Nahhh, Jon.

[coti]

They're definitely teabaggers.

Anyone that shows up to rallies with a bullet proof vest and AR-15 is a teabagger. Anyone that throws a woman down on a curb and steps on her head because she had a wig and a sign is a teabagger. Anyone that just will NOT be convinced, ever, that President Obama was born in the United States is a teabagger.

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

1. if only real politics was this intense and honest

[rusty charly]

2. Yup.

A little cloistered Upper West Side World View "It's Not Really THAT Bad" happening here. Jon: It is. Get a clue. Buy a vowel.

[Waiting For Everyman]

3. People who wear teabags on their hats, etc.

Really invite being called teabaggers too.

It was their idea after all, they own it.

[RZM]

4. Your argument basically supports Stewart

He said that teabagger is a pejorative and I don't see how that's a wrong position. It is. People who call them teabaggers don't like them and what they stand for and the term is intended to diminish them. How is that a wrong argument? What you're saying is that people who bring guns to rallies or stomp on heads are doing things that are very wrong. That sounds fine to me. But it's not everybody. It's some, to be sure, but it's not everybody. Same thing with those who say Obama isn't an American citizen. That's demonstrably false and not a good thing to say. But there are some Tea Party people who don't fit any of those descriptions. They may be misguided and I certainly don't agree with them, but they aren't monsters, they are just people who don't agree with me. That was Stewart's point, IMO.

[coti]

5. His point was not only that it is a demeaning term, but that demeaning them is wrong.

I certainly agree with him that it's demeaning, despite the fact that they took the name, in large part, for themselves.

However, I think they deserve to be demeaned. Jon seems to be saying that we should not do that to them. I disagree.

I think when a person revels in their own ignorance, they deserve to be insulted. We have a responsibility, as citizens, to be as informed as reasonably possible, and to exercise our rights in such a way that will benefit not just us as individuals, but everyone around us. The vast majority of teabaggers utterly fail in that regard, and they seem to even be proud of it. And, now, they've really hurt our country.

[grasswire]

6. how can it be a pejorative when THEY picked it?

::::shaking my head::::

[RZM]

10. 'They' is a problematic term

I already said this in another post. But the Tea Party is an amorphous group. There are benefits to that, but there are also drawbacks. Some douchebag held up a sign about 'teabagging' and some other douchebags sent teabags to Congress. I agree that THOSE folks are absolutely 'teabaggers.' But what about somebody who broadly identifies with their anti-government philosophy but has never even heard of those incidents I just mentioned? Again, I think that was part of Stewart's point. It was basically a 'wag of the finger' against broad-brushing and I don't see how it was even a big deal. I think his larger point is that it's not constructive to hate on you political opponents, even if some of them are going to hate on you, because we're all in this together.

[EFerrari]

7. It's their own term.

lol

[RZM]

8. I'm aware of that

And that's a serious weakness of the Tea Party. With no 'official' hierarchy or organization, anyone who identifies with them can do or say any crazy thing and there's not recourse for the rest of them to disavow it. That's one reason why I think it's going to be a temporary phenomenon. I don't necessarily think that it's not fair either, since they are more than willing to take the benefits of loose organization. But in any decentralized group, it's problematic to characterize the whole bunch according to the actions of the few. I think that was also a point Stewart was getting at (though he didn't say it). Just because some Tea Partiers are nutty doesn't give the left the right to claim they are all that way. Certainly they are all adherents of a broad anti-government and anti-spending (of a sort) philosophy, but I don't see a whole lot that ties them together other than that, and that includes the bad behavior as well.

[coti]

9. They're not uniform, and you do have a point there. nt

[EFerrari]

13. Not really. They are much less diverse than just about any segment

of the Democratic party, for example. You can generalize about the tea klanners.

[EFerrari]

11. There's no need to judge the tea klanners by the actions of a few.

You can look at their candidates and at their gatherings. Their candidates are mercenary xenophobes who play to the lowest common denominators of ignorance and fear and their gatherings have been aptly called "Whitestock". If Jon needs to soften that for himself, that's fine. He doesn't need to soften it for me.

[RainDog]

14. agreed n/t

[RZM]

15. Who cares if it's 'Whitestock?'

Most of the Republican party is white. So the hell what? Are they supposed to hire 500 Michael Steeles for the cameras every time they get together. What do you expect them to do? 'Darn, the faces in our crowd are severely lacking in melanin. I guess we should call the whole thing off.' You know what else is probably 'Whitestock?' Thanksgiving at Tim Wise's house. Or mine. Or that of a good number of DUers. That's not really saying much. Hell, Woodstock itself was pretty much 'Whitestock,' aside from Jimi Hendrix and Richie Havens.

