to do but not how to do it.


Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 25, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Larry Kudlow attacks Chamber of Commerce!
"
Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, Wall Street reform has “vaulted to the top” of President Obama’s agenda. Standing in the way, however, is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has spent $3 million on an advertising campaign opposing an independent consumer protection agency and has pledged to spend $100 million to “defend the free market system.”

Yesterday, Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin ventured into the lion’s den to deliver a tough message. Speaking to the Chamber of Commerce, Wolin ripped the business lobbying group for launching a “lavish, aggressive and misleading campaign” against the consumer protection agency. Wolin proceeded to document instance after instance of the Chamber’s lies. (Read the speech here.)

Bruce Josten, executive vice president of the Chamber, later issued a statement accusing Wolin of “political grandstanding and distortion of facts.” But the Chamber is on the defensive, losing allies on the right. Last night, CNBC host Larry Kudlow, a prominent conservative proponent of trickle-down economics and a lover of all things Ronald Reagan, sided with the Obama administration in its attacks on the Chamber:

KUDLOW: I want to say the Chamber of Commerce is a very negative force on this. Absolutely negative and absolutely wrong in my humble opinion. … Listen, number one, you heard Barney Frank. This was a nice turn of the phrase. Their bill, he says, is death panels for too big to fail big banks. I rather like that. I have supported the Dodd approach. I know the language may not be 100%, but the language looks pretty tight to me. The end of too big to fail bailout nation."

Posted by: drindl | March 25, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

What Mark_in_Austin wrote bears repeating:
"Can you list what you believe the parties have done that is totalitarian? I am guessing from your reference to the Fed that you disagreed with TARP and the GM bailout, where taxpayer money was used to save banks and car makers, and they in turn became indebted to, or owned by, the taxpayers, presumably temporarily. I am assuming you think the Fed should not have kept rates low during the decade in order to minimize the effect on the deficit of the interest rate on the National Debt while encouraging the investment bubbles. I am assuming you think that encouraging home loans to unqualified borrowers and failing to regulate derivatives and the financial system in general was wrong and perhaps devastating.

I am trying to get some clarity here, because a lot of what I think of as misguided policy may be what you think of as "communist or fascist". And that makes it unnecessarily difficult for people like me to talk to people like you, both on the left and the right. We might be able to agree on some fixes we want from our clueless legislators. But labeling them as unAmerican doesn't give us any choice but voting them out, again and again, hoping by dumb luck that someone will figure out what it is we want.

Here is an alternative view of the last three decades for you to ponder: both parties trade on our desire for something for nothing. We now have a huge National Debt whose interest payments are an almost irreducible major component of our budget. Add in Defense and the related security and veterans programs and the programs we take for granted - federal highways, air traffic control, space - and we have a huge continuing "nut". Add in that we prepaid for social security and medicare and are thus entitled to the benefits - but we underfunded them over time.

We are the generation that inherited the waste of the past but continued along the merry path. Again, I think we agree on a great deal. I am suggesting we got here because we chose to and the road out is neither obvious nor easy. I am suggesting that applying totalitarian labels to the people we elected does not help - it makes it too easy to say "this was not MY fault" and to vote for people who will promise us anything. For the record, I voted twice for Perot. That gave me no voice whatsoever. The people we elected did what they thought we wanted. They were not communists. They were not fascists. They reflected our own greed."

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 25, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

They exist chiefly to foment violence, racism and homophobia

Posted by: drindl | March 25, 2010 9:57 AM

any reason you exist?? give us just one. wimp.

Posted by: doof | March 25, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse


The "Tea Party" is nothing but another name for the same group of whiners that has always been in the American landscape, in the form of Birchers, McCarthyites, militias, and other malcontents.

They exist chiefly to foment violence, racism and homophobia -- and today, to act as unwitting tools of global industry.

Posted by: drindl | March 25, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

I am amazed by the general bad-mouthing of TARP and the Recovery and Stabilization Act. Economists agreed that the surest way to avoid a true Depression was for the federal governement to inject money into the economy. This prevented several major companies from failing and throwing this country into unemployment numbers not seen since the thirties, deflation and financial collapse.

ARSA is still helping families with unemployment checks and Cobra 27 or 28 months into this recession. ARSA is still helping states deal with painful budget deficits and providing financial stimulus in communities.

