The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

[mheslep]

I agree with Paul Krugman. The Tea party is being used.

As it happens, I agree with Jonah Goldberg on what Paul Krugman wrote about the Tea Party.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/248600/asininity-threat-level-high-jonah-goldberg
Asininity Threat Level: High

While carrying water on the latest — and longstanding — talking point: Fox News evil, vast right wing conspiracy, blah blah blah, Krugman has a jaw-droppingly idiotic first sentence.

A note to Tea Party activists: This is not the movie you think it is. You probably imagine that you’re staring in “The Birth of a Nation,” but you’re actually just extras in a remake of “Citizen Kane."​

I’m sure he thinks this is extremely clever and I’m sure he and Mrs. Krugman high-fived after one of them wrote it, but I’m growing weary of Krugman’s relentless, smirking, insinuations that his ideological opponents are racists. The clear meaning of this sentence, and the column, is “Har, har you stupid mouth-breathing Republican dupes, you thought you were mounting a racial revival for the white man but instead you’re simply pawns of the ruling class.”

The rest is the usual fill-in-the-blank stuff he could have cribbed from a David Brock email.

Oh, and just for the record, “Birth of A Nation” was liberal Democratic icon Woodrow Wilson’s favorite movie, which he screened in the White House for congressmen and justices. But that’s neither here nor there.

I.e. outside of professional economic publications, Krugman/Wells are hack race baiters.

 

[mheslep]

[...]
When Bush and Cheney authorized torture [assuming that Bush knew what he was signing], they met my criteria for "enemy of the State". I really do believe this was treason. [...]

The only other option in my mind was civil war. And I will tell you that I thought about that more than once. [...]

Civil war? In other words, the violent over throw of the government of the US? In other words, treason.

 

[Al68]

Would you give, say, three others?

If I can assume he agrees with most Dems, I could name them endlessly, from Minimum wage laws to forcefully regulating private enterprises to gun control laws.

I don't need a whole book, but I don't find your example particularly convincing.

If you don't think it's unconstitutional to outlaw private insurance policies and force people to buy government "approved" policies, then it's doubtful you would think the rest of their agenda is unconstitutional. The entire economic agenda of Dems consists of an ever increasing use of force by government to interfere with people's private business.

Suppose I accepted the premise that the healthcare act was unconstitutional. It would not follow that those who supported it are enemies of the Constitution: they may (wrongly, under the premise) believe it is constitutional, for example.

Yes, I agree. That's why I qualified my statement with "those who know better".

Further, it does not follow that those who voted for the bill supported it: they may have traded favors with the Democratic whip, feeling that improvements in one area (possibly even making some other aspect of government more constitutional) trump whatever feelings they may have on the healthcare act.

So they voted to violate the constitution as a favor trade instead of for their own agenda? That isn't much better.

And, of course, the premise may simply be wrong. Article 1, §8 of the Constitution (in particular, its "Elastic Clause") has been interpreted quite broadly...

far more broadly than palatable. Dems basically consider the federal government's power to serve their agenda to be unlimited.

...the Supreme Court, which is tasked in the Constitution itself to interpret it...

Really? Which part of the constitution? (warning, this is a trick question).

 

[Al68]

No, it doesn't work that way.

Ignoring the bulk of your post, I'll just say that I should have used the word "necessarily". An enemy of the constitution isn't necessarily an enemy of the country.

 

[Al68]

Going by al's definition (post #579),I guess anyone who supports a position that is unconstitutional is an enemy of the Constitution.

Of course. I used the words "enemy of the constitution" to mean someone who advocates violating it. But I was specifically referring to those holding office who took an oath not to violate it in order to gain the power to violate it.

 

[WhoWee]

No, it doesn't work that way. Soldiers and politicians alike are sworn to defend the Constitution from all enemies. The don't swear to protect the corner of First and Main, or Baseball, the nearest school, or the flag. This is why we go to war. So if you call someone an enemy of the Constitution, you had better mean it.

When Bush and Cheney authorized torture [assuming that Bush knew what he was signing], they met my criteria for "enemy of the State". I really do believe this was treason. But I would never say this about someone who merely disagrees about health care.

