I wonder how many of those people actually take the time to fire off an email to their congressional reps. Most reply, Usually with a form letter at least. It'd be more effective then a protest that may or may not get press.

Also, I wonder if the media didn't show the protests becuase well, its not really that news worthy. We already know their positions. Fox news doesn't really have anything quickly available online either. so maybe its not just CNN, MSNBC, ECT.

But wait Mr. Eldridge we have been told over and over from the tea party organizers that this wasn't about Obama or the left, now you are telling us it was? Which is the truth.

Sam,

I have looked up some reports that there were over two thousand protest in all fifty states. You are right to talk about the censorship. Mr. Hendricks is such a wanker. The man has no clue what he is talking about. He opens his mouth and ignorance escapes. I shutter to think of this man actaully teaching school children. I do not know of anyone who claimed the tea parties were not because of Mr. Obama and the left. Who the hell else would the right protest? Mr. Ingalaterra is even dumber, if that is possible. Did any of us hear this goofball complain about the grade school kids in Chicago used by deviants in their parade?

Keep up the hard work Sam.

Before I forget, let me express my thoughts on Michael Jackson. WHO CARES? Thank you.

Well, sure, why not have another civil war? That seems perfectly reasonable. Lets keep America pure right? Hitler would approve. Hey g5, while we are at it, lets drive out all non-native speakers, and anyone who isn't white. Let's "cleanse the reprobates," as you have said. The dissenters too. If you aren't a conservative you have no place in America. In the Sham/G5/Sceptre vision, it is the land of the half-free, home of the phony brave.

HA, and you dare speak about Orwell, yet you argue for the cleansing of dissenting opinion and contradict the will of the majority; the foundation of democracy.

Your goofy ramblings are nothing more than empty talk. There is no threat of anything more sinister from the radical right than trumped up threats from old white men with nothing better to do than ramble (barely coherently) in online forums.

Monte - It is easy to get frustrated with these folks on the left. You have to remember that they have been programed, like robots, as the result of educational malpractice. It doesn't make Michael or Guillermo's insanity easier to deal with, it just makes it understandable.

Take Michael out of the classroom, and there are other robots, ready to take his place. Ready to teach the kiddies about Earth Day Global warming nonsense, or Heather has two daddys', or how evil the USA is, or how white people suck, etc.

Steffanie - Marcus, don't you find it interesting that these so-called enlightened individuals on the left, are not even the least bit upset about the obvious censorship? Of course, that would assume that the left wants to hear the truth, and they do not.

Here is my point.

If the left is correct in saying that folks who attend these protest are just a bunch of crazies, then why not put them on the air, so all can see the craziness? The opposite is true.

The last time there were tea parties, the left said FOX NEWS was behind it. So, this time, FOX stays completely away from the parties, and the media refuses to cover them.

The lapdog media, protecting their child Obama, appear to be using this plan: Censor until FOX NEWS covers it, then when FOX covers it, claim FOX is behind it.

One wonders how long the Obama media can keep up this ass-kissing frenzy.

"The way you can twist facts, truly remarkable."

Sam, I didn't twist facts. I believe I acknowledged that there was plenty of blame to go around. I didn't mean plenty for just the republicans. Plenty for both parties, plenty for every person in the California government.

For instance, you can look at the yacht owner tax loophole, which exempted yacht owners from paying sales taxes if they kept their purchase out of state for 90 days. The democrats tried to close the loophole for a long time, but couldn't because of republican opposition and the 2/3 majority requirement. They couldn't get the tax loophole closed until late last year, when California's economic situation became dire.

I then went on to criticize the California republicans for not being willing to play ball with the democrats and the governor who are trying to fix the problem. Yes, I'm sure the republicans in the legislature want to fix it their own way, which would consist of tax cuts and spending cuts. But they don't have the numbers to do it their own way.

The democrats and the republican governor had come to (what I thought) was a very reasonable compromise about taking steps in the right direction. Steps that would bring in about $18 billion in revenue. Half of it from tax increases (that the democrats wanted), the other half from spending cuts (that the governor wanted).

