Racism and the anti-tax crowd

This is a joke! "Obama Lies Taxes Rise"!! a statement of the truth is racism?

Liberals are terrified by the "T" people. The only card they can play is the "RACE" card because the "T" message is "spot on" exposing the fundamental flaw of Liberalism. When your argument is based on your own bigotry, people with a smidgen of Common Sense laugh at these silly LIBERALS!

You're looking at the wrong sign.

Who says it wasn't a plant?

The political left and their friends in the mainstream media are trying their damnest to discredit the Tea Party Movement. There are webisites dedicated to sending people to these events as plants to gin up racist and Hitler type protesters.

Sure plants, that is why no one ever asks the sign carrier to leave or get rid of the sign.
The Tea BAG party is white and racist.
Look at the crowd shots. I don't see anyone who is not white.

Let's try to be clear on a couple of things:

The Jason Lewis rally is NOT a "Tea Party". It's organized by KTLK and the Taxpayer's League. They've been doing them for over a decade, now, and there's NEVER been any talk of "racism" in all that time (other than the usual "Republicans want to freeze the poor!" DFL blood libels).

The media meme (and that's all it is) that "tax hawks are racist" started last year, when the left became terrified of the organic, grass-roots movement that's sprung up. It's a huge ad-hominem, and it HAS - this is a fact - drawn large numbers of "liberal" ringers carrying "false-flag" racist signs; Pajamas Media ran a nationwide project to publicize and bust them during the 4/15 rallies, with huge success.

KTLK/Clear Channel hasn't had to deal with these allegations before; I'm sure they didn't plan to have cameras getting photos of racist sign-holders. The Tea Party, having been targeted with the smear in the past, was ready, and in the Twin Cities made it known for deterrent effect. And it worked; there was not one racist sign at the 4/15 rally.

Now - do you think conservative racists would have made themselves scarce because of the threat of being exposed? Or would it be the provocateurs who would be embarassed enough to avoid the whole thing?

Think about it.

Get a grip on the racism of the entire conservative/Republican movement.

TI,

Ah. The old broad, unsupported ad-hominem trick.

Hard to beat that one. Yessirreebob.

Maybe it was a plant. Maybe it wasn't. But why is the Tea Party as strident about calling the person out? Or blocking the sign? Or putting a sign next to him that says "This person next to me is stupid?" Why doesn't a speaker stop, point to the person and say, "this person is an idiot"?

Why isn't it as strident against pointing out racism as it is pointing out that it might've been a plant?

In either case, it's racism and it's racism that pollutes a message.

Why not stop it in its tracks?

ChrisW, are you saying that a sign that clears draws a parallel between Obama and a monkey is "truth."

And you're wondering why your movement is fighting a perception of racism?

Really?

You can call Bush a chimp but not Obama?

"Maybe it was a plant. Maybe it wasn't. But why is the Tea Party as strident about calling the person out?"

Because the "Tea Party" is not a "Party"; there is no organization, normally. At the April 15 Tea Party we did have people with cameras patrolling the event looking for provocative and racist signs. We also publicized this in advance, along with our intent to publicize all photos and determine if they were legit or provocatuers. None - not a single one - was in evidence anywhere at the April 15 rally. Draw your own conclusions.

"Why doesn't a speaker stop, point to the person and say, "this person is an idiot"?"

Because that's not what you're thinking about when you're looking at a crowd?

I spoke at the April 15 rally, ready to do just that, though. I had no targets. And I worked in a Martin Luther King/Civil Rights act message (on the parallels between the Tea Parties and the Civil Rights movement, which are pervasive); it got a huge round of applause.

"Why isn't it as strident against pointing out racism as it is pointing out that it might've been a plant?"

Why isn't the left strident about pointing out anti-semitism? I mean, you've seen all the horribly anti-Israel signs at "anti-war" rallies, right?

Perhaps because most DFLers see it as a far-fringe tangent?

Racism - to the extent that it's not actually ringers - is an emanation of a penumbra of a fringe.

"Why not stop it in its tracks?"

Well, let's work on that. I'm going to try to a photo grab of the video, and run down who's carrying the sign. How eager are you to bet money it's not a lefty ringer?

"And you're wondering why your movement is fighting a perception of racism?"

Actually, after years of seeing the scabrous racism that the left throws at every black and latino conservative, I'm wondering why anyone takes the left seriously on the subject at all.