Yes, some of the bad guys got helped. That makes me mad, too. But we would be looking like 1931 in this country if it wasn't for the actions of Bush (yes -- he listened to his economists, too) and Obama. The yabbos in the TEA and Republican parties were also helped by these programs, they just won't acknowledge this. Unemployment is falling, the stock market is up, housing has turned the corner -- and it has taken just 2 1/2 years to accomplish this much recovery because of government programs.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | March 25, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Can you not do something about the racists and gay haters who disrupt conversation?

Posted by: drindl | March 25, 2010 9:51 AM

he should start with you

Posted by: doof | March 25, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Thank goodness for concerned citizens that PARTICIPATE in keeping the criminal element and the constitutional trashers out of government.

Democrat tax cheats, Chicago thugs, with their bribes, earmarks, sweet heart deals continues to Trash the Constitution.

Democrat Dingell: It's Taken a Long Time to 'Control the People'

Democrat Hastings, "We make up the rules as we go along" .

It should be noted that in 1981, Hastings was charged with accepting a $150,000 bribe in exchange for a lenient sentence. Hastings was impeached for bribery and perjury becoming only the sixth federal judge in the history of the United States to be removed from office by the Senate.


Yes, no matter what they are called thank goodness for them since the media is in bed with the liberals and fails to even vet Obama and the masses are ignorant of truth because the media fails to do its job.

Posted by: mikeglossy | March 25, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Chris Cilizza:

You said you were trying to clean up this blog. Well, it has attracted a number of nast homophobes and slimers who daily attack regular posters, like this:


"randy andy, i see you miss your boyfriend again. move out to california. plenty of boyfriends here for you.

Posted by: doof | "

Can you not do something about the racists and gay haters who disrupt conversation?

Posted by: drindl | March 25, 2010 9:51 AM | Report abuse

May the God I serve have mercy on their poor deluded souls

Posted by: cntnulprze | March 25, 2010 9:46 AM

must be the same "god" obama serves

Posted by: doof | March 25, 2010 9:51 AM | Report abuse

I can't wait until the Florida Senate election gets ugly. It just started getting good with personal attacks! Rubio will have to pay some of Crist's ex-boyfriends (allegedly) to come forward, but Crist has more money on his side to fight back, my guess is he'll counter with a baby announcement, In Vitro, no doubt. Too bad Crist opposes gay people adopting, could have solved his problem easily, making him look more like a family man.

Posted by: KevinAF | March 25, 2010 9:51 AM | Report abuse

Before the usual suspects
spend another day of their life
that can never be lived again
insulting each other,
could we please have
a few more minutes?

I am trying to understand what people who don't necessarily agree with me are saying.

MDLaxer, I understand your point about the Federal Government and its power. But I see this as something mutually agreed between the POTUS, the Congress and the SCOTUS.
I don't see it as a problem of States' Rights erosion or majority rules, I have seen it as a take over of government by special interests.

So unlike the TEA people, I don't worry about the risk of totalitarian -isms, the individual versus the state. I feel the danger from corporate interests more clearly.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 25, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

The Tea Party movement is dominated by low information voters that are easily fooled by the GOP representatives they adore. If one would take the time to examine their claims it would be easy to see through the lies.
We just debunked Rep. Paul Ryan and his distortions about the "doc fix". Read more at http://dropdeadpolitics.com/ or follwo us on Twiiter at http://twitter.com/dropdeadpolitcs

Posted by: dropdeadpolitics | March 25, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

The "tea party"? Just a revised version of KKK. Disgusting cowards as always. May the God I serve have mercy on their poor deluded souls and allow them the ability to seek Jesus and TRUE Love.

Posted by: cntnulprze | March 25, 2010 9:46 AM | Report abuse

you wouldn't have a tea party if representatives would listen to people. tea party is doing a great job. they get lots of press coverage. democrats are afraid of them.

Posted by: doof | March 25, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

You know what they called people protesting in the streets when Bush was in office? Anarchists.

Posted by: Terrorfied | March 25, 2010 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Tea Party=Klan

Posted by: stantonpark | March 25, 2010 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Doof you are definitly part of the 9%.

Posted by: AndyR3 | March 25, 2010 9:20 AM

randy andy, i see you miss your boyfriend again. move out to california. plenty of boyfriends here for you.

Posted by: doof | March 25, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Hillman1:

Can you cite a reference to support your claim that The Tea Party is "against medical marijuana and in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act."

I'd be interested in seeing that.

