Rand Paul, Tea-bags, Republicans [FOREWARNING: Liberal Bias, Conservatives welcome]

[Lukas]

SO, because I haven't posted here in a while, and because I think that qcdn has a nice cross section of perspectives which I rarely enjoy on other sites - I thought I'd post a political thread and we can have a little back and forth (discussion). Actually, it's more of a compilation of three concepts I've been following but thought I'd best just compile them here.
Please excuse if some of these issues are like... months old, I've been out of action for a while

Republican Policy
I remember the Republicans vehemently trying to block Obama's $800 billion Stimulus package way back when, and just brushed it off as the usual pattern of the GOP slamming the opposition for reckless spending when they're not in office, only to end up throwing money around like it's candy when they're in power (further reading: Bush).

Then I read this gem of an article over at ThinkProgress:
http://thinkprogress.org/touting-recovery-opposed/
which compiles a list of 114 Republicans who openly opposed and voted against the Stimulus package, only to later praise its effects in their respective local district.

Further research led me to this piece by Rachel Maddow:

This of course begs the question: whatever happened to policy in politics?


Rand Paul and Libertarianism

Washington Post

Okay, bear with me here. Republican hopeful from Kentucky, Libertarian and Tea Party idol (I'll get to them in a minute) Rand Paul went around stating that he was opposed to government encroaching upon freedoms of people and (more importantly) enterprise. Standard Laissez-Fair, Libertarian response

But it gets interesting. When asked on national radio how he applied this philosophy to the Civil Rights act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, namely in relation the fact that these two pieces of policy make it illegal for private business to dicriminate against race, nationality or disability, Rand stated that he viewed them both as examples of government overreaching it's regulatory powers. He later clarified that he was not racist, and that he had not actually read the Civil Rights Act in full.

In a subsequent Rachel Maddow interview, he stated (and I'm para-phrasing because I cannot find a transcript or clip) that had he been around, he would have "modified" the title within the Civil Rights Act which refers specifically to private businesses. In general terms he's proposing that private business owners have the right to be racist as the underlying assumption is that they would suffer financially as good, god-fearing people would not take thier business there. Of course, Black people would have had to wait an unspecified period of time for the market to HYPOTHETICALLY adjust social attitudes before they could have their rights (fingers crossed), but that's just a minor oversight. Yes, forget inalienable rights and all that jazz, there's an economy to run.

Naturally he spent the next few days shying away from his comments. Wow... I had no idea that there was still lingering doubts about the Civil Rights Act. This all brings out what I see as fundamental flaws in Libertarian policy-making. How "unregulated" does one reallly want the market to be, considering private enterprise has a sneaky tendency to shit all over customers in the pursuit of profit? Are industrial relations laws infringing upon the rights of private businesses? Occupational Health and Safety Laws? Duty of Care? Child Labour laws and age restrictions?

And what about the effect on non-customers? I read a piece on this the other day but I can't for the life of me find it. Is it an infringement for the government to legally force companies to abide by environmentally sustainable standards so we don't end up with another BP disaster? Carbon Emissions, waste disposal, safety guidelines, the destruction of eco-systems - the list goes on. History has proven that unregulated markets are great for profit at the expense of everything else.


The Tea Party Movement:
To be honest, I generally skip most stories about these people. Partly because I think they're fucking nuts, and partly because I watched a clip filmed at one of their protests against Health Reform and none of the individuals interviewed knew anything about the bill at all. I'm serious, none of them could identify one specific thing about Health Reform that they objected to.... only that it was "socialist". I admit I'm guilty of penning them off as the collective conservative/religious base who are disgruntled but are too ill-informed about everything to actually form an argument. I know they don't like socialists, or Obama, or "unamericanism", or taxes, or possibly black/gay people.

But seriously, what is their political platform? What are the issues?

 

[Thelona]

I agree that many of the republicans are hypocrites and just as guilty of being career politicians as the rest.

but I love how ppl are making out the tea parties to be nutbags when we had 8 years of this http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/ (warning NSFW a few of the pictures have naked hippies)
Some real legitimate political discourse there.

 

[Tristam Green]

I agree that many of the republicans are hypocrites and just as guilty of being career politicians as the rest.

but I love how ppl are making out the tea parties to be nutbags when we had 8 years of this http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/ (warning NSFW a few of the pictures have naked hippies)
Some real legitimate political discourse there.

