It's hard to imagine how anyone could legitimately believe the Tea Party movement is a genuine threat to domestic security, and I don't believe for one minute that the Department of Homeland Security commissioned its report detailing the allegedly dangerous growth of right-wing extremist groups with that movement in mind.
However, it is very easy for me to believe that the Democratic Party and its elected officials and operatives might well view the Tea Party movement as a political threat to their agenda. As such, I refuse to believe anything else other than the Department of Homeland Security purposely leaked the report to the media prior to April 15th in order to coincide with the tax filing deadline day's scheduled Tea Party movement protests, probably with the intention that the average American should look at them as potentially dangerous right-wing extremists. I think they did this not only purposely, but with the full knowledge and approval of current Director Janet Napolitano.
Unfortunately for them, I think they opened the wrong can of whoop-ass, and I seriously doubt they can put it back in. Now its up to the movement to prove they can grow in not only numbers, but relevance. They seem to have got off to a rollicking good start with tens of thousands in attendance at various events across the country. Only time will tell how successful they are from this point on.
One piece of advice I would give them, just for now-all references to tea-bags are best avoided.
9 comments:
When people protested at the RNC we were called terrorists.Glenn Beck and Dick Army call this a Grass roots movement.. I call it a good fucking double-standard. And what gets me is they are protesting tax cuts, and as of Tax day, they were STILL filing under the Bush tax code. This is called a desperate and disparate attempt at relevancy.Also in the Homeland report was mentioned the recruiting of ex-military for militias and other republican backed extremist. So they call Liberals who protest traitor, and when they do it its patriotic.. BULLSHIT
With all the plugs on Fox News, the crowds should have been bigger. Fox even inflated numbers several fold.
They made the same mistakes as the left. No clear message.
The real outrage, you will not see immediately. The depression started in 1929, and you saw the militant strikes like Toledo, San Francisco and Minneapolis about 3 or 4 years later. A recession is demoralizing. It takes time to built confidence to act.
A number of points, Shadowhawk. First, they aren't protesting "tax cuts", so much as they are protesting increased government spending, and government bail-outs, and the ever growing size and scope of the federal government. There are a lot of single-issue people involved, to be sure, over things like abortion, immigration, and gun control, but this is a pretty widespread movement in opposition to big government more than anything.
I also have to object to your view of "recruiting of ex-military for militias" as being an example of "Republican backed extremists".
I don't know where you get this information, but I would remind you that George W. Bush's first high-profile approval of a federal execution was of Timothy MacVeigh, who was the penultimate right-wing extremist. There were some who encouraged Bush to spare his life and commute his sentence. All MacVeigh got from Bush for all their efforts was a prayer for his soul. Then, he was sizzled.
As for the comparison of left and right protestors, what comparison? It's the rhetoric and penchant for violence (in some cases) that causes the left to be branded as traitors, in a great many cases for very valid reasons. Show me a case where conservative or Republican protestors act in a violent fashion. It hasn't been but a few days ago that Tom Tancredo had to run for his life from a leftist protest at a University in either Virginia or North Carolina. He wasn't even able to continue through with his scheduled speech.
Show me one time where a conservative protest group has done the same thing to a leftist speaker. A hint-you can't.
How many windows were broken at the Minneapolis protests? What was this I heard about rocks being thrown, and what about fat-ass Starhawk having bomb-making materials in her apartment or someplace? Yeah, I know, it was really just "fertilizer", but what the hell did she expect? She does this shit on purpose so she can have an excuse to whine about the so-called "police state." Sorry, not buying it.
The reason protestors on the left are called traitors is simply because of their anti-American rhetoric. I don't think they appreciate how it sounds to the average person, and if they do, they make some kind of bullshit excuse about how burning the flag is a ritual that "releases power". Please, give me a fucking break. Don't you guys know you are only fucking embarrasing yourselves with this shit?
Back in the days when I was considerably more liberal than I am today, even then I used to warn about such tactics, and how it would look to the average American. You guys just don't get it. Or maybe you just don't care. But don't come whining to me about how you are called a traitor after you spend months shouting and writing screeds about the evils of "AmeriKKKa". It's just the height of nonsense, you see.
Ren-
This is little more than an embryonic movement, or at most in the toddler stage. Whether it grows or dies is dependent on how things go from here. If the economy improves, the movement will wither in direct proportion to how well and how quickly it improves. If the economy stays pretty much the same or worsens, it will grow and flourish exponentially.
The only thing that will keep it going in the face of improved economic conditions will be conditional as to how the power of the government manifests pertaining to certain issues, especially increased taxes and government spending.
Regardless, the economy will be the driving engine as to whether the movement grows, or whether it is relegated to the ranks of the fringe elements.
They are competing with elements on the left as well.
Neither side realizes it will take time before a mass expression occurs.
Does the right have a place for someone who can be moderate as you anymore?
There are so-called moderates in both parties, Ren, but the extremes control both parties. They both usually nominate moderates to run for president as a way to appeal to the majority of Americans-which should tell you something. Usually, the moderate wins in an election between a moderate and either a liberal or conservative. Between liberal and conservative, the conservative usually wins. None of this is hard and fast and is dependent on other variables, like the economy.
Obama the liberal's nomination is a rarity in recent politics, and his victory over the moderate Mccain in the general election would have been unthinkable had it not been for economic conditions. Now that he is president, he's going to be bitch-slapped by reality and will have to adjust. In doing so, he will lose support, but also gain some if he plays his cards right.
Both extremes are ideological jackasses in my opinion, who have hijacked the political process, and try to hold on to power and impose their will by parliamentary procedures and the gerrymandering of congressional districts.
Unfortunately, most moderates like McCain are craven, self-absorbed asses who care for nothing, and will engage in a masturbatory circle-jerk with whichever faction is in power in order to game the system as is.
I don't care for any of them, and frankly if I had my way, they would all be prosecuted under the RICO statutes.
Neither Obama or Clinton were the left of even the Democrats. Obama did have a certain mass appeal, based on myth about his record.
McCain had no chance, because of GOP policy is unpopular. In addition he blew his chance at making some headway, by supporting the bank bailout. He wasn't smart enough tp attack Obama from the left.
I mostly agree with you about McCain, except he couldn't attack Obama from the left. For one thing, he was having trouble with the conservative base as it was, if he went left of Obama, he would have lost even more of them, and would not have made it up from any other faction of voters. The economic collapse, and his unfortunate reaction to it, took his campaign down just as surely as if he was a captain on a sinking ship, refusing to abandon it, and so going right down with it.
Obama is a liberal, maybe not from your perspective, but in the traditional meaning of the word. I think he is probably more moderate than he is generally perceived, but not like Clinton, who at least tries to put on a show of being a moderate. Obama is a traditional liberal Democrat, probably the first such nominated by the Democrats to head a national ticket since George McGovern, though maybe not quite as liberal.
Pagan
Being called a moderate by a Trotskyite is a laugh.
The Tea Bag routine will go as the economy goes. The business cycle is said to be around six months from the start of recovery.
Left wing protesters are organized by Communist traitors. However, I would not be surprised to see some Trotskyite attempts to infiltrate.
Post a Comment