At that time, when we seemingly chose to be a country that taps the phones of innocent people, tortures people, ignores due process, and launches unjustified invasions of countries, my wife and I decided to leave the country. The only other option in my mind was civil war. And I will tell you that I thought about that more than once. That's where I thought we may be going. But, since I oppose war, we began looking at options. Were it not for the dramatic turnaround seen with the election of Obama, we would still be planning to leave. Obama's election restored a bit of my faith in the American people.

If you call someone an enemy of the Constitution, you had better mean it.

You considered civil war to be an option because you didn't approve of Bush - and you think the Tea Party people are radical?

 

[Al68]

You considered civil war to be an option because you didn't approve of Bush - and you think the Tea Party people are radical?

You have to use the Democratic Party Dictionary here:

radical n. non-Marxist. synonym extremist.

 

[Char. Limit]

You have to use the Democratic Party Dictionary here:

radical n. non-Marxist. synonym extremist.

Source?

 

[turbo]

You have to use the Democratic Party Dictionary here:

radical n. non-Marxist. synonym extremist.

Al, you screwed up. As Boehner and McConnell have been trying to teach you, even when you are not actively vilifying Democrats, you always refer to them as the "Democrat" Party. Always. Every time. Never add the "ic". That extra syllable is very important to the GOP. Get with the program.

And you sell the Democrats short with your "definition". They are perfectly willing to carry water for big business and protect the status quo. The main difference between the two parties is that the Republicans are a bit more blatant and unified about it.

 

[CRGreathouse]

If I can assume he agrees with most Dems, I could name them endlessly, from Minimum wage laws to forcefully regulating private enterprises to gun control laws.

Would you explain what you mean by the second, and why these are unconstitutional?

I think I understand what argument you might make on the third one (the 2nd amendment or the 2nd amendment via the 14th, or possibly 10th amendment instead). But the first two are unclear to me.

If you don't think it's unconstitutional to outlaw private insurance policies and force people to buy government "approved" policies, then it's doubtful you would think the rest of their agenda is unconstitutional.

I think that most people on this thread wouldn't be convinced that this is unconstitutional. If I had to guess, about half would support it and say that it is constitutional; another 40% would oppose it and say that it's unconstitutional; the balance would oppose it and say it's unconstitutional.

Personally, I'm more interested in the question of whether it's right than whether it's constitutional.

far more broadly than palatable. Dems basically consider the federal government's power to serve their agenda to be unlimited.

Do you feel that the Republicans interpret that clause correctly? It seems that they interpret it approximately as broadly as the Democrats do (even if slightly less).

Really? Which part of the constitution? (warning, this is a trick question).

Article III, section 2.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Al, you screwed up. As Boehner and McConnell have been trying to teach you, even when you are not actively vilifying Democrats, you always refer to them as the "Democrat" Party. Always. Every time. Never add the "ic". That extra syllable is very important to the GOP. Get with the program.

I searched John Boehner's site. There were 8 instances of "Democrat Party" and 74 instances of "Democratic Party". 9.8% is hardly "Always. Every time.".

You're free to check McConnell's website, speeches, etc. if you'd like to rebut; I haven't looked.

 

[CAC1001]

I think that most people on this thread wouldn't be convinced that this is unconstitutional. If I had to guess, about half would support it and say that it is constitutional; another 40% would oppose it and say that it's unconstitutional; the balance would oppose it and say it's unconstitutional.

If the SCOTUS see it as the the federal government mandating people purchase a product or face a fine, that would probably be seen as beyond the scope of the federal government (how can the commerce clause justify the government forcing people to buy something!?), but if they see it as a tax, then they will probably say it is okay.

 

[turbo]

I searched John Boehner's site. There were 8 instances of "Democrat Party" and 74 instances of "Democratic Party". 9.8% is hardly "Always. Every time.".

You're free to check McConnell's website, speeches, etc. if you'd like to rebut; I haven't looked.

I watch the national news and PBS pretty religiously, and Boehner is quite consistent in dropping the "ic" when speaking of the Democratic party. It's a sophomoric jab, but he takes it every time there's a microphone in front of him.

Google on the phrase "Democrat Party" and you'll see how it it used as a childish insult, and has been for a very long time. During the W administration, the phrase got legs.

 

[CAC1001]

I searched John Boehner's site. There were 8 instances of "Democrat Party" and 74 instances of "Democratic Party". 9.8% is hardly "Always. Every time.".