[EFerrari]

16. Who cares? You mean, besides the people who are the butts of their xenophobia

and at times, outright racism? You mean, besides them?

When you claim to represent the American people and you draw 150 thousand white people but have to hire black performers and speakers, you're lying.

[RZM]

19. Oh noes! They are claiming to represent America!!!!!

Hate to break it to you, but the Tea Party isn't the only group of self-righteous folks who think that theirs is the true path. I don't think the Tea party represents America. Nor does DU. Or the Democratic Party. Or the Republican Party. The closest we have is the census and even that leaves a lot of people uncounted. America's a diverse place. It's diverse in terms of race, religion, and political philosophy too. Problem is, alot of people think their group is the 'true America' . . . and you know what. They are ALL dead wrong. I'm not defending the Tea Party's assertion that they are the 'true Americans.' I'm defending their right to attract people who agree with them and not be held responsible for the actions of the worst among them. Can you name me a broad-based group that doesn't have a gaggle of idiots in tow?

[EFerrari]

21. What you're doing, whether you know it or not, is giving a pass to racism

and calling it macaroni.

The tea klanners have an absolute right "to attract people who agree with them" and to chose racist f#cks like Angle or Sarah Palin to represent them. What they don't have a right to do and what you can't do honestly is to claim they don't run racist f#cks like Angle and Palin to represent them or to shift the blame for these choices to some imaginary fringe.

[RZM]

28. Sorry, not buyng it.

And neither is Jon Stewart, with whom I stand on this. I don't think most on the right have a problem with people of color because they aren't white. I think they have a problem with people of color because they vote Democratic! Actually, I think that the right wants people of color to love them. Bush and Rove had the quixotic idea that they could turn millions of Hispanic Americans into good Republicans, probably a consequence of their Texas experiences. And you know what, they were wrong. Rove may have finally realized that, but I don't think that Bush has. Why do you think Glenn Beck held his rally on Aug. 28? Because he wants to stick his finger in the eye of the Civil Rights movement? I think it's because he naively thinks he can CO-OPT the Civil Rights movement. He's dreaming if he thinks he can, but that doesn't mean he doesn't think it. It just means his mind is in outer space.

[EFerrari]

31. You don't have to buy anything but you can't deny Angle or Palin.

And no, Rove never thought he could turn out Latinos. In fact, he worked with Tim Griffin to cage their votes. He just claimed he could turn them out. In fact, he claimed he did turn them out and that was shown to be utter bullshit.

And, no, Beck is not naive. He's a morning shock jock in over his head but he's not naive.

You pretty much have to turn yourself into a pretzel to deny that the tea klanners aren't carrying on the fine old Republican tradition of scapegoating people of color up to and including vote suppression, as numerous reports of tea klanner intimidation at minority precincts on Election Day show. And you're free to do that. This is America after all. :)

[cynatnite]

12. Look at who the tea party types supported...

The tea party types picked Sharron Angle. She proved her racism early on. Did any of her supporters call her out on it? Did anyone at Fox News? Of course not.

I agree that painting broad brushes is a tricky thing, but if none of these people are standing up against the rhetoric or actions of a few...they deserve the whatever labels get applied to them.

[RZM]

17. I thnk some of them are condemning it

Certainly the two Tea Partiers on Bill Maher's show condemned the head-stomper in strong terms a few weeks ago. Look, I'm not interested in spending all of my energy defending the Tea Party, which I find annoying since I don't agree with them on anything. But I do defend their right to do their thing and not be universally dismissed as trash. Some of them are stupid and some of them are total assholes -- but that's not what unites them or makes them a force.

[EFerrari]

18. What makes them a force is the right wing controled media.

And what unites them, to the extent they can be said to be united, is ignorance. Not much to credit there.

America Firsters were also somewhat united and also became a force for a time. That didn't preclude them from being trash.

[RZM]

22. Oh lord . . .

All of those page editors and reporters, chomping at the bit for Republicans to control the world. Have you ever worked in journalism? I have. And I can tell you, probably 70 percent of the rank-and-file vote Democratic. They may not sign the checks (that ratio is probably a lot closer to the national distribution of the left-right divide). And I'd say what unites the Tea Partiers more than anything else is a general dislike of 'the establishment' and a broadly conservative view of spending. That's not necessarily ignorance. It's not a philosophy I personally agree with, but it's a philosophy that plenty of people adhere to. It's not necessarily workable either, as they'll soon learn.