Of course, in order for it to pass, they need a 2/3 majority, which they can't get because the republicans are completely unwilling to play ball. To compromise even a little. Instead, they've chosen to essentially hold their breath, until they get their way, which they won't, and the state will go bankrupt. Then the republicans will likely say "see, this is the liberals fault!" despite the fact that the democrats were working WITH the republican governor to try and close the gap.

This is the lesson that BOTH parties need to learn. When you are in the minority party, you don't get to have things completely your way. That's certainly not to say that you shouldn't FIGHT for your principals, and TRY to get your way. But you also have to realize that you might need to be satisfied with compromise. And that gumming up the political process by being obstructionist just keeps things from getting done.

If the democrats in California had their way, they would probably try to fix the problem with $18 billion in new taxes. But the governornator has negotiated them down to $9 billion in new taxes and $9 billion in spending cuts. It's practically a 50/50 compromise. A compromise that any minority party should be happy with.

If the situation were reversed, and the democrats were the minority. I would be pissed at them. Pissed at them for being obstructionists, despite a governor-negotiated compromise, while the state burns to the ground (economically speaking, of course).

I also resent the implication that who Governor Schwarzenegger is "sleeping with" affects his politics.

(It's also an incredibly rude thing to say).

Many reasonable people have relationships with people who hold political ideologies counter to their own. Try to be a little more open minded. Not everyone sees things as black and white, good and evil.

G5/Sceptre,

Bet you didnt expect to see this:

"Liberals, just like "Ol' Massa", keep the underclasses in the dark and feed them a lot of dung,like growing mushrooms."

Posted by G5 on Fri, Feb 20, 2009, at 12:23 PM

"When I go for medical treatment, and I see a Black doctor, I wonder if he is there practicing medicine based on merit, or is a porch monkey advanced by Affirmative Action."

Posted by G5 on Sat, Feb 21, 2009, at 2:21 AM

"About you being 'Spanish', I won't hold that against you; let's just say that you are 'Genetically Disadvantaged'."

Posted by G5 on Sun, Feb 22, 2009, at 10:17 AM

I can go on and on, G5, I have every deplorable and "greasy" "hyperbole" filled nugget of racist bitterness you have spewed. Your true colors will show under your new moniker as well, it only a matter of time. But for now, I think everyone on this blog who knows how prone your tired old mind is to slinging the most illogical, least thoughtful, most racist things possible, knows not to take you seriously.

If you think that you are going to get away with your kind of hatred and idiocy without me embarrassing you in public, and showing off just what kind of person you are so that good people (your people) are repelled by the horrible, unacceptable, and unsuitable place your mind hides, you are in for a surprise.

I think it's funny as hell, Mr. Eldridge, that you think the reason Fox News stayed away from the Tea Parties this time around is because they were afraid they would be attacked for sponsoring the Tea Parties. That is an all new level of paranoia.

Do you think it is at all possible that the reason the Tea Parties weren't carried was because it was the 4th of July, the birth of this great nation, and all the news organizations, including Fox News, felt it was far more important to cover news pertaining the 4th of July, instead of covering a bunch of whiners who don't like Obama?

McCook1,

Haha! Good example. I wish I'd thought of that.

McCook1,

A very reasonable assessment. My only concern is that it seems to me the Obama=Hitler people have alot more control of the Republican party than the Bush=Satan people have of the Democratic Party.

That's just my perspective. It could be wrong (I am a left leaning guy).

Bush sold off the US to the Chinese socialist government that you think you hate. I say "you think you hate" because you don't know if you really do or not, you are just taking all your cues from conservative mouth pieces.

Under Bush the national debt grew to nearly $9.849 trillion, a 71.9 percent increase on his watch. This is more than ANY OTHER PRESIDENT IN HISTORY!! Yet, there were no tea parties.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/29/...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presiden...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lowq9vm41...