Speaking of which, Bob - what would you think about a DFL-endorsed gubernatorial candidate leading a bunch of droogs in a defamatory "KKK"-related chant aimed at her opponent, at a public parade?

http://www.shotinthedark.info/wp/?p=10836

Bob,

I'm not aware if the offending sign was in the video. The holder is (wonder of wonders) not visible in the photo.

But let's leave aside the (not-at-all-unsafe) speculation that it was a ringer, and play dummies' advocate for a moment. After the better part of a decade when the left referred to the President and, by extension, Republicans as "chimps", isn't it at least as likely that the sign is a reference to the "all yew conservatives is teh dummies" meme that the left has about their opponents?

Related question: Since you (and the WaPo, and *every* other mainstream media outlet) is exhaustively reporting on the fraction of a percent of signs at Tea Party rallies that are questionable, EVEN AFTER investigation has shown that a shocking number are ringers, and even more exhaustive coverage of the "violent" nature of Tea Partiers that has been manifested with exactly zero incidents of violence (while violence from the left has left deaths, injuries and massive property damage), are you wondering why your industry faces perceptions of bias?

//Related question: Since you (and the WaPo, and *every* other mainstream media outlet) is exhaustively reporting on the fraction of a percent of signs at Tea Party rallies that are questionable, EVEN AFTER investigation has shown that a shocking number are ringers, and even more exhaustive coverage of the "violent" nature of Tea Partiers that has been manifested with exactly zero incidents of violence (while violence from the left has left deaths, injuries and massive property damage), are you wondering why your industry faces perceptions of bias?


It really wasn't exhausting at all. All I had to do was see a sign with a chimp and a president. It was pretty simple, actually. Far more exhausting, I would imagine, is the gymnastics it takes to do everything but call out racism for what it is, wherever it is, and try to create a boogeyman to distract from the fact you're not.

If there's a perception that I am biased against those who are racist, I guess I wear that badge as proudly as racists wear theirs.

"If there's a perception that I am biased against those who are racist, I guess I wear that badge as proudly as racists wear theirs."

Well, no, Bob - the perception is that you (plural and singular) are trying to tar the entire conservative movement because of an infinitesimal number of signs.

And the "guilt by tenuous, circumstantial association" game leads Bob Collins back to Walter Duranty.

Why do you hate kulaks?

That's not really a basis for a civil argument is it? Presuming, of course, that that's what you (plural) want.

Winston, I don't believe I've ever called Mr. Bush a chimp but if I did, I'm sure you're aware that there's a huge difference between calling a white person a chimp and portraying an African American as a chimp. Right? You get that, right?

Huge difference? Sure.

Now, are you (Bob and plural) aware that there's a huge difference between a tiny film (let's assume some are NOT ringers) of idiots with signs, and a "racist movement?"

Because apparently the Times, the WaPo, and whomever makes up the Dems' chanting points are not.

Is that what the sign holder meant?

Why do you want to raise taxes on the rich and lower them on the poor? Simply - you stimulate the economy this way. It is called "Propensity to Spend". What stimulates an economy is people going out and spending. If you give money to people who don't have an excess amount of money they are very likely to spend it quickly - whereas if you give money to people who already don't spend all that they have every month - they are less likely to rush out and spend it.

As for the racist signs - there are so many people on both sides who are full out hate, remember the Bush Nazi signs - and now we have the Obama Nazi signs - and the signs that have monkey's and Obama - they are all vile and show that these people on both signs don't care about issues - they only care about whatever little issues are in their minds that they can rarely articulate and even then have no real grasp on what they are really meaning.

The real story, IMHO, about the Tea Party is their complete lack and complete unwillingness to get into details of what they want.

They say they want the government to cut spending- but on what and by how much.

They simply refuse to engage in any discussion of details - somehow thinking that Federal cuts won't impact "them".

"Why do you want to raise taxes on the rich and lower them on the poor? Simply - you stimulate the economy this way."

Well, no - you stimulate government revenue that way. They are not one and the same, unless you want the US to become a kibbutz.

It is called "Propensity to Spend". What stimulates an economy is people going out and spending."

Well, no. Spending stimulates part of the economy. For people to have things to BUY, you need to stimulate capital investment, to BUILD the thing to spend the money on. And that's where cutting taxes helps (since government is incredibly inefficient at stimulating efficient capital investment).

"The real story, IMHO, about the Tea Party is their complete lack and complete unwillingness to get into details of what they want."

Well, partly because there is no "they". The Tea Party has no central policymaking authority.

