What Tom and Noam get wrong.

The people that make up the teabagger movement are so deeply invested in their perspective and world view that they are impervious to reason. They hate unions. They hate gov't regulation. They don't believe that health care is a right. They're largely xian extremists. They're hostile to minorities and deeply resentful of them.

Both Chomsky and Hartmann focus on the economic disparities in our society, but these folks believe- deeply- that the economic crisis is caused by gov't, not the corporations. So how do you find common ground with that? Furthermore, the timing of the teabagger birth coincides directly with the election of Obama and not with the beginning of the economic downturn and the bailouts.


You know what they say- you can lead a horse to water....

They are the most extreme of the right wing. The Republican Party will need to move even further right to get their votes. Democrats have no chance to win them over.

They could help Repubs win local and state elections. However, they could hurt the Repubs in a national election. The Repubs are doing their best to win them back. That was Palin's call to them last night. That they should join the Republican Party. In the end, they will probably return to their Party.

At the present time, they are in denial about their core political beliefs.

about their ideals? That's the real question. The propaganda out there is pretty effective, to say the least.

But we should also keep this in perspective. The Tea Party movement, is, at least right now, a fringe movement, even in the Republican Party, and the vast majority of Americans don't consider themselves to be Teabaggers.

To me they come off as a second "know-nothing" party, and considering what happened to that party, I don't think the Tea Party has any chance at success. Right now, they're just a thorn in the side of Republicans, or perhaps even the beginning of the end for the Republican Party. If they take over enough of the party, Republicans will keep losing more and more.

To me, the real danger is the vast pool of "independant" voters that never pay attention and generally don't know shit about what's going on, and will generally vote for whatever party is out of power. That's the kind of thing that can bring a democracy to it's knees. That and 40% (!) of the population not even voting. Technically, is that a democracy even?

then the Democrats.

I believe they are capable of organizing for state and local election but not in a national election. Just as they did in MA.

"If they take over enough of the party, Republicans will keep losing more and more."

Just like they lost in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Virginia!!!:eyes:

The repugs won NJ because Cornine was a crook. In VA and MA, they ran shitty candidates. Hell, I would have had a difficult time voting for either of them. The teabaggers had relatively little to do with those races, despite their and your spin. Meanwhile, they meddled in the NY House race, and they handed that race to a Democrat for the first time in 100 years.

I wonder why all the money Big Govt. spent on war never caused their voices to be raised. And as far as I'm concerned with the huge shift of money from the tax payers to those in the banking industry should of brought them out in droves in the fall of 08. President Obama is working hard to create a bipartisan hand in everything that I can't possibly understand why any of them is even upset.

Most of these asshats have been spoonfed all the GOOP talking points for 30 plus years. They don't know what it means, but they sure know how to say them. They don't realize how those memes work against their best interests as they've always been told that this is how its to be. When booosh failed...it wasn't cause he was fleecing the treasury and their savings, but that he wasn't "conservative" enough. Plausible deniability works like a charm as they never have to take responsibility and can always find a boogie man to blame.

No you can't argue with these losers, just make sure they don't get anywhere near the levers of power. They never question just bleat the talking points.

If they're going to purge their own "liberals" what makes anyone think they're ever going to form a coalition with real liberals?

Chomsky and Hartmann have short memories, or are blinded by wishful thinking. Hartmann of all people understands objectivism. Compromise is anathema to these people. To them there can be no compromise with evil.

Maybe Chomsky and Hartmann think they can use the teabaggers? That's a huge mistake.

These are people who think John McCain is a liberal!

just before the massive inflation, etc.

The only thing that will help is the "re-education" and "deprogramming" that they will go thru after the next war and fascist takeover.

We still have yet to touch bottom in this country.

And the next dictator will be uniquely "Merikan"...and the Nazis and their atrocities will be forgotton as a new horror supplants them...and they will be "ours"...

better get used to saying "pResident Palin"...

We will NOT learn in time...