Thanks.

Posted by: MDLaxer | March 25, 2010 9:28 AM | Report abuse

"The Tea Party WAS a grassroots movement, check recent history.., last presidential campaign."

________________________________

No, it wasn't.

"FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity both originated from a campaign called Citizens for a Sound Economy, which split in two in 2004. CSE was set up by businessman (Koch Industries), David Koch, who has also promoted liberty and research organizations (Cato Institute and Reason Foundation)." ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreedomWorks

"On October 3, David Koch, the co-owner of Koch Industries, told about 2,000 of Americans for Prosperity’s libertarian activists at a Defending the American Dream Summit, that he had started planning the Tea Party movement five years ago—essentially when Citizens for a Sound Economy split into Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks. Koch told the activists, “‘We envisioned a mass movement, a state-based one, but national in scope, of hundreds of thousands of American citizens, from all walks of life standing up and fighting for the economic freedoms that made our nation the most prosperous society in history.’”

~ http://politicalchili.com/2010/03/origins-of-the-tea-party-movement%E2%80%94part-iiia/

One of the "economic freedoms," David Koch (America's 9th richest man at $15 billion) is fighting for is the freedom from paying estate taxes.

"Koch appeared at AFP’s annual Defending the American Dream summit over the weekend, where AFP activists were told that they are on the verge of saving mega-millionaires mega-bucks, if only they can cause Congress to slow down more than it already has:

"Activists learned that they were on the cusp of saving the long-planned, one-year elimination of the estate tax. If Democrats fail to pass a bill extending the estate tax in 2010, one of the key Republican victories of George W. Bush’s presidency would be realized. And the more the Tea Party movement could slow down the works in Congress, the better the chance of Democrats forgoing that bill. “If we run out the clock,” said Phil Kerpen, AFP’s policy director, “the estate tax is gone in 2010, and it would be tricky for Democrats to try and bring it back.”

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/10/05/koch-estate-tax/

Posted by: WhatHeSaid | March 25, 2010 9:23 AM | Report abuse

Uh oh, speaking of a later retirement age, the tipping point for Social Security was supposed to be 2016, but it is now...

Social Security to See Payout Exceed Pay-In This Year

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html?hp

Posted by: shrink2 | March 25, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

shrink2 wrote: "The "Conservative" Supreme Court has decided special interests (corporations, unions, etc.) possess the same rights as individuals when it comes to political donations."

I don't think they "decided" that at all. I think the Supreme Court has long held that "groups" enjoy the same protections as individuals under the Bill of Rights.

So the supreme court decided that the Federal Government, per the Constitution, doesn't have the authority to deny such "free speach".

The answer, logically, is to amend the Constitution in such a way so that denial of such "free speech" won't be unconstitutional.

But that would be an affirmation of Constitution and its' ability to restrict the Federal Government's actions. Democrats and Republicans certainly don't want to do that.

Much easier to just pass more laws. It's not likely that those will be challenged to the SC, and if they are, you might have a 5th "liberal" justice by then.

Posted by: MDLaxer | March 25, 2010 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Doof you are definitly part of the 9%.

Posted by: AndyR3 | March 25, 2010 9:20 AM | Report abuse

I'd have a lot more respect for the Tea Party folks if they were more consistent.

They claim they are concerned about personal freedom and less government intrusion, particularly at the federal level.

Yet they are against medical marijuana and in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act.

So they are in favor of the federal government denying citizens the freedom to use the only medicine that actually alleviates their pain, and they are in favor of the federal government determining for all who can marry and who cannot.

And let's not forget farm subsidies. It's a safe bet that the Tea Party folks have no problem with that. You know, the ultimate Big Government is subsidizing entire industries.

Sounds a lot like Big Government to me.

So as long as they suppport these positions, I got little respect for their overall movement.

Posted by: Hillman1 | March 25, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

glad to see whitman ahead of brown in the polls. brown is ancient and no good for california. would prefer to have chuck devore be the republican candidate against boxer but anyone other than boxer is ok, even fiorina.

rubio has the best campaign staff. they know what they're doing. glad to see a guy like him beat crist. would like to see the same in arizona with hayworth sending mccain to retirement.

great november coming up for republicans. taking over the house will get rid of pelosi once and for all.