You're free to check McConnell's website, speeches, etc. if you'd like to rebut; I haven't looked.

Just curious, when you say you searched his website, what do you mean? Do you mean you typed "Democrat party" into the search engine and then counted the search results? (I am guessing you didn't do that manually).

 

[Char. Limit]

I wish I had my Political Dictionary, which says something to the effect of that "Democrat Party" has long been used as an insult. However, while George W. Bush has used it, he also spoke at some Democratic event, where he said "I'm sure you realize that sometimes I don't have a real way with words. But I thank you for inviting the head of the Republic Party".

Or something. It was a bit of a self-referential jab.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Just curious, when you say you searched his website, what do you mean? Do you mean you typed "Democrat party" into the search engine and then counted the search results? (I am guessing you didn't do that manually).

Sure.

If you'd like to use a more refined method (say, build a corpus of all of his speeches over the last month or year, search for "democrat" or "party", then manually code each use of "Democrat[ic] Party"), be my guest. That would allow for better duplicate counting, as well as change over time if you're careful enough.

But the initial results were enough for me. Rather than getting 99% or 100% "Democrat Party", I got less than 10%.

 

[CAC1001]

I watch the national news and PBS pretty religiously, and Boehner is quite consistent in dropping the "ic" when speaking of the Democratic party. It's a sophomoric jab, but he takes it every time there's a microphone in front of him.

I have always referred to the Democrats as the Democrat Party, never saw that as a jab though, I just thought that's the name. Upon a quick search though, the actual name is Democratic Party it seems.

 

[CAC1001]

Sure.

If you'd like to use a more refined method (say, build a corpus of all of his speeches over the last month or year, search for "democrat" or "party", then manually code each use of "Democrat[ic] Party"), be my guest. That would allow for better duplicate counting, as well as change over time if you're careful enough.

But the initial results were enough for me. Rather than getting 99% or 100% "Democrat Party", I got less than 10%.

When you say "manually code" each use of "Democrat[ic] Party," I'm not sure what you mean? So I'd type in "democrat" or "party," get the search results, how do I code them?

 

[turbo]

How about you search for Youtube speeches for Boehner and McConnel and try to find even one in which either uses the term "Democratic Party". It's not a fair request, I fear, since you would search in vain. You'll be wasting your time. Those guys are pros, and never pass up a chance to use even the most off-hand sophomoric insult against the Democrats.

 

[CRGreathouse]

When you say "manually code" each use of "Democrat[ic] Party," I'm not sure what you mean? So I'd type in "democrat" or "party," get the search results, how do I code them?

Could be just a checkmark in one column or the other if it's "Democrat[ic] Party" and nothing otherwise. It could be a record giving the date of the speech/etc., a judgment favorable/neutral/unfavorable on the mention, a media type speech/fundraiser/blog entry, and any of a number of other things.

I imagine PoliSci graduate students do a lot of this sort of work...

 

[CRGreathouse]

How about you search for Youtube speeches for Boehner and McConnel and try to find even one in which either uses the term "Democratic Party". It's not a fair request, I fear, since you would search in vain. You'll be wasting your time. Those guys are pros, and never pass up a chance to use even the most off-hand sophomoric insult against the Democrats.

I'm sure if I cared enough I could do that. Showing that 90% of the mentions in Boehner's website use "Democratic Party" rather than "Democrat Party" took me less than a minute; watching an hour of boring speeches to get probably 0-3 mentions of either sounds like a waste of my time.

I'll admit that I've never understood the umbrage on that particular issue, though.

Edit: For what it's worth, I didn't even spend the minute to check on McConnel. It's entirely possible that all of his speeches and all mentions on his website are to the "Democrat Party". I think at this point the burden of proof is on turbo-1, not me.

 

[turbo]

Edit: For what it's worth, I didn't even spend the minute to check on McConnel. It's entirely possible that all of his speeches and all mentions on his website are to the "Democrat Party". I think at this point the burden of proof is on turbo-1, not me.