How much of that money was spent inside the US? According to usgov.info, it has been running somewhere between $9 and 13 billion a month. You do the math. Obama is AT LEAST spending the money IN AMERICA!! FOR AMERICANS!!

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekl...

In case that wasn't clear, when I asked how much Bush was spending inside the US, the answer I provided was in reference to the Iraq war ALONE. $9 to 13 billion a month on just that one war.

G.I.,

By your own reasoning, Obama is just as bad as Bush because he's going to be selling trillions in debt to China too... just for different programs. Well, except for the two wars, he's still following the Bush policy on borrowing for Iraq and Afghanistan. Actually, his withdrawal strategy is following right along with the Bush policy too.

His stimulus included a 2 year tax cut that is paid for over 10 years. Wait a minute, isn't Obama a supporter of pay as you go? Odd policy for a pay-go system.

I went to the first round of tea parties and most people were just fed up with the reckless spending Obama is trying to get in before the 2010 elections and the national debt and deficits that will increase at record rates because of it. Obama knows that super majorities don't last long and he's trying to get as much in before his fellow democrats start losing seats in 2010. I can't blame him for trying but it I don't have to like it either. Especially, given the consequences of pushing through such massive and financially burdensome policies not only on our generation but for generations to come. A perfect example would be what Johnson did when he knew his super majority wouldn't last long. We ended up with programs like Medicare and Medicaid that we still have no idea about how to pay for them.

The Democratic philosophy seems to be, "they're good programs, who cares if we can afford them?" and that philosophy has only been getting worse. Sad to say, Republicans did this under Bush too. We need representatives at all levels of government who have a plan about how they will pay for a program BEFORE they pass it. The people pushing the stimulus didn't even bother with the subject of how to pay for it.

If you want to talk about hypocrisy in protests then where is all the coverage of the war protests that plastered my tv while Bush was President? I have yet to see one war protest under the Obama administration.

McCook1,

I don't think GI was implying that HE was against selling treasury bonds to the Chinese government. I think he was implying that if Steffanie was against Obama selling T-Bonds to China, that she should have been just as pissed (or more pissed) during Bush's presidency, because he sold ALOT more.

As far as pay-as-you-go, my understanding is that Obama came out in support of that last month, long after the stimulus bill was signed and enacted. I think the rationale is that the stimulus bill was emergency spending to stabilize the economy, and that PAYGO in the future will help us balance our books.

This says it well:

"While short-term spending was necessary to get the economy moving again, our long-term fiscal problems became that much more urgent."

-Jim Cooper

And I'm going to disagree with you on Obama's use of the supermajority. While the democrats have been very proactive about shuffling through financial legislation, they have not pushed their other agendas the way I'd hoped. I feel that with many things, they are being too tentative. Partially because of conservative democrats, and partially because of fear of republican/conservative blowback.

I don't remember the republicans playing it so tentative when they had control of the executive/legislative branches. (but then again, they got their butts kicked out of office, so what do I know).

jhat,

I haven't checked your figures but I do know you can't compare a budget surplus with the national debt and expect anyone to take you seriously. If Obama started with an $11 Trillion deficit then the national debt would be closer to $22 trillion. Don't worry though, he'll get us there eventually.

It's also misleading because if Clinton passed all the health reforms he wanted that surplus would have went up in smoke... like a cigar.

McCook1,

My mistake, I accidently typed an extra 1 in my figure. I meant to type "$1 trillion deficit".

(An $11 deficit would be scary indeed, lol)

I'm well aware of the difference between the deficit and the national debt. In fact, one of my biggest pet peeves is when people don't understand the difference. Thanks for spotting my typo.

Sceptre, There is a word to describe what Barack Hussein Obama is doing. It's called Fascism!!

Break out the Kool-Aid!!!

Guillermo,

Do you really not see any difference in how the general media (not Fox or MSNBC) covered and portrayed Bush and Obama? Don't get me wrong, I was never a Bush fan, but your argument doesn't seem to have very strong legs, especially considering all of the other valid arguments you could make against much of what Sam says.

