This is so depressing. People are really out of control. The tenor, the tone...just nasty, ignorant, bullying, uninformed. Enough already; let's get the pigs back in the barnyard so the rest of us can get on with our country.

That's depressing. I wish there was a way for the country to just calm down about politics for a while, for everyone to step back and take a metaphorical deep breath.

..yeah. Identify shared values...I think we might have some, somewhere, I really do...and stop browbeating one another with ideology, which has so little to do with day-to-day life, anyway.

The disconnect between Tea Party leadership and its grassroots supporters is a wide chasm indeed.

It's so obvious that the people who invoke Hitler in reference to Obama are doing so to distract from their consistently Nazi-like behavior. I remain optimistic that their soon-to-become violent takeover of the Republican Party will only make it irrelevant, and will lead to the founding of an honest Conservative party, which America hasn't had since Nixon.

Miko, they'd probably read that and say the reason you're now reaching for common ground instead of browbeating *them* with ideology is because of their moves.

...and if they said that it would be one more example of bad faith, throwing up a roadblock to communication.

Ardiril, I'm unaware of any real distinction between Tea Party "leadership" and "grassroots supporters." I keep hearing how it's decentralized and leaderless; people taking leadership come from the grassroots, while people promoting the movement are mostly media figures, not actual leaders, but talkers.

Wait wait. Isn't the reason you're saying let's take a step back because of their activism for their side? There's definitely a full platter of (ideological!) issues liberals have on their to-do/to-say list.

Leadership is a bit cloudy--true, it is a young movement--but the whackjobs sell more ads for the media. For example, although the media has painted Palin as the patron saint of teabaggers, among the more experienced politicians in the group, she is far too outspoken on social issues for acceptance. Many common teabaggers 'embrace' objectivism, yet those who make the loudest claims are the least likely to understand it. Ask them about the objectivist theory of knowledge and they return a blank face, however that concept is one of the few basic principles of objectivism. (The people most likely to truly understand objectivism are those who reject it.)

The fly in this ointment is Randal Paul who seems to me to be much more of a neoconservative than a teabagger, and whatever gains made by the cut taxes/slash gov't crowd will be unbalanced by the family sanctity mouthpieces. Ultimately, I see the teabaggers failing. They have a solid, core platform but they are targeting the wrong support group.

Isn't the reason you're saying let's take a step back because of their activism for their side?

Heck no, I'm all for activism and advocacy. What I'm not for is ignorance and heated rhetoric that's identity-based and side-taking rather than issue-based.

who make the loudest claims are the least likely to understand it...Ultimately, I see the teabaggers failing. They have a solid, core platform but they are targeting the wrong support group.

In general, I find that tea party-aligned folks have a very poor understanding of American political history, the structure of government, tax structure, etc. They tend to be low-information.

I also don't perceive a "solid, core platform." I mean, this is not a platform, it's a single statement. It's irresonsible and naive, in that it recognizes absolutely no complexity in the act of governing, establishes no goals or end points, and makes no distinctions as to which actions of government that are to be supported or opposed. At the other end of the spectrum you have this version, (the tea party faction overtook the GOP primary in Maine), which prescribes social conservatism, religious and sexual mores, etc. Instead, there are dozens of separate factions united only by anger and opposition to the President. There's a profound intellectual contradiction in advocating for these as first principles while also arguing for less government. They want to increase control over the people while at the same time reducing it. Many of them also advocate for goals in conflict with less taxation, like stronger immigration policy and policing.

It's a chaotic movement - it's not really a movement on its own so much as it is the breaking apart of the formerly GOP-controlled conservative coalition, begun by Atwater shaped by Gingrich and others in the 90s, and cultivated during the Bush years by those in power. It's not a coordinated entity and seems to share no philosophical underpinnings whatever. The only platform issue I see any agreement at all on is to voice dislike for tax ation; however, there's no agreement on the solution, or on how to organize society and services to the ends they claim to value in an environment of even less taxation.

+1 on what oneswellfoop said. The Republican Party is being destroyed, and fully cooperating with its own destruction, but allowing Tea Part asshats to take their party over.

