[Vision2020] Teabaggers

[Saundra Lund]

Hi Joe,

Great to read you again, and thanks for such a cogent post, with which I
wholeheartedly agree.

Just another comment or two, and a couple or three comments back to Roger.

You wrote:
"In fact, teabaggers initially called themselves “teabaggers”!"

Exactly.  It was a self-chosen label, unlike the GOP's inclination to call
all with conscience and who put people above profit "socialists" and
"communists" and "anti-American" and all that other nonsense.

I suppose it would be fair to say that the teabaggers were FOR their
self-chosen label before they were against it.  How positively GOP of them
:-)

Perhaps, though, a good compromise would be to refer to them as
teabaggers-cum-Tea Partiers  ;-)

In a separate response to me, Roger wrote:
"The bulk of them however are for smaller government, freemarkets, and
adhering to the Constitution."

Really, you need to get OUT more because you are completely out of touch
with how the movement has . . . evolved.  Heck -- I can't even call it an
evolution because it was defined by wingnuts from the very beginning, I'm
sorry to say  :-(

I'm really sorry, Roger -- you don't get to define the movement according to
your ideals.  I wish you did, though, because this country would be a better
place if those were the genuine motives of the teabaggers-cum-Tea Partiers.

In a response to Nick, Roger also made the comment:
"What the mainline media says does not confirm anything. they have been
consistent  either in ignoring the Tea Party or downplaying it."

Again, Roger, and I say this with love:  you really need to broaden your
horizons.  The Teabaggers-cum-Tea Partiers have been ALL over the news,
including that embarrassing 9/12 Teabaggers-cum-Tea Partiers attendance
gross overestimation.  Indeed, I would argue that the mainstream media has
overblown the whole thing.  Most likely, the movement is going to implode
precisely because honest people were initially drawn to a movement that is &
was from the very beginning grossly overpopulated by wingnuts.  Basically,
it's become a freak show with the likes of lunatics like Tancredo providing
scary entertainment for the rest of us.

In a response to Keely, Roger wrote:
"There are also a substantial number of Black Americans in the Tea Party."

Who am I going to believe:  your statement or my lying eyes?  Absent proof
to the contrary, I'm going to believe what I've seen with my own eyes.

IOW, Roger, put up or shut up.  Nick provided statistics from a libertarian
delegate to the Tea Party Convention that 99.5% of the delegates were WHITE.
If there are so many "Black Americans" in the Tea Party, why were 99.5% of
the delegates WHITE?  And, of course, there are my own lying eyes that tell
me there aren't "substantial" numbers of anything but white folks in the Tea
Party.


Saundra Lund
Moscow, ID

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
nothing.
~ Edmund Burke

***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2010 through life plus
70 years, Saundra Lund.  Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside
the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the
author.*****


-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Joe Campbell
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 2:15 PM
To: Vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Vision2020] Teabaggers

A few comments on the use of the word “teabaggers.”

1/ Nick was not the first person to call folks in the Tea Bag movement
“teabaggers.” The term “teabagger” was a finalist for the New Oxford
American Dictionary’s “word of the year.” And not for the “sex act”
use of the term but for the usage that refers to members of the Tea
Bag movement – as Nick used it. Dictionaries have no political agenda.
They just register usage. In fact, teabaggers initially called
themselves “teabaggers”!

2/ According to the Urban Dictionary, “teabagger” has FIVE distinct
meanings, the FIRST of which is “one who carries large bags of
packaged tea for shipment.” Only one of the five meanings has the
explicit sexual connotation.

3/ Why does the use of the word “teabaggers” make folks “cringe every
time” they hear it? I’m no psychologist but my guess is the term has
gay connotations and the CONSERVATIVE – not libertarian but
straight-up conservative – folks in the tea bag movement are
homophobic. Maybe there is another reason that the term makes you
cringe, Dan, but if there is I don’t get it. Maybe it’s just the
sexuality of the connotation but when my softball teammates call me a
“baller” I laugh, I don’t cringe.

4/ Teabaggers pretend to be libertarian but how many of them voted for
a state constitutional amendment against gay and lesbian marriage?
Let’s face it, once you give the state the right to tell you whom to
MARRY, you’ve crossed over to the non-libertarian side of the
political spectrum. Like Garrett, I applaud much of the teabaggers’
platform, especially the limitation of “government intrusion.” As Nick
notes, teabaggers are for “economic liberty” not freedom from
government intrusion. And they are not for economic liberty for all.
Otherwise, why on earth wouldn’t they favor gay and lesbian marriages
so that gays and lesbians can enjoy the same tax benefits as straight
married couples? This is just standard George Bush, religious-right
conservatism wearing a new hat. If it were otherwise, it would have
started long before Obama was elected.

5/ Dan, as much as I like and respect you, you are a hypocrite, as
Garrett suggested. You POSTED on Tom Forbes’ website back when he had
a tagline that was insulting to academics, like myself. When the
Christ Church guy held up the sign that said that Linda Paul, Tom
Lamar, and Aaron Ament were bigots, you told me in an exchange on the
Daily News blog that the right approach to insulting “idiots” was to
ignore them. You even went so far as to openly criticize Tom’s wife
and daughter for confronting the Christ Church bigot guy. Dale
Courtney essentially called all liberals and progressives “communists”
in the header of his blog for years – a practice that is shared each
day by Rush and Beck – and I never hear a peep from you about that. As
much as it bothers you to hear the word “teabagger,” how would you
like it if folks regularly called you a “communist”? My brother, my
father, and my grandfather fought in wars against communists to help
secure our freedoms and I can tell you I don’t like it one bit. I’ve
never heard you condemn the usage of that term in reference to
liberals and progressives.

I’ll tell you what. The next time that Donovan Arnold, or some other
Christ Church dupe, writes an insulting comment following a post by
Nick, or Tom, or Keely and you make a similar condemnation of his
language, I’ll apologize for calling you a “hypocrite.” A slight
parenthetical remark here is not convincing. Sorry. Back it up with
action. Please.

6/ I’m going to continue to use “teabaggers.” It reminds everyone of
how out of touch the movement is, and how hastily developed it was.
Anyone who forms a political movement without taking enough time to
research the alternative connotations of the NAME of their group
deserves to be reminded of it regularly!

The term is a reminder, also, of how narrow and conservative the true
aims of the Tea Party are. They are concerned merely with limited
economic relief for some, not liberty and freedom for all. They don’t
even want to think about gays, let alone afford them equal rights. It
is faux-libertarianism disguised as the real thing, the government
telling us whom to marry but giving us tax relief. Yipes! Essentially,
they are saying that they’re willing to accept the governmental
suppression of others just as long as they get some tax money back!
What a perverse “libertarian” nightmare.

Libertarianism is a tough row to hoe. It entails giving folks the
right to do things that are against your own personal beliefs, for it
puts freedom from the state ahead of all other concerns. I am far more
libertarian than ANY teabagger I know!

Best, Joe