They simply refuse to engage in any discussion of details - somehow thinking that Federal cuts won't impact "them".

Well, again, no. The Tea Party is several million people, driven by a large, sometimes vague goal. To get "their" point of view, you have to speak to all of "them".

I'm one, and Bob'll prolly tell you I'm more than happy to discusss the issue. Park your stereotypes and bring you "A" game.

"The Far Right Mantra of simply cutting will never be done - even by the Far Right - at either the State or the Federal Level - and if there ever was REAL cutting done many of the people out their yelling to cut spending would move completely away once they realized that the cutting will hit them and their bottom line."

I remember people saying the same thing in 1980. Didn't happen then, won't happen now.

"As for Capital Spending" and Investing in the means of production - that will be handled by the increased purchasing as people who make things realize that they can increase profits by selling more which in turn means they need to invest in the means of production - simple economics."

Too simple, as it happens. Without the factory to build the widgets, people will have no widgets to buy. Capital serves markets most efficiently when it's ahead of demand, not trailing it (not so simple economics). If you run out of widgets until you can build a factory to make more, the market will switch to imported Indian widgets - or switch completely over to wudgets, leaving you with empty shelves and no market.

" Simply cutting taxes to them won't increase capital spending if they don't think that they can sell whatever they make - they aren't in the business of making stuff to just pay to store it."

Exactly. That's why tax cuts must be across the board, for consumers, investors, producers, the whole ball of wax.

"As for the Tea Party and what they want - it sounds like then they don't really know what they want and they won't know when they have achieved it."

Well, no - because there is no "they". The Tea Party has - again - no corporate policy repository. There is no "constitution" or "mission statement". You can not ask The Tea Party what it thinks, because there is no singular "it". Only millions of people; some of them very articulate about what they want and who they'll vote for, others not so much.

"Do you believe that we need large scale cuts in Federal Spending?"

Yep.

"Do you believe we need increased revenue also - or simply will should cut our way out of the fiscal mess we are in?"

I believe that cutting spending combined with tax cuts will stimulate the economy, making up an shortfall in tax revenues in fairly short order. Not only do I believe it, history backs me up; we saw this in the '80s and '90s.

"1) What do you want to cut?"

I don't happen to have a copy of the budget in front of me, but here's where we start:

* Means-test Social Security.
* Make all entitlements zero-based; start the budgets for each over every year, based on actual number of participants, rather than accreting new spending every year.
* And while we're at it, cut the number of participants; implement national time limits on welfare; spend less on direct cash entitlements, more on assistance (esp. Daycare) to get people off welfare and aggressively cut the dependency culture.
* Bring the troops home from Europe and Korea. The Koreans can defend themselves with ease; the Germans will have to re-learn how to (I'm not worried about the Poles). Adopt a more Jeffersonian foreign policy, combined with a French/Israel-like ruthlessness in defending real attacks on our interests.
* Scrap Obamacare. Give big tax breaks to cash-based medical care, to encourage HSAs, consumer negotiation and lessen dependence on third-party payment.
* Shut down the Departments of Education and Energy (for starters).
* Scrap all agriculture subsidy programs.
* Re-privatize the mortgage industry.
* Make it known - as a matter of legal policy - that nothing is "too big to fail".
* End the "war on drugs". Immediately, unilaterally. Legalize marijuana distribution, decriminalize cocaine (50-100 people are murdered for everyone that overdoses). Tax them along the same lines as booze or tobacco.
* Close the border, and implement a policy to get illegals into the system, with an aim to getting them to move back home eventually.
* Start selling off federal land.

How deep, you ask? I think that's fairly self-explanatory above.

So let's assume the guy wasn't a plant (and I make no such assumption):

Dear Sign Carrier. Get off my side (allegedly). You suck.

OK. Now - is it a whole lot worse that the DFL's endorsed gubernatorial candidate allegedly led a pack of droogs in chanting that Tom Emmer was a Klan sympathizer, at a Cinco De Mayo parade?

If calling their opponents "racist" (or having the media do it for them) is the best the DFL can do, I'm thinking the GOP is looking at a great November.

>>> Mitch Berg May 10, 2010, 12:12pm EDT
I'm one, and Bob'll prolly tell you I'm more than happy to discusss the issue. Park your stereotypes and bring you "A" game.

(Robert) Excellent :)

First - lets just say that if you want to stimulate an economy you get money to people who will spend the money - which is people who have the High Propensity to Spend.