Remember - "everyone" thought that Ray-gun and then bunker boy would NEVER have a chance in hell of getting elected either!

Where do you people come up with crap like this?

The working class in this country is invisible, judging from media coverage-- but they're everywhere, and they're in a terrible spot these days. They're angry because they feel they've been cheated, and they're right. They've been exploited by big-money interests, using both parties.

The only people speaking to this group are right-wing propagandists, scapegoating their political enemies in the most ridiculous ways. Their political opposition is sitting idly by, convinced that there's no reason to speak to, much less actually help, the angry nobodys. That's the comparison.

I don't have time to teach you the history, but you're not even close.

People look for scapegoats in economic hard times. Is that simple enough?

By the way, you're awfully snarky for someone who just spent ten posts whining about the poor treatment they get from other posters. Grow some skin.

Nothing snarky about it. Weimar Germany wasn't about "People look for scapegoats in economic hard times."

Your understanding of history leaves a great deal to be desired. You ignore the German Revolutions, Bismarck, Realpolitick, the Franco Prussian War, WWI, war reparations and humiliation, rampant anti-Semitism that had nothing to do with "economic hard times," the cult of the personality of Adolph Hitler, the effects of the Russian Revolution, Prussian military tradition, the German monarchy, the German aristocracy, . . .

during the roaring 20s before the Great Republican Depression hit.

Hitler blamed the Jews to a large extent and the Communists to a lesser degree as having stabbed Germany in the back causing it to lose The Great War. Germany occupied foreign land and yet got the short end of the stick, so this resonated with the German People.

There was open war fare in the streets between the Nazis and the Communists prior to Hitler rising to power.

Hitler quickly abandoned and betrayed the Brown-shirts after he succeeded to power having it's leadership assassinated.

Group was played against group and scapegoats for Germany's economic calamity were in abundance and this blind hatred led to Hitler's rise and World War II.

That's what fascism is about. It's actually nothing more than a pure power grab.

Normally you have a dominant economic group adopting a philosophical underpinning in order to justify knocking off the old dominant power. In the West you had industrialists knocking off the aristocracy. As you went east this occurred with less success. In Germany the aristocracy, still clinging to power (a la von Hindenburg) figuring they could use Hitler. They were just plain old wrong. However what Hitler had to offer was a uniquely German philosophical underpinning and he was able to walk into the vacuum.

That's why he resonated with the German people. The anti-Semitism was just a gimme. Goebels revealed all when he said "We decide who is Jewish."

Germany's "economic calamity" is an exaggeration. Germany suffered along with the rest of the world but it wasn't really as bad as a lot of other places. The humiliation of losing WWI and having to make war reparations, and losing Alsace-Lorraine, certainly played on the German psyche.

either from the Treaty imposing war reparations which would've taken until the end of Reagen's second term to pay off, or the hyperinflation which began in the early 20s.

The average German's world was crumbling and they were looking for answers, the leaders didn't want to tell them the truth and thus scapegoats were indeed part of the equation Goebbels' statement has no effect on that dynamic.

Hindenburg called on Hitler because the Nazis had made major gains in the Bundestag and those major gains came due because corruption, incompetence, polarization and brain washing of the German People on a national level was rampant. That was the direction, the political power was blowing and Hindenberg knew it.

I believe today's corporate supremacists; along with most of the corporate media are trying the same play, I believe that's what the teabag movement is about, but the teabag protesters are being deceived, just as the German People were, whether they believed in the Nazi Party or not.

Therefor I believe it would be wise for liberals, progressives, moderates, independents and even true conservatives to engage, educate and enlighten the tea bag protesters instead of using polarization and alienation to send them further in to corporate supremacists hands.

"The average German's world was crumbling and they were looking for answers"

Except the average German's world wasn't crumbling. Things were actually improving for them and, as I said, Germany wasn't hit nearly as hard by the Great Depression as many other places--including here.