I'll tell you what we should do. I watch NBC news and PBS news every night. Every time McConnell and Boehner utter the phrase "Democrat Party" for the next month, I'll try to provide a link to the coverage and you'll owe me a dollar. Every time either of them says "Democratic Party", you provide a link and I'll owe you a dollar. I know who'll be getting a check. I'm pretty sure you know, too.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I'll tell you what we should do. I watch NBC news and PBS news every night. Every time McConnell and Boehner utter the phrase "Democrat Party" for the next month, I'll try to provide a link to the coverage and you'll owe me a dollar. Every time either of them says "Democratic Party", you provide a link and I'll owe you a dollar. I know who'll be getting a check. I'm pretty sure you know, too.

This strikes me as moving the goalposts. Your original claim was that neither ever used the term "Democratic Party". Now your implicit claim is that they use the term "Democrat Party" more often than "Democratic Party", which is far weaker.

But even if I felt the claim was true (I have no idea -- why would I care about McConnell or Boehner?), I would have to be a fool to take that bet. First, I have no reason to think you'd actually provide a faithful count, as you would not be a disinterested party. Second, if the term "Democrat Party" bothers you and "Democratic Party" is natural to you, it would be easier for you to notice the former than the latter; even if you didn't intentionally miscount, you might be wrong for that reason. (I would be subject to this bias as well: "Democratic Party" sounds normal to me and "Democrat Party" sounds odd.) Third, I don't know that the coverage of those two on NBC and PBS gives a representative sample of the times that they use the terms. The mere fact that you offer this wager should suggest to me, by bid shading, that this is the case.

Edit: Though regardless of those possible biases, if you do track the number of uses, I'd be interested in hearing about the results. Ideally you'd separate the two politicians.

 

[turbo]

OK, send me a link to either of these guys saying "Democratic Party" on network TV from now until election day, and I'll send you a check for $10. No risk on your part. All the "goal posts" are in your court. You know you're not going to get the $10 because neither of them will utter that phrase willingly.

Edit: I try to stay out of the Rep vs Dem "dichotomy" because it is a false dichotomy. There is about as much difference between those two bands of bandits as there is between Coke and Pepsi or Time and Newsweek. Our government is bought and paid for.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I try to stay out of the Rep vs Dem "dichotomy" because it is a false dichotomy. There is about as much difference between those two bands of bandits as there is between Coke and Pepsi or Time and Newsweek. Our government is bought and paid for.

Amen, brother.

OK, send me a link to either of these guys saying "Democratic Party" on network TV from now until election day, and I'll send you a check for $10. No risk on your part. All the "goal posts" are in your court. You know you're not going to get the $10 because neither of them will utter that phrase willingly.

Amusingly, I don't own a TV. I do appreciate the offer, though -- this suggests that you really believe this pretty strongly. (As I said, I haven't followed those two. The last time I caught the "Democrat Party" thing was the speech where Bush apologized for saying it and said that he was clumsy with words, or something to that effect.)

 

[turbo]

Amen, brother.

Amusingly, I don't own a TV. I do appreciate the offer, though -- this suggests that you really believe this pretty strongly. (As I said, I haven't followed those two. The last time I caught the "Democrat Party" thing was the speech where Bush apologized for saying it and said that he was clumsy with words, or something to that effect.)

I caught that speech, and he pretended to be self-deprecating, and called the Republicans the "Republic Party". He probably got some mileage out of the joke.

 

[CRGreathouse]

called the Republicans the "Republic Party"

Probably.

In Bush's case, I imagine it really was inadvertent. A person who cared could track usage before and after that speech; a statistically-significant drop in "Democrat Party" percentage would seem to suggest that it was.

I'm sure in McConnell and Boehner's cases it's intentional.

 

[Jasongreat]

Doesnt democratic party imply subversive(treasonous) ideology, since the constitution in section 4 article 4 states: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.

I'm not saying we should only be able to vote for Republicans(some have just as subversive ideals, stemming from popularism), but whoever gets voted in should be for a republican form of government, not a democratic form. That is unles we ammend the constitution, properly, as laid out in that document.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Doesnt democratic party imply subversive(treasonous) ideology, since the constitution in section 4 article 4 states: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.

I'm not saying we should only be able to vote for Republicans(some have just as subversive ideals, stemming from popularism), but whoever gets voted in should be for a republican form of government, not a democratic form. That is unles we ammend the constitution, properly, as laid out in that document.

I can't tell if you're joking.