Guess what, Thelona? Those guys are nutjobs too (except the exhibitionists. I think the only types of indecent exposure in the world are if someone's either having sex in public, jacking off in front of kids, or inviting kids to "come play" while having their junk out).

 

[Lukas]

I agree, there are nut-jobs on all sides of the fence. The pivotal difference for me is that we are looking at a movement which is a. Bankrolled and promoted by a television network, FOX and b. Bankrolled, promoted and orchestrated by corporate lobby groups under the guise of grassroots organisations. I can't think of any precedents for this kind of phenomenon, so excuse my ignorance if they exist.

 

[Halifirien]

Rand Paul has been a great gift this past week. It's a nice reminder to people that libertarianism -- like communism -- only looks good on paper. When you actually try putting it into practice you realize how deeply flawed it is as a system. I prefer minimum wage laws, food inspection, OSHA and lots of heavy regulation for industry. Corporations can't be trusted to police themselves. The cleanup of the oil spill in the gulf is going to cost BP a lot more than the safety measure they didn't put into place because they thought it was too expensive.

He thinks the government should stay out of your life... unless you're gay or a woman deciding to terminate a pregnancy. Then he takes an interest in regulating what you can and can't do. The apple did not fall far from the hypocrite tree.

The Tea Party is the Crazy Uncle wing of the GOP. They claim they're bipartisan, but their solutions involve electing Republicans. They "want their country back," but they're never very clear on who took it or where it went. They reek of smarmy anti-intellectualism (as evidenced by poster child Sarah Palin), paranoia and and Bircher awfulness. They are kooks of the highest order, and I have little doubt electing a black man as president is what set them off. The stuff they protest and accuse Obama of doing was just kittens and rainbows while Dubya was doing it.

but I love how ppl are making out the tea parties to be nutbags when we had 8 years of this...

If the lefties had the kind of media saturation the teabaggers get, I might agree.

 

[Lukas]

The Tea Party is the Crazy Uncle wing of the GOP. They claim they're bipartisan, but their solutions involve electing Republicans. They "want their country back," but they're never very clear on who took it or where it went. They reek of smarmy anti-intellectualism (as evidenced by poster child Sarah Palin), paranoia and and Bircher awfulness. They are kooks of the highest order, and I have little doubt electing a black man as president is what set them off. The stuff they protest and accuse Obama of doing was just kittens and rainbows while Dubya was doing it.

See this is my impression too. It's bizarre. Normally movements like this are focused on an issue, based on a disagreement over policy. I thought that because the media was making such a spectacle of the Tea Party, that there might be a genuine politcal platform there. From what you say, it's completely reactionary and a vehicle for all sorts of people with all sorts of motives to attach themselves to. That's... kind of scary.

 

[Nyosan~]

How does it validate your opinion that they're all 'kooks of the highest order' and racists because you think that "electing a black man as president is what set them off"?

Don't you feel like you're falling into the same trappings of bigotry by labeling them as a homogenous mass?

While there are certainly kooks on each side, dismissing the idea that there may be people with valid concerns in the opposition is naïve and doesn't do anything to resolve the situation.

There are rational people on each side, and I believe that there is a satisfactory solution that lies somewhere in the middle.

 

[Halifirien]

While there are certainly kooks on each side, dismissing the idea that there may be people with valid concerns in the opposition is naïve and doesn't do anything to resolve the situation. There are rational people on each side, and I believe that there is a satisfactory solution that lies somewhere in the middle.

What situation is there to resolve? To what problems are they the solution? There's nothing new about the teabaggers. They are the same tired, wealthy white Christian male conservatives we've always had, and they're really really angry at Obama for trying to help the poor and "undeserving." They're seeing socialists hiding behind every tree but screaming bloody murder if you try to touch Social Security or Medicare. They're chasing moderates out of the GOP and will only manage to shove the party even more to the right and further marginalize it (which is fine by me).

I don't mind conservatives. You can work with conservatives. These people are kooks.

 

[Nyosan~]

They are the same tired, wealthy white Christian male conservatives we've always had, and they're really really angry at Obama for trying to help the poor and "undeserving."

There you go with the stereotyping again...

The only real common ideal there seems to be in the "Tea Party Movement" is the idea that the government has gone so far into debt (due to the bank bail-outs, stimulus packages, and a health-care bill which has lofty goals but no real solution to the sky-rocketing cost of health-care) that there is no end in sight.