As for cutting taxes, that is all fine but people are not going to start hiring people to make goods unless there are buyers - simple economics - and once there are buyers there are people who will meet demand by making the goods - either existing companies - or if they do not new companies will start meeting the demand - regardless of whether or not they get tax cuts - a "Pull Strategy" to drive an economy rather than a "Push" strategy where the government tries to stimulate economic sectors - give the people the money and they will determine which products they want and the companies will respond by filling those needs.

Now - that you are a Tea Party person:

1) Do you believe that we need to cut Federal Spending to get us out of the fiscal mess we are in?

2) Do you think we should increase revenue also, or just do it via cuts?

Given that almost 65% of Federal Spending is on three things: Social Security, Medicare and Defense - do you propose cuts to any of these?

If so, how much?

If not, what do you want to cut and how much and given that we live in a country where no one side can get everything it wants - what compromises are you willing to make to get what you want?

Robert - most of your questions were answered in the previous thread - where I think you deleted your comment.

>>> Mitch Berg May 10, 2010, 1:01pm EDT

Thank you for the post, finally someone who will actually list what they want.

I agree with much of what you note - however, here is the rub - you won't get agreement on most the points from enough people to ever get them pushed through and into reality.

Just looking at the Tea Party folks - how many of them will want to really means test anything - particularly since the demographics of the Tea Party (if they are to be believed) means that many of them would lose benefits.

Just a few.

* Any cuts to Medicare \ Social Security - even means testing - will be hit full force by every old folks group and every politician from both sides who depends on the old folks vote for office - because very few will want to give up anything and the others will be scared that they will lose benefits even if they wont' given the nature of how good politicians and special interest groups are at lying.

* Bring troops home - I completely - but we both know that we (and anyone else would be branded by the Far Right as Commies who are Soft on our Enemies - and that we "Don't Love our Country" - I would also cut spending on programs that aren't needed including those programs that the Pentagon says that they don't need - of course even the Reddest of Red State Conservatives will fight for every penny if the job cuts are in his or her district or state.

* Regarding agricultural subsidies - again - I completely agree - Americans should pay the full price for what they purchase and if small farmers can't compete they should go out of business and let larger scale industry take over to gain economies of scale. Of course lots of these subsidizes goes to Red States and those folks won't even hear of any cuts since they won't see the light of DC again once the voters in those states have an election.

* War on Drugs - I agree - but whoa let the Far Right spin machine lose on that one.

While I agree with much of what you wrote, the problem, IMHO, is that very few Americans will really support these types of cuts and again, IMHO, I just don't see a large enough majority for any of them to ever get a realistic chance of them coming true.

Which then takes us back to - what do we do to get out of the fiscal mess we are in?

"I agree with much of what you note - however, here is the rub - you won't get agreement on most the points from enough people to ever get them pushed through and into reality. "

Actually, most of the ideas I listed are pretty mainstream ones on the right.

"Just looking at the Tea Party folks - how many of them will want to really means test anything - particularly since the demographics of the Tea Party (if they are to be believed) means that many of them would lose benefits."

If you believe the demographics, they are the ones who haven't been counting on social security existing when they retire anyway. I think that'd be the LEAST difficult to sell on the right; its' been a mainstream-right proposal since Reagan.

"Just a few.

"Any cuts to Medicare \ Social Security - even means testing - will be hit full force by every old folks group and every politician from both sides who depends on the old folks vote for office"

Great stands for principle (which was what I based my cuts on) can be difficult. Duly noted.

" Bring troops home - I completely - but we both know that we (and anyone else would be branded by the Far Right as Commies who are Soft on our Enemies - and that we "Don't Love our Country"

Here, I VERY strongly disagree.

"I would also cut spending on programs that aren't needed including those programs that the Pentagon says that they don't need - of course even the Reddest of Red State Conservatives will fight for every penny if the job cuts are in his or her district or state."

Naturally. There needs to be a culture change on defense spending. (Scary part? Since Goldwater/Nichols, it's actually among the better parts of government).

"Of course lots of these subsidizes goes to Red States and those folks won't even hear of any cuts since they won't see the light of DC again once the voters in those states have an election."

Again - stances on principle can be difficult. But along with the cuts in subsidies would come cuts in many of the regulations that make farming so difficult, as well; ask a dairy farmer about the geographic prejudice built into the dairy setaside program.