Posted by: doof | March 25, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

On point 1, the biggest stat from that poll is that "Only 13 percent of American voters say they are part of the Tea Party movement"

13% is that what everyone is getting their knickers in a bunch over. More than 13% of the country think that Aliens landed in Roswell and communicated with our government. From CNN "37 percent (of americans) said they [aliens] have contacted the U.S. government"

Heck 9% think that aleins WERE traveling on the Haley-bopp comet that passed by our solar system a few years ago.

The GOP has tied the future of their party to 13% of the population. Now there's a good way to get back into power.

Posted by: AndyR3 | March 25, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Mark I agree with a lot of what you said, but the one thing I would say is that I don't think that "the road out is neither obvious nor easy". Not easy yes, but I think there are some pretty obvious things that need to happen for us to dig ourselves out.
First, is that we have to have TRUE entitlement reform, and imparticularly we need to increase the retirement age gradually to 70, and at the same time we need to raise the ceiling on payroll taxes so that everyone pays the same rate on the first 250K they make not just the first 80K or whatever it is now. In addition we may need to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices as well as investigate and prosecute fraud more readily. At the same time I think having real discussions about end of life care is something that needs to happen (one of the worst things kept out of the HCR Law)

Second, we have to all pay more in taxes and that includes the precious middle class. If this is in the form of VAT of 1-2% than great I am ok with that. Too many lower income citizens don't pay squat in taxes because they either don't have 'legal' or registered jobs. If you want to tax drug dealers than make them pay 2% on their Rims they put on their Escalades.

Third, we have to lower real spending in this country and that means cutting the defense budget. You can try and cut roads but they are pretty much running on fumes as is. The Military Industrial Complex has turned into exactly what Ike said it would. A 5-10% percent cut in defense spending may make us make some hard strategic decisions like do we want to continue to protect Taiwan and Japan with our military force? Do we keep such a large force in Germany or other places in Europe or make them defend themselves? Do we unfreeze our relationship with Cuba. etc? There are drawbacks to all of these options, but these are the types of changes that we have to make if we want the United States fiscal standing to remain where it is now.

Posted by: AndyR3 | March 25, 2010 9:05 AM | Report abuse

"I wish the liberal leaning folks at the grassroots level of our country would get organized and challenge the establishment Democrats. Maybe then we could have a few political leaders that represent the people and not wealthy special interests."

Too late for that. The "Conservative" Supreme Court has decided special interests (corporations, unions, etc.) possess the same rights as individuals when it comes to political donations. When Wall Street can spend almost one and a half million dollars a day, a day, lobbying against financial reform (source: yesterday's NYT) what chance to fractious groups of voters have to make "wholesale change"?

MDLaxer is correct, the die has been cast.
The centralization of power in the hands of corporate interests continues to regulate government. This is how we got this monstrous health care bill. It force feeds the health care industry.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 25, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

ATTENTION THREATENED MEMBERS OF CONGRESS:

Is THIS what's behind it?

HOMELAND-RUN 'FUSION CENTERS' SILENTLY ASSAULT, TORTURE, IMPAIR, SUBJUGATE U.S. CITIZENS WITH CELL TOWER MICROWAVE/RF WEAPON SYSTEM, FINANCIAL SABOTAGE, 'COMMUNITY WATCH' VIGILANTE DOMESTIC TERRORISM: VETERAN JOURNALIST

* Thousands of Americans slandered as "dissidents" or undesirables, targeted by Bush legacy program for debilitating, cell tower- based precision-targeted microwave//laser assault, held hostage in their homes to fed-supported vigilante "community policing" stalking units equipped with warrantless GPS devices, who vandalize and terrorize as local police look the other way.

* Electromagnetic radio frequency microwave/laser/RF weapon system -- a nationwide installation employing cell towers and satellites -- silently, invisibly induce weakness, exhaustion, mood changes, pain, head and body aches, physical and neurological impairment, strokes, aneurysms, sickness, cancer -- and many victims do not realize what is making them sick.

===== POLITICAL LEADERS MAY BE AMONG TARGETS =====

* Regional Homeland Security- administered "fusion centers" reportedly serve as command centers for covert electromagnetic radiation attacks, pervasive surveillance, financial sabotage of those identified as "dissidents," "trouble-makers" or slandered as threats to society.

* Use of microwave weaponry to torture and impair political opponents recently confirmed by deposed Honduras President Manuel Zelaya.