Again, I'm not saying there are not any kooks in the "Tea Party." I'm saying that it's misguided to immediately dismiss groups of people because you think you've got them pinned down.

Also, this habit of labeling anyone who doesn't agree with the current administration as a 'racist' really needs to stop. It's fucking ridiculous. I thought having elected Obama was supposed to be a sign that we'd gotten past this sort of bull.

 

[Nyosan~]

To clarify:

Yes, people who hold up signs showing Obama as Hitler are kooks.

Being concerned about mounting national debt, the expansion of social welfare programs which are already going to be bankrupt within the decade, and the future we're leaving for our children to clean up? Not so kooky.

 

[Halifirien]

There you go with the stereotyping again...

I'm not stereotyping them. There are polls and demographic profiles of the teabaggers. For the most part, they're old, white, rich and conservative Christian men. If they were really worried about bankrupting the nation, they would've been out in force during the Bush years when the government was using deficit spending for a prescription drug benefit that wasn't paid for, launching needless wars that had little to do with our national security, and cutting taxes on the wealthy. They didn't protest then. It's only when a Democrat is in charge that they suddenly discover their Fox-fueled outrage. Build all the nukes and weapons you want, but don't you dare try to build hospitals and roads or give tax relief to the lower and middle classes.

We have the state's teabagger HQ in my town. These guys were not voting Democrat before.

Being worried about the national debt isn't kooky. Being selectively angry about it is.

 

[Nyosan~]

I'm not stereotyping them. There are polls and demographic profiles of the teabaggers.

Here's the appropriate text in your profile:

Spoiler:

"Tea Party supporters are likely to be older, white and male. Forty percent are age 55 and over, compared with 32 percent of all poll respondents; just 22 percent are under the age of 35, 79 percent are white, and 61 percent are men. Many are also Christian fundamentalists, with 44 percent identifying themselves as “born-again,” compared with 33 percent of all respondents." So if you're not an older, white male, Republican, with money and voted for Obama, you're likely not helping bag the tea or preparing to cast it overboard.

To rephrase:
Sixty percent are under age 55.

Spoiler:

I can't find any data that specifically addresses a split at age 55, but it looks like it's shifted toward older people. I imagine it'd be much easier for one to attend such rallies if one was retired, and didn't have to worry about making it to work.

Twenty-one percent are non-white

Spoiler:

In a country where 75% of the population is 'white', is this very surprising?

Thirty-nine percent are women.

Spoiler:

Let's not forget that they make up half of the population.

Fifty-six percent do not identify themselves as "born-again."

Spoiler:

More than half.

1,000 people isn't exactly a huge pool, either. Who knows, maybe there would be even more old cranky white guys if they'd used a larger number.

Is there a shift toward older, whiter, richer, more Christian-y men? Yes. Do they make up a hugely abnormal portion of the group? I don't think so. Those are pretty fair margins, if you ask me, and not deserving of being labeled with a single stroke.

 

[Halifirien]

Is there a shift toward older, whiter, richer, more Christian-y men? Yes. Do they make up a hugely abnormal portion of the group? I don't think so. Those are pretty fair margins, if you ask me, and not deserving of being labeled with a single stroke.

I'm not sure you're reading the analysis the same way I am. It wasn't a poll of just teabaggers. Of the people who responded, the ones who identified as teabaggers were disproportinately older, whiter, richer, etc., in comparison.

And that's just one poll. There are others out there. The Quinnipiac poll was interesting because they showed more women than men among the 'baggers. The Harris Poll looked at their voting trends.

 

[Nyosan~]

You're right. The "Tea Party" consists entirely of old white rich assholes who want to subjugate all of the minorities in America, because they can't sleep at night with the idea that non-white, non-rich, non-conservative, non-heterosexual, non-male people may have some glimmer of hope. There are no valid concerns in the group whatsoever.

I'm tired of this topic.

 

[Lukas]

I'm just having a difficult time trying to understand exactly what their political platform is! I'm assuming (and yes, as a fallible human being I initially make assumptions to help me understand things that are foreign to me in the world), that their base is predominantly white, christian, and male - partly because they lean heavily towards neoconservatism which is a largely white, evangelist-dominated arena. Now, if there happens to be a significant black, Japanese lesbian pirate librarian with peg-legs faction, then please forgive me for being presumptious. As I said, I'm fallible and open to enlightenment.