As much as I would like to see a new Republican party emerge from the ashes, I think the ultimate downfall of the teabaggers will result in a tighter knit party cast in Dubya's mold. The other day I saw a "Palin 2012" bumper sticker and my first thought was "Damn, but I think the bitch can do it."

What you can't see is this:
+ Knox County = very rural
+ King Middle is in Portland, and is probably the most integrated school in the state. Students there speak something like 26 different languages. Portland is also way, way more liberal than the rural areas. (70%+ of Portland voted for Same Sex Marriage for example.)

I suspect that Paul Clifford's classroom must have looked like (as Bill Nemitz says here) another planet to these people. Student names posted that all sounded "foreign". I'd bet that most of the Knox County republicans have never met a non Caucasian person. (I grew up not far from there and didn't until I went to college.) Some may remember that King is the Middle School that got a lot of public attention for handing out contraception to students.

I do kind of feel bad for these people because they live in such fear.

On the other hand, they're teaching something that they don't quite mean to be teaching.

I do kind of feel bad for these people because they live in such fear.

I feel this way about a lot of conservatives.

I think you can define most of the world's conservativism in terms of fear.

Except there are those who don't know they're afraid because it's covered over with anger.

Yeah; if we could actually talk about and look at the fear itself, we might get somewhere.

Very true, Obscure Reference.

When we were radical lefties back in my lively youth, demonstrating against the war in Viet Nam, and believing we could change the world, we were for something as well as being against the status quo.

I don't know what the heart of the teaparty message is, in a philosophical sense. Against change, against socialism, against taxes. Tell me what to cut? Not medicare, not tax shelters for megacorps, not road-building, not social security, and never, ever, cut spending on war and the military. The only place they want to cut is social well-being for poor people. Medicaid, aid to families, etc. Cause poor people deserve to be poor, and don't deserve to get food and shelter.

And against illegal immigrants. The ones that are easy to spot because they're brown. And not my pool guy, okay? Jose (not his real name, all messican guys get called Jose) does a great job, and do you know how hard it is to find a landscaper who'll work for the pittance I pay?

I'm not so sure it's fear. The US is an incredibly wealthy place, but people who demand to pay fewer taxes need that money for more stuff. I liked it better when the US was more generous, when we thought that sending aid to other countries (not just arms) was what you do because you're Christian or other religion, all of which require being good to people in need. Once upon a time, the US declared war on poverty itself.

Greed, avarice, gluttony and anger are among the 7 deadly sins for a reason.

BTW, I live in Maine. It's not that hard for a fringe group to take over the political convention in a non-presidential year. Most Maine GOP-ers are appalled by this turn of events. Olympia Snowe is a fair representative of Maine Republicans. So is Susan Collins, but let's not go there; she's not truly awful.

And some Democrats have had to be hospitalized with laughter-related injuries. Duh, yup, kiddin. They only had to be sedated.

The message the teabaggers are missing is that libertarianism is more than cutting taxes and slashing government. The purpose for a weak government is to maximize personal freedoms, such marrying whom you please, choosing to have an abortion, and receiving a fair salary and benefits based on ability and productivity regardless of gender, race, religion, or any other trait.

eceiving a fair salary and benefits based on ability and productivity regardless of gender, race, religion, or any other trait.

How would that ever happen under a weak government?

I'm not so sure it's fear. The US is an incredibly wealthy place

I guess one of the driving fears is the fear of having less. Many people who advocate for the unfettered free market do so because they want to maintain the privilege they do have. They know that some people who currently do very well would have less if we took more care of other people, and if we were fair about where resources went. Some people do have something to lose, and they fear that loss. It's the same thing as greed, avarice, but it's what's underneath the greed. "I fear not having enough. I fear having less. I fear not being able to do what I want."

The irony is that most people in the tea party movement are (a) already benefiting from social programs and (b) also not the ones who would lose under a system with a better safety net - they'd gain. But their buy-in to an ideology that credits them with the successes they've had (rather than the system that helped them get there) and encourages them to imagine that their income potential is unlimited makes them act counter to their own interests. They're an excellent demonstration of economic arationality.

It is ridiculous that the wealthiest nation in the world should have the rampant poverty we had.