"War on Drugs - I agree - but whoa let the Far Right spin machine lose on that one"

Actually, the farther "right" you go (to the libertarian side, anyway), the stronger the support for this. Socialcons oppose it - but they're at a low ebb AND showing interest in focusing on cost cutting.

"While I agree with much of what you wrote, the problem, IMHO, is that very few Americans will really support these types of cuts and again, IMHO, I just don't see a large enough majority for any of them to ever get a realistic chance of them coming true."

If "people don't support right out of the gate" were a reason not to try something, all African-Americans would travel with titles rather than passports.

Which then takes us back to - what do we do to get out of the fiscal mess we are in?

In which I invite Bob to join me at the next Tea Party - out in the crowd, talking with sign-holders, looking for whackdoodles, and actually seeing what the Tea Party is all about.

I recall reading a NY Times article where some interviews were done with folks at a Tea Party rally and one of the people when it was posed to them that decreasing Fed Spending might mean a decrease to her Social Security - then she said that maybe she needed to rethink the issue.

I think that Tea Party started out with some good ideas, however, they are too general in desires and without focus, I don't think that anything will be done since once anyone puts out details support will drop off from those affected by any thing such as cuts.

What is really too bad is that the Tea Party wasn't around while Bush was President and spending was zooming out of control with all sorts of things included unfunded Medicare Part D and two unfunded wars - which to be honest - is where I am bit skeptical of the Tea Party since they were nowhere to be found until Obama took office and then suddenly they explode after Foxnews pushes the idea.

The Tea Party is a grass-roots populist movement. Such things rarely produce articulate and detailed platforms.

I think you misread the tea-leaves, Robert.

While it is true that the movement began after Obama created more deficit in weeks than Bush did in years - the object of the Tea-Party's anger has been the old-guard Republicans (like Bob Bennett of Utah) who went along with the Bush constituency-buying strategy of acting like a Democrat.

But why is the Tea Party as strident about calling the person out? Or blocking the sign.

At Tea-Party rallies, the standard tactic for handling these people is to surround them and chant "Liberal!! Liberal!!". I don't know if this happened at the Capital but then it was not a Tea-Party rally.

Beyond that I am bothered that you take the time to associate a conservative group with a single instance of offensive behavior when you and public radio spent so much time and energy assuring the public that the violent demonstrators at the Republican Convention were NOT representative of the people who showed up to protest.

Why the double-standard?

What's interesting to me, Greg, is the gymnastics you do to try to equate a criticism of racism with a criticism of whatever political views you hold toward taxes. Don't make me link to the Charles Durning dance scene from "Best Little Whorehouse in Texas" one more time.

By the way, could you tell me EXACTLY where *I* assured people the "violent demonstrators at the Republican convention were not representative of the people who showed up to protest"?

I don't believe I ever did.

In my world, facts matter.

Oh, you can not leave this...:

In my world, facts matter.

...dangling out there and not expect me to jump on it, can you?

This whole piece isn't about "facts" - it's about perceptions. Yours, in this case; that a single sign at a Tax Cut Rally impugns the whole Tax Cut/Tea Party movement (that's absurd, even IF the sign holder wasn't a ringer, and even IF the "monkey" imagery did explicitly have racist intent, which you say it absolutely does, no exceptions, and I say "well, it's something one should avoid in polite company, but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and you really don't know for a...fact; it's your "perception".

You can call it "gymnatics" if you want; I call it "defending my movement from a blood libel that an entire industry is spreading, without any real justification or balance".

The thread sparked yet another discussion over at Shot In The Dark, where non-MPR people, er, gather to talk

What's interesting to me, Greg, is the gymnastics you do to try to equate a criticism of racism with a criticism of whatever political views you hold toward taxes.

I don't recall using the word tax in this thread. Nor do I recall trying to link my political views to anything.

I see I said something about "deficits", but I rarely get worked up over taxes, since I am not in a bracket high enough to worry about that sort of thing.

What I worry about is spending that exceeds taxes, even after taxes are raised.

But this is not about taxes, it is about an orchestrated media campaign to smear a group of people with accusations of racism.

By the way, could you tell me EXACTLY where *I* assured people the "violent demonstrators at the Republican convention were not representative of the people who showed up to protest"?

Perhaps my memory fails me, but I seem to recall NEWCUTS being rather adamant about distinguishing between violence and protest.

As for being "strident about calling the person out". I wish the media would have done that before the election when there should have been a major issue of Obama not being strident enough when it came to Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers.

Again, why the double-standard?