In case you're serious: the terms are just labels, both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party support a representative democracy.

 

[Jasongreat]

In case you're serious: the terms are just labels, both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party support a representative democracy.

So both parties follow subversive policies? No wonder there is so much clamour for the tea party.

I just checked the US Constitution, just to confirm my belief, and nowhere did I find democracy or represenative democracy mentioned, although republican did get mentioned, as I pointed out in the post you replied to. IMO we are supposed to be a constitutional republic, of voluntary independent states, not a nation of dependent states ruled by a mob (even if we're all part of that mob through our represenatives). If I remember right a lot of the founders including, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams both felt a democratic government was no different than mob rule, from what I've seen I would have to agree. The people have the right to change the constitution through the ammendment process, they don't have the right to ignore it just because some poll says they can get away with it.

 

[Al68]

Would you explain what you mean by the second, and why these are unconstitutional?

I think I understand what argument you might make on the third one (the 2nd amendment or the 2nd amendment via the 14th, or possibly 10th amendment instead). But the first two are unclear to me.

In general, the ninth and tenth amendments. They basically prohibit anything not specifically delegated to the federal government by the constitution.

Yes, the second amendment applies, too, as do other parts of the constitution to various Dem agenda items, but the tenth amendment serves as a catch-all designed to prevent politicians from doing exactly what they've been doing.

I think that most people on this thread wouldn't be convinced that this is unconstitutional. If I had to guess, about half would support it and say that it is constitutional; another 40% would oppose it and say that it's unconstitutional; the balance would oppose it and say it's unconstitutional.

I have to agree with that assessment, at least in the same ballpark.

Do you feel that the Republicans interpret that clause correctly? It seems that they interpret it approximately as broadly as the Democrats do (even if slightly less).

Again, I agree with that assessment. Republicans are only "slightly less" apt to exercise power that the federal government doesn't legitimately have.

Article III, section 2.

Nope, not there.

 

[Al68]

Al, you screwed up. As Boehner and McConnell have been trying to teach you, even when you are not actively vilifying Democrats, you always refer to them as the "Democrat" Party. Always. Every time. Never add the "ic". That extra syllable is very important to the GOP. Get with the program.

I like to take it a step further by just typing "Dem". That's because I'm not with the "party of no". I'm with the party of "hell no".

 

[Al68]

I just checked the US Constitution, just to confirm my belief, and nowhere did I find democracy or represenative democracy mentioned, although republican did get mentioned, as I pointed out in the post you replied to...If I remember right a lot of the founders including, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams both felt a democratic government was no different than mob rule, from what I've seen I would have to agree.

Yes, they were opposed to "democracy", but they used the term very differently. The word "democracy" is generally used more broadly today, to include republics.

 

[nismaratwork]

This thread has gone completely off the rails.

 

[turbo]

Back on topic. The Tea Party (GOP) candidate for governor of Maine is a disaster waiting to happen - to us. He wants creationism taught in public schools, wants to open coastal Maine waters to drill rigs despite the fact that our multi-billion dollar fishing and tourism businesses rely on clean coastal waters, and wants to gut environmental protections. He also lies a lot. He and his wife have a house in Maine and one in Florida, and his wife claimed primary residency in both states and claimed homestead property tax exemptions in both states, violating the tax laws of both states. LePage said he didn't know anything about this, despite the fact that the FL exemption and in-state tuition rates for their children were worth thousands of dollars. Right. He also said that his name was never on the deed of the Maine house until it was proven that it was. Why lie about a matter of public record that can be uncovered with a few minutes at the Registry of Deeds? He also claimed the the Maine Department of Environmental Protection had required that he perform a three-month "buffalo census" that cost $54,000 before starting a new business in the state, as well as a "black fly census". You just can't make this stuff up. He's not only a habitual liar, but delusional. And the Tea Party loves him. He said recently that he never sought the support of the Tea Party, which was flatly contradicted by videos of him speaking about his candidacy at 4 separate Tea Party rallies.

The real fly in the ointment is that Elliot Cutler is running as an Independent for Governor, and he might be able to split off enough moderate votes to give LePage a majority in the general election. Libby Mitchell (Dem) would win the governorship handily if Cutler got out, but he seems to be too proud to back out now, though he hasn't a chance. That would be a shame.