"I believe today's corporate supremacists; along with most of the corporate media are trying the same play,"

I believe this to be demagoguery. We have a tradition. That may be intangible, but that doesn't mean it is so easily trampled.

Germany didn't have that tradition. That's my point.

"Therefor I believe it would be wise for liberals, progressives, moderates, independents and even true conservatives to engage, educate and enlighten the tea bag protesters instead of using polarization and alienation to send them further in to corporate supremacists hands."

I'm sorry you suffer from this delusion. I really am sorry because teabaggers aren't going to see the light.

We already have a majority. Remember? You're basically saying that you want to split the coalition that comprises this majority in order to win over people who remain Bush apologists to this very day.

Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.

during the 20s before the Great Depression of the 30s even hit the rest of the developed world.

Do you honestly believe the American People haven't been brainwashed by their own corporate media in large part to serve the best interests of the oligarchs and mega corporations?

Anyone can see the light if they believe it's in their best interests, this is my point, you give up too easily.

I'm not suggesting giving up any majority, I'm suggesting we engage and educate the lost ones as to who the real culprits behind much of their dissatisfaction is, this would result in larger majority.

It's not a very well-informed rant, but it's still nice.

Oy.

I didn't mean to rattle your world.

Peace to you.

But I don't think anyone really disputes that the bad economic climate contributed to Hitler's message and it's easy reception. Toss out all the nouns you like, though.

but it was far more complicated than just having bad economic times.

I do see a mutual interest in shaking up a corrupt and immovable two-party system.

We can do this by creating a third and fourth party at the same time. This could go a long way in bringing about election reform - simply by creating more choice for voters. Incumbents will feel less safe, and voters will have more choices. But the only way to make it work for either end of the spectrum is by running two new parties together. The "alliance" begins and ends there.

Democratic Party stands for on TV, Obama does not count
He is the President and is supposed to make cases.

There is division in Tea Party. There Democrats and
Independents in Tea Party. As usual we simply let
the Republicans bring them into their group because
we are too snobbish to even try . At the Palen gathering
there seemed to be more RR than Teabaggers.

and I've heard plenty of dems on TV make a case for what the dem party stands for. Start with Howard Dean.

I'm quite familiar with Thom. He was a Vermonter for years.

Got a relevant response?

But if you want one that is more substanitive; why did you say they are "impervious to reason" when it is obvious fact that they suck in reason like a sponge, the problem is they will suck in any reason, rational or not, that is handed to them. It is beyond me to understand why Democrats have not tapped into this anger. Is there no Democrat who is smart enough to show them we are the solution, not the problem? Why do they invite Marsha Blackburn to speak and not Al Franken for instance? Do you not think our message is persuasive? For goodness sakes, if someone as poorly prepared to speak as Palin can woo them why can't we? If they are simply clay why aren't we the modelers?

OK. first of all, reason isn't emotionally based. they don't soak up reason. that's just about the most absurd claim I've seen re the teabaggers. Why do they invite Blackburn and not Franken? Uh, because they agree with batshit crazy Marsha, that's why. Our message can be persuasive to those who are willing to listen. It's damned clear that ain't the teabaggers. And I certainly did not say they're simply clay. I said the opposite of that. try reading.

Posters here at DU, like the one you're chatting with, think they have something in common with teabaggers. Yet they jump all over people like me who don't disagree with them on any issue, other than whether to stab Democrats in the back?

Isn't something very, very wrong with this picture?

A voter owes no politician his vote.

The politicians stab the average voter in the back when they beg for their votes but then work for the benefit of the corporations.

. . . just because I don't buy into your righteous indignation?

And it justifies you all turning toward people who supported and would still support George W. Bush?

Sorry bud, but that righteous indignation is as reckless and irrational as the teabaggery.

Just pointing out that I do not owe my vote to any politician.

And I've seen plenty of "lashing out" and "righteous indignation" from people on your side too.