"These are crimes against humanity and the Constitution, being perpetrated under the cover of national security and 'safe streets' by multiple federal and local agencies and commands -- an American genocide hiding in plain sight, enabled by the naivete of those who think 'it can't happen here.'" -- Victor Livingston, former reporter for WTXF-TV Philadelphia, Phila. Bulletin, N.Y. Daily News, St. Petersburg Times; producer/host, MSG Network Sports Business Report; columnist, NowPublic.com/scrivener.

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves

BUCKS COUNTY, PA- BASED MAGLOCLEN FUSION CENTER -- "Centom of a Mid-Atlantic States Fed- and Police-Protected American Gestapo."

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

OR NowPublic.com/scrivener (see "stories" list).

Posted by: scrivener50 | March 25, 2010 8:52 AM | Report abuse

miltonc4l wrote: "...political establishment hate the TEA party movement because it's a nebulous network of groups without central leadership."

Do you really think that is true? I agree with Jeff_p101 below. I first heard about a "Tea Party" movement while following the presidential campaign of Ron Paul starting in December 2007.

In the summer of 2008 there was a march in Washington, D.C. Most marchers seemed to be Ron Paul supporters and/or protestors against the "wars". But there were many smaller groups represented as well.

But since then, there seems to have been a concerted effort by the GOP to embrace the Tea Party and claim them as their own.

I've seen that play out in the MSM, so my perception may be wrong.

Posted by: MDLaxer | March 25, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

"Why can't Republicans put on a seminar for their tea baggers on the various -isms,..."

Perhaps it depends on what graph you're using.

If the graph has liberals on the left and conservatives on the right, then yes communism is on the extreme left end of the graph and facism is on the extreme right end. Making them look like total opposites.

But if the graph has no government (anarchy) on the left and total government control on the right, then facism and communism both end up on the right end of the graph. Making them look very similar.

The Constitution originaly created a Federal Government that was to the left of center (on the second graph), with the State Governments being somewhat right of center.

Today it is reversed. State Government powers have diminished as the Federal Government has moved right (on the second graph). And (most worrisome to me) we did this without changing our Constitution, only "re-interpreting" it.

Will we be able to stop our Federal Government's shift to the right (of the second graph) before it reaches the extreme end? I don't know.

The Constitution isn't much help anymore, since the 51% can do whatever they want if they can claim a connection to "commerce" and/or the "general welfare".

Will "majority rules" be able to halt the expansion of the Federal Government before it goes too far? I have my doubts, but the die has been cast. We'll see.

Posted by: MDLaxer | March 25, 2010 8:38 AM | Report abuse

What a load of garbage! People like Mr. Cillizza and the rest of the mainstream media and political establishment hate the TEA party movement because it's a nebulous network of groups without central leadership.

It's impossible to put a real label on them, but it's clear that they are more conservative than liberal. Notice however that they are supporting a lot of candidates who are mounting primary challenges against establishment Republicans? e.g. Doug Hoffman in NY, Deb Medina in Texas and J.D. Hayworth in AZ? How does that square with the theory that these people are just the same old Republicans? I think people are just as angry with the neocons as they are with the Democrats.

BOTH of the major political parties are raping the average working class citizen. Unfortunately, they're very good at maintaining the illusion that there is real political opposition in this country.

I wish the liberal leaning folks at the grassroots level of our country would get organized and challenge the establishment Democrats. Maybe then we could have a few political leaders that represent the people and not wealthy special interests.

Posted by: miltonc4l | March 25, 2010 8:35 AM | Report abuse

Good news!
Today we learn initial claims for unemployment fall four weeks in a row.
This means the stock market is going to go higher, maybe even too high.

But as peoples' retirement accounts start to become recognizable again and as that consumer debt crisis continues to ease...spending happens.

The Republican anger machine runs on economic pain.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 25, 2010 8:17 AM | Report abuse

Well stated, Mark.

Posted by: Gallenod | March 25, 2010 8:07 AM | Report abuse

The "Tea Party" as a political party simply does not exist. What is seen is millions of Americans with a common viewpoint. With over half of the public vehemently opposed to a bill, 36 States suing their own legislators. Who does the congress work for? The attempt to force feed congressional power on an angry public with the belief they can bend the will of the public later with commercials is in a fool hardy venture. Wholesale replacement of congress is the only hope of the country.

Posted by: 1mikehenderson | March 25, 2010 8:05 AM | Report abuse

"It's more like communist or fascist!"