It just seems to me that Tea baggers have no idea what they stand for either. Let's look at specifics:

• These people present themselves as a grassroots movement fuelled by everyman, working middle class ideals of "freedom" and "organic" rebellion.... yet the movement is engineered by big conservative players and lobby groups (see: Dick Armey & Freedomworks) and cosigned by Murdoch and Fox.
• These people are everyday Americans who protest against federal income taxes, despite the fact that Obama cut taxes for those earning less than $250 grand a year. Whose interests are they fighting for?
• These people are against Health Care reform, for no other reason than they were told it's "socialist". And I'm not saying that the Tea Party has an alternative proposal to fix health care, no. It seems they don't WANT to fix the system - what?
• They prefer further tax cuts rather than stimulus spending despite the fact that tax cuts have a very minimal effect on an flailing economy. Stimulus programmes on the other hand actuallly create new job opportunities while improving infrastructure and community welfare.

I mean throw me a bone here. If someone told me that all Tea Baggers were secretly high profile CEOs then their interests would make sense. I'm just ready to believe that they're a disgruntled, highly uninformed conservative base primed by corporate powers to partake in a battle that they don't truly understand. Even then, I still don't know the impetus here. If it's not policy then what unites the Tea Party? Indignation? Fear? Ignorance?

 

[Nicolette]

Lukas, the problem you're having is you aren't submerging yourself in the conservative narrative, you're trying to throw facts at it and hope it makes sense -- but your facts are spinning the wrong way to do that.

Change your thinking to this:

The 1950's were a bastion of American Enlightenment. 80%+ of the workforce was happy with their jobs, could support their families on a single income, including amenities, car, house, wife, children, and a vacation or two a year and didn't have to work themselves into the ground to do it.

The founding fathers were a single homogeneous group, possibly all living in a centralized location, where they amicably and intelligently (though not too intelligently of course) worked out a system for preserving liberty for all deserving Americans.

The preservation of such things as the Grand Canyon and National Forests was a great blow to national interests, and limited the growth of the mining and forestry industries.

Affirmative Action and Womens Suffrage caused the creation of "Special Rights" akin to what the "gays" and animal lovers are attempting to gain for themselves, and undermined American morality.

Limiting the size of a diesel engine, or any motor vehicle at all is a fundamental blow to the liberty of anyone who's ever even seen a 57' chevy.

Communism is not a red herring, but an evil insidious force, devoid of any external prompting it invades and pervades right-thinking American ideals. It must be watched for and weeded out at all times.

Internment camps are those things the Germans had, America would never imprison its own people on a racial basis.

Parkways.

Unions arose to exploit the working class, and cause inefficiency and bloated costs to otherwise benevolent corporations.

A corporation can and should do anything the government is currently, and greedily, keeping from the private sector.

Buying gold is a solid investment, because the gold market is artificially inflated, so the price of gold is something like 500% higher than its ever been, so now would be the best time to buy it. It can only go up, has intrinsic value, and the market will never crash on it.

 

[Reeve]

Lukas,

To comment on a few of the statements in your original post:

a) I think a lot of people in the tea party realize that some of the GOP tried and true are hopping on the bandwagon. Those are the politicians that are considered by them to be the problem and ones they are working on removing.

b) Regarding Rand Paul's comments -- not a bright move on his part but if you are familiar with history, you can easily understand where the slip up was and what he meant to say. Most people like to think that the Civil War was about ending slavery. It was not. It was (a) about the consolidation of power under the federal government instead of local states and (b) the economic impact the actions of the north would have on the states in the south.

Slavery was never a good thing and it should never have happened -- but it was ending. Incidentally, the first owner of a black slave was in fact a black man. Interesting court case about that but that is neither here nor there.

c) Regarding the "tea party movement" -- I consider myself part of that and I've read up as much as possible on the health care package that was pushed through. if you want my take in a nutshell, it increases government spending, doesn't address the real issues with the way insurance is handled, or creates the efficiencies needed to drive down rates. I think it will cost american companies and american people more money in the long run. Denmark has great universal health coverage but they also pay 70% in taxes and a stable population growth (not many people immigrating in). Don't get me wrong, having been unemployeed without benefits, having friends with medical conditions that are unemployeed without insurance, I am ALL for a universal health care program -- I just don't think the current plan adequately addresses the issues and will ultimately do more harm than good.