The issue is that Chomsky, Hartmann, and apparently you think you can eschew people like me who support every single thing you want and form an alliance with people like Sarah Palin, the keynote teabagger.

Cali is suggesting that if you think this is the case then you're out of your fucking mind and I am agreeing with her.

No one is telling you that you owe anyone anything, but I don't owe you my respect either. If you're going to be idiotic (and supporting teabaggers is idiotic) then you have no business expecting validation from me.

I was only responding to your "stabbing Democrats in the back" meme about those who are fed up with the intransigence of Democratic politicians.

As soon as Obama and the Dems started their inevitable rightward drift there were some here who started "reflexive hippie punching" to use a phrase I read a lot on another progressive board to indicate denigration of those of us further left than Obama.

Purist, poutrage, wanting a pony, there are a lot of terms used for those of us who are dissatisfied with the Democratic politicians at the moment, none of them complimentary.

How is it a meme? That's exactly what Chomsky and Hartmann are advocating and it was the whole point of Cali's opening post.

DU has been around this particular merry go round so many times I long since lost my lunch, dinner, breakfast and midafternoon snack.

Cali has considerable history here and her views are quite well known, she is a bit of a polarizing figure actually.

Personally I don't think the teabuggers will ever vote Dem and I think it's a waste of time to even think about it. I know a couple of people who fall into that category and if you finally think you might win an argument with them they finally will grudgingly admit something like "all politicians are the same" but you will never ever get them to see any Dem as superior to any Republican.

So why are the merry go round?

It may not be the way it was used in this particular instance but that's the way it has been used many times in the past.

As I said originally, who is backstabbing whom?

I think it's the politicians backstabbing those who voted for them.

We need all the support we can get to get as much of our agenda through as possible. When people fail to support Obama they undermine his ability to do that.

I call that backstabbing.

If you don't support Obama in everything he does you are backstabbing us..

Who is "we" anyway?

I don't and indeed I will never agree with a mandate to buy private insurance for just one item, there are plenty more that I don't agree with, far too many to get into here.

Repubs are far more team players than Dems, we have a great many more individualists among us and there are a lot of us who just don't push worth a damn. You might herd Republicans with fear but there are a great many Dems who are just flat weary unto reverse peristalsis of hearing the fear card played time after time.

No one ever said anything about "support Obama in everything he does."

This is why you and yours have no credibility. You are vocal, but you're very much a minority and you will stay a minority because your way is a dead end.

Hear me know and believe me later.

You want total support for Obama with no questions asked and you're not going to get it, any criticism of Obama from the left is met every single time with the same old "purist", "you want a pony" crap..

It is *your* side, not mine that wants Obama to move toward the teabuggers, Obama is the one stabbing progressives in the back with private mandates which he criticized during the campaign and now supports.

As I said originally, it's the politicians doing the backstabbing not the voters, we owe no politician our vote.

"Side" is the wrong word. A vocal minority has taken to undermining Barack Obama and Democrats. This has had a negative effect on the Democrats' ability to push through their agenda and it has aided and abetted Republican obstructionism.

The polling does matter.

I call that backstabbing. I would like to think the motives of the small minority are good, even though theirs is a fool's errand, but I'm not so sure. I think there's something dysfunctional at play.

As for things others have said to you, that justifies nothing. Do you want to undermine Democrats and aid and abet Republican obstructionism? If so, then I salute you because you're doing a fine job. If not, then you really ought to do some serious introspection.

If they pass a private mandate after Obama ran specifically against such a mandate they deserve no support.

It's my belief that a private mandate will end up being a calamity for Democrats, their electoral Waterloo if you will.

And you were whining a few posts back about what others were saying to you, it's a bit hypocritical now to point that particular finger at me.

Edited to add:

And then right after I finish this post I see an OP pointing out that the House Rep who raised the most money of all from the most individual donors is none other than outspoken and unapologetic liberal/progressive Alan Grayson. It's timid centrism that is killing the Dems, not those of us on the left who want the Dems to be more aggressively liberal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7675028

I don't think you are all that representative of Democrats, if you are a Democrat. But I can point my finger at you all I want to, regardless of your allegations.