[EFerrari]

23. So you know that the grunts don't make editorial policy, I presume.

The tea klan doesn't have a philosophy. What they have is ignorance and fear stoked by politicians and amplified by the corporate media. These are people who want the government to stay out of Medicare.

lol

[RZM]

25. They don't make policy single-handedly

But they sure as hell influence it. One thing that ties together the rank-and-file and the suits is that they are ALL interested in keeping their jobs. So they sometimes create controversies and stories for their own benefit. But they also hone in on stories that are already newsworthy in their own right. And that's where I think the Tea Party fits in. Primary-ing CW favorites alone is a major political story. Do you think the media shouldn't have honed in on the Republican primaries in Delaware, Nevada, New York, and Utah? Because those were HUGE political stories and told people about a serous power shift in conservative politics. The Tea Party is not Balloon Boy. It's not a story made up to grab eyes. It's a real story that grabs eyes in its own right and that's why the media focuses on it.

[EFerrari]

27. That's a good comparison, Ballon Boy even though it would have been more efficient

for the Koch brothers to have Dick Armey just drop the cash on Rupert Murdoch.

[RZM]

30. Are you actually agreeing with me here?

I don't think so, but a boy can dream ;)

[EFerrari]

32. Well, I think it's a great comparison.

Why don't we just leave it at that?

lol

[RZM]

33. I'll take it

;)

[U4ikLefty]

26. Prove your 70% Democratic comment.

I want solid stats.

[RZM]

29. LOL, you're not going to get them from me

Because I don't have them. I'm speaking from my own personal experience. Though that's not hard data, it is an observation. I wouldn't be surprised if there is some poll data that supports me, but unfortunately you'd probably have to go to RW sources to get it, because they are the ones who are so concerned with this. That ties into my first point though. The idea of the 'liberal media' is a gross simplification of the situation. But take a look at the major metropolitan dailies in your area. I know that most of them here tend to endorse Democrats in elections. The right loves to rail non-stop about how the media is so biased against them. Again, its not that simple, but that broad characterization wouldn't exist if there wasn't a reason for right wing journalists to be unhappy. The right doesn't rail against Fox, because Fox supports Republicans just about 100 percent of the time. And that's another thing. The whole reason Fox News exists is because there existed a core of right-leaning journalists and monied media figures who felt dissed because many news organizations didn't promote Republicans enough, so they moved to/created Fox in order to work in a friendlier environment and get the conservative message out as clearly and forcefully as possible (Brit Hume and Chris Wallace, for example, spent much of their careers at ABC and NBC, respectively). I don't know about you, but I find it hard to believe that the major broadcast networks (CBS, ABC, NBC), and the non-Fox major cable networks (CNN, MSNBC), would articulate full-throated right wing messages. Same goes for NPR and probably more than half of the major metropolitan dailies in the country.

I think what DU reacts to is the fact that while many journalists vote Democratic, a good number are far from being progressive. Unfortunately to many here, not progressive equals right wing.

[cynatnite]

20. Good point and I'm not trying to put you in that position at all...

I'm questioning myself on this because I've called the lot of them racists for the most part. It seems like the entire movement is nothing more than that.

I've yet to see one...just ONE...who has reasonable concerns and that they don't need to resort to the "Obama is a socialist" meme or the other crap that's been spewed by the lot.

I'm looking for something to hang my hat on so I can say "Not all teabaggers are Sharron Angle types", but I'm just not seeing it.

Maybe I'm not watching enough TV or reading the right articles that prove me wrong. Honestly, though...I'd rather be wrong than to think that an entire movement is filled with racists, homophobes, and the willfully ignorant.

[RZM]

24. We're probably alike

In that neither of us have much experience with the Tea Party 'on the ground.' I don't know a single Tea Partier myself, at least not intimately. I think I have a few FB friends who are, but they live far away and I never see them. All of the Republicans I know might like the Tea Party for the energy they bring, but they generally (if surreptitiously) look down on them as intellectual lightweights and every single one of them thinks that it's going to be a passing thing.

But one thing to keep in mind is that Tea Partiers didn't magically spring fully-formed from a well. They are people who have always been here, but for a number of reasons have come together in a broad coalition around a few vague issues and those are mostly fiscal in nature. Granted, I do think Obama's race does play a role, but only a very small one. I think it's naive to think we wouldn't see something similar if Hillary Clinton were president, because our debt problem is not particularly connected with the color of our president's skin. What's really sad is that the broad concerns they harp on (spending and debt) are unfortunately going to be MAJOR issues here in the very near future. Just look at the European press. For all of the debt crises you have in Europe right now, they all love to point out that the PIGS-style day of reckoning is going to come to the US sooner rather than later (and Britain as well -- it pretty much already has there). Where I differ with the many Tea Partiers is that I think we're going to have to reduce our spending first and foremost in the defense sphere. Watch for that being the major political debate in the next 5 years or so.