SW,

The media today is absolutely as full of insane and erroneous hacks making blatant populist appeals to a portion of the American public that is buying their sensationalism hook, line, and sinker. It doesn't take a very smart person to recognize this as thinly veiled payback for the left's treatment of Bush.

For example, the media has these Americans screaming about socialism. The problem is, Obama isn't socialist. I have lived in socialist states, in Spain or France or Germany, Obama would be further to the right than Ronald Regan. What is more, if one were so inclined, one could bend and twist damn near ANY leader to be socialist...

Bush spent like a socialist, Bush shucked off treasury bonds to socialist China like hotcakes, Bush installed a big brother watchdog program with the Patriot Act, Bush built a secret prison out of our borders that was not subject to our laws, Bush greatly expanded the powers of the executive branch....therefore he must be a socialist right?

See how easy that is? Now all I need is a bit of circulation and I can get a bunch of idiots to believe Bush was a socialist.

The final point: Bush received a ton of grief from the media, and often it was very harsh, and not altogether fair. But the majority of this occurred in his second term, and by that point he deserved most of it. You have to remember, in the beginning it was all puppies and ice cream for Bush. It was the media that portrayed Bush as the cowboy leader who had the backbone to fight our enemies and save our nation. It was the media that served as a mechanism to sell the American public on the Iraq war. Bush just turned out to be an incompetent leper and the media turned on him fast.

On the other hand Obama is 6 months into his administration, he is still a darling to many media sources, but give it time. The results aren't in yet. All of the later criticism of Bush were after there were tangible outcomes to see. Right now, all this idiotic criticism from the right is nothing more than hyperbolic speculation.

jhat,

I think you are a sweet-talker.../blush

Belle,

I told you so won't put that money back in my pocket though. How about making legitimate arguments in favor of fiscally intelligent decision making on the part of our representatives in government? You could also find good candidates and support them. If you can't find them, recruit some. If you can't recruit some, be one. That philosophy has worked a lot better for me than telling someone "I told you so" I only like saying "I told you so" when it relates to something positive that has happened.

Guillermo,

From the way I read what you presented,I thought your point was about more general media not the extremists. I agree it is fair to say those people are trying to denigrate Obama with the socialism charge. It's funny, before your comment I don't know if I can remember a time when populism has been applied to a Conservative argument. Although the shrieking heads go too far, do you not agree that in the past year, there have been much more movement towards a socialized style system than has been in recent memory?

I also find it interesting that if Clinton was a fiscal conservative, is the fact that government has strayed from such notions a large part of the dissatisfaction with the last two administrations? Or is it that people are too busy following thier parties mindlessly?

"...do you not agree that in the past year, there have been much more movement towards a socialized style system than has been in recent memory?"

In recent memory, sure. In US history, absolutely not. There is a strange underlining assumption in America that socialism is evil. It isn't. And if you are laboring under the impression that the US isn't influenced greatly by socialism, and if you believe that Obama is taking unprecedented steps towards socialism, you are incorrect. There are many aspects of life in America that through history have been based on socialist principles. For example, the founding fathers gave us a "free and public education," a socialist concept. The purely capitalist system would determine if is profitable to educate people, and if it was profitable, then people would be educated. I have said this before but it is worth repeating, an equilibrium between these two systems has contributed to America being as prosperous as it is, and also has made America a decent and honest place to work (usually). I favor aspects of both systems in our government. But I digress.

As far as Clinton goes, I wouldn't necessarily flat out call him fiscally conservative. For a Democrat he certainly was conservative.

But to answer your questions, I would say neither. I think Bush found himself in an extraordinary situation and made some critical and irreversible mistakes, the biggest of which was Iraq. These mistakes made it impossible for him not to spend and spend high.

Obama came to office under extraordinary circumstances as well, and after 8 years of paying for US tax cuts with Chinese money, as the economy tanked and the deregulated market threatened to collapse, I can hardly blame him for not wanting to follow Republican economic principles anymore.