As Nancy cried, "Why, why, why?"
Why can't Republicans put on a seminar for their tea baggers on the various -isms,
or just the history of political economy in general? One break out session might be titled, "Communist or Fascist, whats the difference?" another, "Hitler, Marxism, Obamacare, the same...or different?" and "The History of Terrorism in the U.S.A."

Sure Republicans look a lot like Tea Baggers, they are, but could they please get a little continuing education? Please?

Posted by: shrink2 | March 25, 2010 8:02 AM | Report abuse


Any so-called "party" that openly promotes the use of violence achieve dictatorial power after the majority of Americans have removed them from power through democratic elections is nothing more than a terrorist organization.

..

Posted by: DEFJAX | March 25, 2010 8:02 AM | Report abuse

It’s obvious how the Tea Party came to be. The “Republican Party” was successfully demonized and exposed through the failed policies of Bush Co and Congressional control for the majority of the last decade. Repeated debacles left them with poor ratings, lack of voters, and the party was basically dead on a vine. Combined with America’s frustration over 2 mismanaged wars that were never funded and left us with mass debt, lack of control over corporate industries to protect consumers, and a failure to contain out of control gas pump pricing due to speculation, the REPUBLICAN PARTY needed a face lift.

Posted by: shellshocked50 | March 25, 2010 7:57 AM | Report abuse

ghendric wrote:

"It's not American, I can tell you that for sure. It's more like communist or fascist! Both political parties have led us here with the Federal Reserve funding their little adventure the whole time!"

Can you list what you believe the parties have done that is totalitarian? I am guessing from your reference to the Fed that you disagreed with TARP and the GM bailout, where taxpayer money was used to save banks and car makers, and they in turn became indebted to, or owned by, the taxpayers, presumably temporarily. I am assuming you think the Fed should not have kept rates low during the decade in order to minimize the effect on the deficit of the interest rate on the National Debt while encouraging the investment bubbles. I am assuming you think that encouraging home loans to unqualified borrowers and failing to regulate derivatives and the financial system in general was wrong and perhaps devastating.

I am trying to get some clarity here, because a lot of what I think of as misguided policy may be what you think of as "communist or fascist". And that makes it unnecessarily difficult for people like me to talk to people like you, both on the left and the right. We might be able to agree on some fixes we want from our clueless legislators. But labeling them as unAmerican doesn't give us any choice but voting them out, again and again, hoping by dumb luck that someone will figure out what it is we want.

Here is an alternative view of the last three decades for you to ponder: both parties trade on our desire for something for nothing. We now have a huge National Debt whose interest payments are an almost irreducible major component of our budget. Add in Defense and the related security and veterans programs and the programs we take for granted - federal highways, air traffic control, space - and we have a huge continuing "nut". Add in that we prepaid for social security and medicare and are thus entitled to the benefits - but we underfunded them over time.

We are the generation that inherited the waste of the past but continued along the merry path. Again, I think we agree on a great deal. I am suggesting we got here because we chose to and the road out is neither obvious nor easy. I am suggesting that applying totalitarian labels to the people we elected does not help - it makes it too easy to say "this was not MY fault" and to vote for people who will promise us anything. For the record, I voted twice for Perot. That gave me no voice whatsoever. The people we elected did what they thought we wanted. They were not communists. They were not fascists. They reflected our own greed.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 25, 2010 7:56 AM | Report abuse

these tea party folks kind of scare me, when it comes down to the (U.S.A. DEMOCRAT CONTROLED GOVERMENT) Tea pary folks, would rather bring down the goverment as we know it, rather then give up their control, i do not see these folks as republicans, but NEO CONS, you do know there is adifference.

Posted by: dv1236 | March 25, 2010 7:51 AM | Report abuse

Say what you want about the Teabaggers, there’s one thing about them that is absolutely terrific. They have managed to eclipse the Christian Right. How can this not be a good thing for the future of the Republican Party?

Posted by: dfs1 | March 25, 2010 7:48 AM | Report abuse

The Tea Party WAS a grassroots movement, check recent history.., last presidential campaign. Followers of Ron Paul held "Tea Party" celebrations, Boston was the major one. Those seeking to both political gain and to destroy any real grassroot movement momentum have used this 'title' to promote their own agendas. Glenn Beck is the major A-hole here, Sarah Palin right in there. Even some of Ron Paul's true support group have fallen in with the 'plagarists'.