Halifirien:

This began before Obama was elected president during the time Ron Paul was running in the republican primaries. Many of the people I met and talked with didn't like Bush's policies and wanted "change" however we are still in Iraq a 1 year after Obama promised we would be out. A lot of people I met who support Ron Paul are actually democrats. While the media likes to smear things all over the place, I find that the reality of the situation is far different.

 

[Reeve]

It just seems to me that Tea baggers have no idea what they stand for either. Let's look at specifics:

Well, in my opinion, having volunteer a bit during the last election when Ron Paul was running for the GOP nod... it seems there is a general desire to change the status quo by getting rid of any politician that isn't honestly serving their constituents and working towards a slimmer, leaner, more financially responsible government. Not everyone in the tea party sees eye to eye, some are more moderate, some are more conservative, and some have different priorities regarding the issues. All seem willing to sit down and honestly debate the merits of the issue and work out a solution however.

These people present themselves as a grassroots movement fuelled by everyman, working middle class ideals of "freedom" and "organic" rebellion.... yet the movement is engineered by big conservative players and lobby groups (see: Dick Armey & Freedomworks) and cosigned by Murdoch and Fox.

Big Media tried to portray the Tea Party as a bunch of quacks but they are swinging enough polls that some are now hopping on the bandwagon and taking their side. The real tea party is about guys like us, its just the Sarah Palins jumping in and trying to steal the spot light.

These people are everyday Americans who protest against federal income taxes, despite the fact that Obama cut taxes for those earning less than $250 grand a year. Whose interests are they fighting for?

The tea party supports lowering taxes and I dont think anyone has an issue any politician doing that.

The flip side is responsible spending -- you can't just reduce taxes and not cut spending somehow or the defeciet will grow even further.

These people are against Health Care reform, for no other reason than they were told it's "socialist". And I'm not saying that the Tea Party has an alternative proposal to fix health care, no. It seems they don't WANT to fix the system - what?

Deffinitely untrue.... Almost everyone wants to fix the system its just that many feel the current health care package will expound upon everything that is currently wrong with the system and fail to adequately address the real issues behind it. I think many want to see health insurance reform and reform focused around the price of medicine.

They prefer further tax cuts rather than stimulus spending despite the fact that tax cuts have a very minimal effect on an flailing economy. Stimulus programmes on the other hand actuallly create new job opportunities while improving infrastructure and community welfare.

Well, the stimulus programs are not working. Unemployment is still a shell game with the numbers and people are still hurting out there.

That said, much of the stimulus went to prop up failing companies who only cut down on the number of employees -- it wasn't like programs in decades past that revitalized our infrastructure.

I mean throw me a bone here. If someone told me that all Tea Baggers were secretly high profile CEOs then their interests would make sense. I'm just ready to believe that they're a disgruntled, highly uninformed conservative base primed by corporate powers to partake in a battle that they don't truly understand. Even then, I still don't know the impetus here. If it's not policy then what unites the Tea Party? Indignation? Fear? Ignorance?

Well, im not disgruntled, rich, uniformed, and socially speaking, I am pretty liberal nor am I a catholic.

I think the motivation is a love for America and a strong desire to make the country better for everyone, not just the select few.

 

[Reeve]

It just seems to me that Tea baggers have no idea what they stand for either. Let's look at specifics:

Well, in my opinion, having volunteer a bit during the last election when Ron Paul was running for the GOP nod... it seems there is a general desire to change the status quo by getting rid of any politician that isn't honestly serving their constituents and working towards a slimmer, leaner, more financially responsible government. Not everyone in the tea party sees eye to eye, some are more moderate, some are more conservative, and some have different priorities regarding the issues. All seem willing to sit down and honestly debate the merits of the issue and work out a solution however.

These people present themselves as a grassroots movement fuelled by everyman, working middle class ideals of "freedom" and "organic" rebellion.... yet the movement is engineered by big conservative players and lobby groups (see: Dick Armey & Freedomworks) and cosigned by Murdoch and Fox.

Big Media tried to portray the Tea Party as a bunch of quacks but they are swinging enough polls that some are now hopping on the bandwagon and taking their side. The real tea party is about guys like us, its just the Sarah Palins jumping in and trying to steal the spot light.

These people are everyday Americans who protest against federal income taxes, despite the fact that Obama cut taxes for those earning less than $250 grand a year. Whose interests are they fighting for?

The tea party supports lowering taxes and I dont think anyone has an issue any politician doing that.