The best example in our history of economic recovery is WWII ripping us out of the Great Depression and planting us right into the most prosperous half century maybe in human history. The idea here is that if big government spending on war worked to right the ship, why can't big government spending on green energy, schools, and road/bridges work too? It is a compelling idea, and if it works our infrastructure is ameliorated and the economy is stable. That is a pretty good upside. And it is better than pursuing a strategy similar to the previous 8 years. Nobody can say either way if it has worked or if it hasn't, all we anyone can do is speculate. But as decent Americans, we should all be hoping for the best outcome in this crisis.

"Clinton worked furiously, especially in his first term, with the economy and the budget, so you are definitely very wrong to characterize him as some wanton spender willing to sacrifice the surplus he helped create.'

This is also the year he began his attempt to pass his healthcare plan which would have been carried over year after year right up until the end of his second term and well into perpetuity.

"Clinton was fairly fiscally conservative for a Democrat"

That's really not saying much.

I'm not saying we shouldn't focus on health care as it applies to us today but that has nothing to do with erroneously crediting Clinton with a surplus because of his supposed "fiscal conservativeness." He fought Congress from the very beginning on balancing the budget.

He wanted to use his tax increase to help fund his health care plan but that didn't work out and what he got was, de facto, his only real contribution to reducing the debt. See, I just argued myself into giving him some credit even though it wasn't a part of his original plan. He contributed to the reduction of the debt by accident, I suppose you can count that if you want.

"The idea here is that if big government spending on war worked to right the ship..."

Ask the Bush administration how well big government spending on war worked to right the ship.

"There is a strange underlining assumption in America that socialism is evil..."

I wouldn't say that all aspects of socialized governments or that the theory behind socialism is evil, anymore than I would say the theory behind communism is evil. Actually communism is perhaps the best and brightest ideal I can think of. However, the reality doesn't match the theory.

You make an interesting point about education and free public education as a socialist idea. First off I would argue it is revisionist to label something as socialistic that occured generations before the idea was described as such. Should socialist societies that promote free public education then be called American Foundationism education by that logic? Second, what are the best schools in the United States? Are they the free "socialistic" schools or the private "capitalistic" schools?

"Ask the Bush administration how well big government spending on war worked to right the ship."

I am certain that if I did they would tell me it worked great. In fact, it seemed like it was working. The economy was pretty strong for awhile after about 2004/2005. The bottom fell out because of irresponsible lifting of market regulations, and wanton greed in the banking and loan industry. There is plenty of blame to go around for the economic collapse under Bush; just like there was plenty of praise to go around for the balance under Clinton...but each man deserves some credit for the situation.

"First off I would argue it is revisionist to label something as socialistic that occured generations before the idea was described as such."

You would be wrong. French philosophers (who were heavy influences on Jefferson and Franklin) had come up with the idea of socialism before America was a country. They simply hadn't called it that. As Europe industrialized and exploitation grew from it, socialist ideas and philosophies began taking root and began influencing Karl Marx's predecessors like Robert Owen, Claude Henri de Rouvroy, and Marie Charles Fourier. Granted these men were just boys when America was founded, but these philosophies existed before...them several decades before them actually. It wasn't until after the French revolution in 1789 that publicly expressing and publishing these ideas became common practice.

Think about it like this: Christians were not called Christians until Paul and Barnabas were in Antioch...does that make Jesus's philosophy and all followers not Christian because they didn't have that label?

"Second, what are the best schools in the United States? Are they the free "socialistic" schools or the private "capitalistic" schools?"

It really depends on the district, and how you are defining good vs bad schools (ie, standardized test scores, avg. GPA, community involvement, number of students advancing to college, etc).

There are many districts where public schools way out perform the private schools in nearly all measurable way. The converse is also true in many districts. The common denominator seems to be funding.

When you say you wouldn't call the founders of Christianity Christians, are you implying that a change in philosophy occurred? That is of course absurd...so then it is just a name, just a label, the substance is the philosophy. That was the same before and after Antioch for Christians. That applies to socialism as well...the philosophy existed and was practiced before it was called socialism.