Elections tend to be close. When you draw off support or spread negativity, you can affect the outcome. I do hope you're more marginal than I think you are because I want Democrats to win and Republicans to lose.

I don't think I've been hypocritical at all. Quite the contrary. This has been my position all along, along with my disrespect for those spreading negativity.

The Democratic politicians are doing that themselves by being wishy washy and not standing up for anything.

Why should I care if Democrats win if they are going to act like Republican lites? In a race between a Republican and a Dem trying to act like a Republican the real Repub is going to win almost every time.

It's interesting and revealing that you will not respond to the fact that Alan Grayson, unapologetic liberal, raised more money than any other House member and from more individual donations.

Alan Grayson shows us that a great many Americans desperately want politicians who will stand up for them against the corporations and the Republicans, not trip all over themselves to be "bipartisan".

I'll never be able to explain it to you.

I support Alan Grayson but I don't see him doing what you're doing. I support what Grayson is doing because he is constructive. I don't support you because I don't find what you're doing to be at all constructive.

Pointing out that Obama has not kept his campaign promise regarding individual mandates?

I've already said I think reaching out to teabuggers is useless which I though was what you were against.

Are we no longer allowed to speak out against policies that we think are damaging and wrong?

Is automatic and unthinking support for any policy that Obama might choose the only allowed position?

Sorry, but I can't help you.

If you can't specifically tell me what I'm doing that you think is so bad then I have to assume you can't think of anything.

You obviously disagree. You're entitled to disagree.

I think you're being foolish, but so be it. I think the majority of us can still get it done without you and if you're really a supporter of the agenda, maybe you will come around.

Clearly, part of it has to do with no criticism of Obama from the left on any matter, whether he is doing the complete opposite of what he said he was going to do during the campaign or not.

Since the only criticism of Obama I have made in this conversation with you is that he is pushing for an individual mandate when he campaigned on exactly the opposite then I have to conclude that you think criticism of Obama on any matter, at least from the left, is wrong.

Nor am I inclined to quibble with you over it.

As I said, you're entitled to your opinion.

If it is not what Obama laid out during his campaign, which it clearly isn't since he is now in favor of something he specifically rejected during the campaign?

It is a truism that one of the consequences of lying is that most people don't believe you after you have done so.

I guess I'm just not morally flexible enough to keep up with President Obama.

I don't care to itemize them out or to quibble about any minor differences.

I am also assuming that you're on the up and up here. I know for a fact that a lot of the people whipping this all up are Freeps who are laughing their asses off exploiting the weaknesses that people like you deliver to them on a silver platter.

Giving people time to get a job done isn't "morally flexible." It's practical. No one has lied to you. You have no business expecting any one or anything to be perfect. Your problem is that you're unrealistic and unreasonable, IMHO.

But as I've said, you have a right to be unrealistic and unreasonable. I have a right to not respect that.

Pretty well fits my definition of moral flexibility.

And you clearly want an individual mandate, I do not and will not, we therefore do not want the very same things.

I have over 10,000 posts on DU and a donor star to boot, if you think I'm an undercover freeper than you must admit I'm a generous, tenacious and prolific one.

Edited to correct awkward phrasing.

So now you're just making shit up.

You could be a generous, tenacious and prolific one. How would I know? I'm just telling you that I know they exist because people have bragged to me about doing it, and they just love DUers like you. Why wouldn't they? What could be better than dissension and division amongst us, and luring posters like you into a dead end with teabaggers?

If you can make up facts then your definitions aren't worth a damn either.

And yet you get upset at people who criticize him on the basis of his flip flop on private mandates.

If you look at my posts you'll see that my criticisms of Obama are all from the left, not the right, hardly freeperlike.