The flip side is responsible spending -- you can't just reduce taxes and not cut spending somehow or the defeciet will grow even further.

These people are against Health Care reform, for no other reason than they were told it's "socialist". And I'm not saying that the Tea Party has an alternative proposal to fix health care, no. It seems they don't WANT to fix the system - what?

Deffinitely untrue.... Almost everyone wants to fix the system its just that many feel the current health care package will expound upon everything that is currently wrong with the system and fail to adequately address the real issues behind it. I think many want to see health insurance reform and reform focused around the price of medicine.

They prefer further tax cuts rather than stimulus spending despite the fact that tax cuts have a very minimal effect on an flailing economy. Stimulus programmes on the other hand actuallly create new job opportunities while improving infrastructure and community welfare.

Well, the stimulus programs are not working. Unemployment is still a shell game with the numbers and people are still hurting out there.

That said, much of the stimulus went to prop up failing companies who only cut down on the number of employees -- it wasn't like programs in decades past that revitalized our infrastructure.

I mean throw me a bone here. If someone told me that all Tea Baggers were secretly high profile CEOs then their interests would make sense. I'm just ready to believe that they're a disgruntled, highly uninformed conservative base primed by corporate powers to partake in a battle that they don't truly understand. Even then, I still don't know the impetus here. If it's not policy then what unites the Tea Party? Indignation? Fear? Ignorance?

Well, im not disgruntled, rich, uniformed, and socially speaking, I am pretty liberal nor am I a catholic.

I think the motivation is a love for America and a strong desire to make the country better for everyone, not just the select few.

 

[Reeve]

It just seems to me that Tea baggers have no idea what they stand for either. Let's look at specifics:

Well, in my opinion, having volunteer a bit during the last election when Ron Paul was running for the GOP nod... it seems there is a general desire to change the status quo by getting rid of any politician that isn't honestly serving their constituents and working towards a slimmer, leaner, more financially responsible government. Not everyone in the tea party sees eye to eye, some are more moderate, some are more conservative, and some have different priorities regarding the issues. All seem willing to sit down and honestly debate the merits of the issue and work out a solution however.

These people present themselves as a grassroots movement fuelled by everyman, working middle class ideals of "freedom" and "organic" rebellion.... yet the movement is engineered by big conservative players and lobby groups (see: Dick Armey & Freedomworks) and cosigned by Murdoch and Fox.

Big Media tried to portray the Tea Party as a bunch of quacks but they are swinging enough polls that some are now hopping on the bandwagon and taking their side. The real tea party is about guys like us, its just the Sarah Palins jumping in and trying to steal the spot light.

These people are everyday Americans who protest against federal income taxes, despite the fact that Obama cut taxes for those earning less than $250 grand a year. Whose interests are they fighting for?

The tea party supports lowering taxes and I dont think anyone has an issue any politician doing that.

The flip side is responsible spending -- you can't just reduce taxes and not cut spending somehow or the defeciet will grow even further.

These people are against Health Care reform, for no other reason than they were told it's "socialist". And I'm not saying that the Tea Party has an alternative proposal to fix health care, no. It seems they don't WANT to fix the system - what?

Deffinitely untrue.... Almost everyone wants to fix the system its just that many feel the current health care package will expound upon everything that is currently wrong with the system and fail to adequately address the real issues behind it. I think many want to see health insurance reform and reform focused around the price of medicine.

They prefer further tax cuts rather than stimulus spending despite the fact that tax cuts have a very minimal effect on an flailing economy. Stimulus programmes on the other hand actuallly create new job opportunities while improving infrastructure and community welfare.

Well, the stimulus programs are not working. Unemployment is still a shell game with the numbers and people are still hurting out there.

That said, much of the stimulus went to prop up failing companies who only cut down on the number of employees -- it wasn't like programs in decades past that revitalized our infrastructure.

I mean throw me a bone here. If someone told me that all Tea Baggers were secretly high profile CEOs then their interests would make sense. I'm just ready to believe that they're a disgruntled, highly uninformed conservative base primed by corporate powers to partake in a battle that they don't truly understand. Even then, I still don't know the impetus here. If it's not policy then what unites the Tea Party? Indignation? Fear? Ignorance?

Well, im not disgruntled, rich, uniformed, and socially speaking, I am pretty liberal nor am I a catholic.

I think the motivation is a love for America and a strong desire to make the country better for everyone, not just the select few.