As far as schools are concerned, that wasn't a non-answer, it was an invitation for you to ask a more specific question. If you familiarize yourself with research done regarding the success of public vs private schools, you will inevitably end up asking more questions than finding answers. The truth is that it differs greatly between locals, and some public school districts have very high performing schools, much higher than private schools. You have to ask yourself why? Well, the data is not conclusive but there are some strong correlations between schools that are well funded and high performance. The next question is, what is high performance? In the current context of NCLB it is standardized tests. But I disagree with that measurement.

Maybe you are starting to see that this is a very complex question you asked, and I would be happy to debate it as this my area of expertise, and I find it fascinating.

"Back to your point about French philosophers, who wants to listen to a Frenchman anyway"

Answer 1: I like listening to French it is a beautiful language.

Answer 2: The soldiers who fought under French officers in the American Revolution.

Answer 3: Jefferson and Franklin apparently.

Answer 4: Themselves.

The whole sham of the stimulus package was the fearmongering by those who were pushing it. They told us we just had to pass it and all these jobs would be lost if we didn't pass it ASAP and unemployment would go all the way up to 8.5%.

Now, apply that to the real world. 2 million jobs have been lost since the stimulus passed, only 50% of the money will even be spent by October 2010 and unemployment is at 9.5%.

Anyone who has applied for stimulus funds knows that it is only paying for projects that were going to be done anyway so attributing those jobs to this package is not accurate.

States have one year to award these funds to the cities and counties. If you read the "shovel-ready" requirements then you would know the only projects that would qualify would be projects that were already budgeted. States and cities are taking that savings and padding their budgets but that's not creating any jobs.

This bill was too poorly written to do what the backers of it said it would do. The intention of the bill (fund new improvements to infrastructure for example) contradicts the requirements for funding included in the bill (shovel ready projects). Environmental reviews, plans, specs and engineer's estimates and commitment to the project has to be submitted before the government even considers granting the use of stimulus funds. Environmental reviews alone can take several months or longer depending on the site and the bureaucracy of the various state and federal departments you have to deal with. It takes a few months just to review the documents too.

Any community that didn't have a project already scheduled to go with a good amount of preliminary assessment work done previously, would not have time to complete these requirements in time to submit their application for funding.

If states don't apportion all their funds within this one year window then those funds are distributed among the states who do have all their money obligated to increase funding for the projects that are already underway in those states.

When I was a kid in school I used to think the President and our Representatives in Congress were so much smarter than the rest of us and they got there partially because of how wise they were. I have been sadly disappointed but enlightened to the fact that intelligence in our nation's leaders is one of the biggest misconceptions of my youth, unfortunately. A wise leader would never push through such a poor bill knowing that it's restrictions contradict the bill's intent and a wise leader would be well informed of its content not just its intent.

How about 7 more years...they say out of chaos comes order, but it doesn't appear to be true for Republicans. They are still struggling to find some version of themselves they can market to America, that Americans will not immediately associate with shame, depravity, greed, and lies. So far all the kings horses and the kings men...it shouldn't need to be said but I will say it anyway, the Reps had better find a leader and find him/her quick. If not...well, I would love to see the looks on your faces when Americans elect Obama to a second term.

What a great counter argument...so full of hope and change.

I agree Steffanie, and I am so proud of America, because by electing Obama the people have said that they are willing to move past the 233 years of favoritism plaguing the morality of our nation.

What I absolutely love about you people is the lack of patience you have for anyone that doesn't walk like you, talk like you, act like you, believe like you, and most importantly doesn't look like you.

Obama has never been given a chance to succeed from the far right, from the very beginning. Then you start trumping up all kinds of charges against him, all the while, yelling and screaming that Sarah Palin should be given a break.

The American people were told from the very beginning that the stimulus would take 10-14 months before the economy showed signs of turning around, but apparently in right speak they think he said 3-4 months at the most.

You all are so silly. Let's not forget that you have no clue what the difference between socialism and communism is.