Oh, and OMC (Thank Gawd It Passed) and I clashed many times here over the years..

you're making that up too.

What he intends to do isn't that important. It's about what he can do. He cannot get single payer passed. How does he know? He can count votes.

As for whether you are from the left or the right, I'm not impressed. Whether you're using people or they're using you, the net result is the same.

Negotiation 101 Fail..

Obama's supposed to be a good poker player, he knows better.

He did count the votes. He was trying to work within the realm of the possible and unfortunately within the realm were Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman, the Senator from the State of Aetna.

This is just glaringly obvious. Do you miss the obvious because you're too simple to see it or are you being obtuse?

... you can't handle simple facts.

I can put a troll like you on ignore all by myself.

SEE YA! :)

I think it's unfortunate. We have a lot of serious problems to work on. I don't think the gamesmanship is constructive and I want to see Republicans crushed.

By the way, a hard core "conservative" friend of mine just told me that she's close to 1,000 posts here and that she even has a heart. I may be talking to her here and I wouldn't even know it. So perhaps it's even more "interesting" here than you think.

and this disappointed me greatly, because normally I very much like the guy.

NM.

Where was that anger when bush was in office? Where were the protesters when there was massive job losses WHILE bush was in office? Where was their anger when bush authorized spying on U.S. citizens?

The teabaggers weren't out on the street, the last time they protested was to stand across the street and yell at Al Gore to get out of "Cheney's house".

The teabaggers are racist, homophobic, xenophobic anti-anything left of Limbaugh, imo.

Liberals, the left, Democrats have NOTHING in common with those right wing extremists.

Of course you didn't see these people when Republicans were in charge. Their propagandists were still stoking their anger, though; still blaming minorities, liberals, etc. for the present day Teabaggers' lot in life. Don't you remember the irrational hatred from Conservatives during the Bush years, or all the exasperated questions by liberals about, "why they vote against their own interests"? Then, as now, they blamed the wrong people for their problems. But they *were* still angry, and rightfully so.

Why is it surprising that they weren't organized into TV-friendly displays by Dick Army, when his friends held power?

and the only real anger is because a black Democrat is in the White House. They couldn't give a damn about the rest of the crap they spout.

I will agree with the point they hate anything left of Limbaugh and that was there when bush was in office and is still there, it will NOT change and for Chomsky and Hartmann to espouse doing anything in concert with them is beyond ludicrous, imo.

He was saying we need a left-wing populist movement that appeals to people in the same circumstances as the Teabaggers. That is, angry working class people who know they've been cheated. They don't have anyone speaking for or to them.

Scapegoating propagandists like Rush Limbaugh are organizing the ones that are open to right-wing rhetoric, but no one is doing the same with left wing arguments.

Thom Hartmann is another case. He does actually advocate for infiltrating and converting these people, and that's ridiculous. He's naively optimistic about a lot of things, IMHO.

... with any unsavory element for ulterior reasons. For example, there's a lot of disinfo about Chomsky re the 9/11 inside job crowd (which is wide and varied) by those who are clearly using his position (he doesn't support the inside job angle) as a means to discredit someone who has contributed a great deal to helping average people understand how power/govt/corporate/state nexus works.

all the things you are saying about teabaggers might be true. But are they?

it's there on teabag sites and reflected in their literature and at their gatherings.

The teabaggers are the remnants of Bush's 23% and a handful of Ron Paul supporters. They've been raised on completely faith based ideas that require no evidence and cannot be refuted to them regardless of the evidence.

The free market is always right and will solve all problems.

The rich are rich because they deserve to be rich.

Government is always the problem.

Taxes are evil.

Christianity is the foundation of this country.

They are not a group of people that should be courted or respected. They should be ostracized.

Another HUGE point that somehow, my friend Noam missed. By light years.

they dont listen. I have tried. they have been brainwashed by Faux news and rush. they blame everyone BUT corporations. You can lay out the facts and figures in front of them and their eyes glaze over.