Posted by: jeff_p101 | March 25, 2010 7:42 AM | Report abuse

I am a Maryland registered democrat and not affiliated with the Tea Party Movement. I have voted every time I have been eligible to in my life, and come November I am going to punish the democratic party for flouting the will of the people. What’s next after the last three steaming piles on their watch: health care, stimulus, and bailout slush fund administration?

Posted by: mrwilliematt | March 25, 2010 7:42 AM | Report abuse

The first sentence in this article gave away the writer's viewpoint and disdain of Tea Party participants, 'nascent.' As if, 'newly established' was just too, too folksy by far.

You're a cheap snob, Chris Cillizza. You use the same Charmin as the rest of us.

Posted by: prossers7 | March 25, 2010 7:38 AM | Report abuse

The teabagger movement is pure Astroturf -- organized by political deadbeats like Dick Armey and financed by billionaire right-wing extremist David Koch.

Grass roots? Not in this lifetime.

Posted by: WhatHeSaid | March 25, 2010 7:35 AM | Report abuse

If you look at the beliefs of the tea party and then look at the beliefs of the Christian Identity movement or the Posse Commitatus and other militia groups, they are very similar. This is not by accident. This group may have been prodded on by the radio right, but they have managed to attract the very fringe right who are dangerous and I guess someone will have to die before the Justice Department treats this group as the terrorist group they have become.

Posted by: UncleScrooge | March 25, 2010 7:35 AM | Report abuse

The 'baggers are by and large racists who dislike the idea of a black President & live in the day & land of segregation, anti-immigrant, anti-gay, and anti-women policies/rhetoric. They abhor large govt. but voted for Bush & the largest increase in govt. in history, they want their rights but didn't revolt when Bush illegally wiretapped Americans, fired justices for political reasons, started an oil war with Iraq, or were involved in torture! They are fools & dupes of the right wing and if their brownshirt tactics of vileness & lawlessness continues they will be met in the streets by the same time of vigilante justice x10. Americans by and large have had it with these middle age, out of shape, undereducated idiots. And who is their standard bearer? A one-time suicidal, college dropout, ex shock jock. Pathetic. Fire when you see the whites of their eyes!!!

Posted by: crossroadsnow | March 25, 2010 7:35 AM | Report abuse

The 'baggers are by and large racists who dislike the idea of a black President & live in the day & land of segregation, anti-immigrant, anti-gay, and anti-women policies/rhetoric. They abhor large govt. but voted for Bush & the largest increase in govt. in history, they want their rights but didn't revolt when Bush illegally wiretapped Americans, fired justices for political reasons, started an oil war with Iraq, or were involved in torture! They are fools & dupes of the right wing and if their brownshirt tactics of vileness & lawlessness continues they will be met in the streets by the same time of vigilante justice x10. Americans by and large have had it with these middle age, out of shape, undereducated idiots. And who is their standard bearer? A one-time suicidal, college dropout, ex shock jock. Pathetic. Fire when you see the whites of their eyes!!!

Posted by: crossroadsnow | March 25, 2010 7:35 AM | Report abuse

Hey libs and wackos keep thinking the tea party and fox news are fake. When you wake up in November after the a$$ kicking, we'll be laughing.

But, a bunch of protests put together by the unions are true protests. It's clear a lot of libs did way too many drugs in the 60's.

Posted by: irish031 | March 25, 2010 7:31 AM | Report abuse

re:"A vote for the Republicans in November is a vote for going back to the status quo of the last decade. Welcome back to the age of the New Robber Barons and frequent bank panics and stock market crashes."

What in the hell do you call this thing we have now?? It's not American, I can tell you that for sure. It's more like communist or fascist! Both political parties have led us here with the Federal Reserve funding their little adventure the whole time! I'm an American first and despise what has happen to this country. We should all be pounding the pavement to D.C. and demand our rights back!

Posted by: ghendric | March 25, 2010 6:57 AM | Report abuse

The Teabaggers a "grassroots movement"? hahahaha

Yeah, to the extent that Fox "News" and the RNC qualify as grassroots.

Give me a break.

Posted by: Monarchomach | March 25, 2010 6:54 AM | Report abuse

A vote for the Republicans in November is a vote for going back to the status quo of the last decade. Welcome back to the age of the New Robber Barons and frequent bank panics and stock market crashes.

Posted by: turbovega | March 25, 2010 6:48 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company