Noam's not talking about the 600 upper middle class white people sitting at a Tea Party conference. He's talking about the millions of Americans that, according to polls, profess some sympathy toward what tea partiers are doing.

We've already been over your incorrect claims that somehow the tea party movement wasn't around before the election of Obama. Would it mess up your paradigm to know that the first tea party marches occurred long before Obama was even nominated for President? Or that the same people were out int the streets marching in protest before Obama was elected?

When Obama took office, this pocket of unrest grew. It grew in part as a backlash to an increasingly bad economy. It grew in part because racists joined up as an outlet for anti-black obama hate. It grew in part as a reaction to conservative parties being out of power.

But it didn't spontaneously appear out of thin air the day Obama got elected. That's some highly revisionist history.



By pointing out - correctly - that there's little to no delineation between government and corporations, and to blame one is to blame the other.

No one, including Chomsky, is talking about leading Tom Tancredo to water, or upper-middle class white racists who can afford to by 1100$ go as a family and sit in a convention.

You're focusing on the 600 people and ignoring the (apparently) millions of Americans for which the message of frustrating with government, distrust of the establishment and desire for radical change deeply resonates.

The biggest mistake we make is to assume that people that don't agree with us are lost causes. I can't tell you the number of people I have befriended who have been die-hard Glen Beck fans, who were ultimately persuaded to think differently because I didn't assume they were racists, or assume they were stupid, or assume they were pathetic or beyond reach.

This includes my formerly evangelical fundamentalist, anti-government, ultra conservative parents. Well, that's what they were ten years ago. Today they are liberal activists working to combat poverty and homelessness in our community. They credit their political turn around to my tireless, patient attempts to reason with them and redirect their outrage to where it belongs.

If I would have treated them like they "can't be reasoned with" or thought some of the things that have been said on these boards about conservative minded folks, they would never - ever - have changed.

The same is true for my many friends and acquaintances who were once angry libertarian types who now forward me news and information on social and economic justice and work on working class issues on a regular basis.

Again, there will always be some people who will not be persuaded, who might even be described as "lost causes." There are seething racists involved in the Tea Party Movement, and there are also people seeking to manipulate the emotions of others for their own callous purposes within the Tea Party Movement. There will always be some people who represent the worst of the worst and cannot be reasoned with. But they are a minority, even with in conservative populist movements like this one.

Because on the other hand, there are the millions more Americans who are angry and disillusioned with government, disgusted by wall street, and feeling that no matter how hard they work they are still getting screwed by the system. And those people may tend to be more political conservative or politically liberal - but the broader feeling of "enough is enough" is starting to become the same.

They may go to a tea party or shout at a rally because their sick of feeling used and a seeking something different. But their not professional ideologues. These are the people Chomsky and Hartman speak of. Not the 600 people in the room but the thousands of people in the streets.

And every time some elitist prick starts talking about how stupid the "sheeple" are and how pathetic "voters" are and the "ignorant masses" blah blah blah - it reflects the attitude that I think keeps our country in shackles.

I'd rather stand with so called "dumb ignorant hicks" and "sheeple" and "stupid uneducated dipshits" (all phrases uttered here in the last week) - than with pseudo-liberal elitist pricks who think that somehow they're going to "save" the country while disdaining the very people who comprise it.

Hi (this is Mike 03, Mike03, Mike_03 by the way--just gave up and got a whole new identity.

PLEASE listen to me. Noam Chomsky has been blaming the corporations for decades. Please check out the documentary MANUFACTURING CONSENT. You only need to watch the last ten minutes of that film to get his point.

Cali, another idea would be to read UNDERSTANDING POWER: THE INDISPENSABLE CHOMSKY, which deals so well his views about corporations.

I hope you get to read my post.

Hope you are well, Cali. As you hopefully know, you have always been one of my very favorite people here.

Be well.

I am so sad to see how DU has imploded. It used to be so great.

have been "de-recommended." This de-rec thing is a sham.