To Bill O'Reilly : Stick to Coffee, Brother, 'Cause the Tea Party's Not Your Bag
58Since I'm over there a bit to the right of Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck both, it should be no surprise that Fox News superstar Bill O'Reilly doesn't always trip my trigger. Maybe it's his Harvard education; Obama himself has one of those, and I'm not generally on the President's side, either.
But one thing he said on today's show really...here's the line:
"If the Tea Party doesn't go along with the debt limit compromise, it's dead. The Tea Party is over."
Really, Bill? You really, truly believe that the Tea Party draws its strength, its energy, its staying power from polls put out by MSNBC and CNN, by the fickle finger of Obama's phony baloney talking points, by anything the Tax and Spend crowd puts out there?
Hey, Joe! Don't bother coming to the Tea Party meeting tonight! No, no, it's dead! I just heard it from Bill Horse's Mouth O'Reilly! What? He's not a member? Oh. Right. Forgot about that. See you there. Bring the flag.
See, Bill, here's the deal: We the People, specifically we who see ourselves as part and parcel of one or more of the many Tea Party groups out there--we don't live or die by approval ratings. We're in it to win it because we've seen the disastrous trail this nation is treading, this push over the precipice precipitated by the pompous, this deadly democracy advocated by every single ignoramus and/or evil dude (spooky or otherwise) who chooses to either forget or ignore the fact that the United States of America is not a democracy but a Constitutional Republic.
Or at least it will be, again, once we restore the thing to its rightful structure.
Relatively speaking, democracies are in and of themselves automatically doomed to the life span of a fruit fly. They last only until the voters figure out they can vote to steal stuff for themselves from the Treasury of the Nation--any democratic nation--and then it's all over but the shouting.
We're not terrorists in any sense of the word, but we are even tougher to kill than any terrorist organization you can imagine. Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, you name it, we're tougher than that. You can't kill us off unless you literally gun down every single Tea Party member out there.
Yet you, the premier pundit on your precious platform, think one stand against destroying America, against allowing the President to spend us into oblivion will wipe us out?
Bill O'Reilly, if you smoked, I'd mighty surely want to know what you were smoking.
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (4)
- Funny (7)
- Awesome (5)
- Beautiful (2)
- Interesting (4)
CommentsLoading...
That does explain one thing: I THOUGHT I'd once known him as a bit of a different person than he is now. Thanks for the clue.
When egotistical O'Reilly makes up his mind up about something, that's it! No argument will sway him.
He has decided that the country will fold if the debt limit is not raised, so that's the source for all this.
He never admits that he was wrong.
That's Bill, all right. Reminds me a bit of a couple of one of my ex-wives. (Not in appearance, thankfully.) She comes from Basque stock--in fact, her Dad was a Basque from the Pyrenees who never did get legally papered in the States.
She knew she was half-Basqued (so to speak), but NOT the origins of the Basque people. Swore up, down, and sideways they were a Native American tribe.
Her then-teenaged sons and I showed her in the Encyclopedia Britannica (I actually owned a set at the time) where it said differently...made no difference to HER!
They say that a fool convinced against their will is still a fool.
Hey, thanks! I believe you just triggered a recall of the actual quotations--though I could tell you who allegedly said it first:
"A fool convinced against his will
Is of the same opinion still."
Sound right? Who said that (first)?
Yeah, I guess I did get it wrong. I don't have any idea who said it first although it has the sound of Franklin or Twain.
Could be. Or our old friend Anonymous, for that matter.
O'Reily is a pied piper who would lead our children out of town. TEA party started because of TARP, a government bailout of Banksters. This 'Debt Ceiling' nonsense is exactly the same thing as TARP, wrapped in a different package.
I was curious and searched it. It is apparently very old and not known for sure how old. This takes it back to the 16th century.
Nicely delineated as always, Jed. Thanks for stopping by.
Cool, Becky! CliffsNotes for HubPages! Haven't seen those since college.
Uh, not that I ever resorted to such things personally, you understand...:)
I am too much of a reader to use them. I will read anything.
Actually, I'm so old, I was nearly done with college before I even heard of the things (the third time--took me that many to finally get a B.S. degree, which most who know me say should have been a birthright).
I always saw them as cheating. Period.
I think they are too and I am still working on my Associates. I had to take care of my grandmother when I got out of high school and then my dad was disabled. I helped my parents out for several years while they fought for his disability. Then got married and my husband was told he could never work again 2 weeks after we got married. He had a grand mal seizure. Now that we finally got his disability, I can finally stop working long enough to go to college.
Ghost! I love how you took Bill to the woodshed!
Fred - Sometimes O'Reilly is indeed the most pompous ass on the news. I saw his spiel and just shook my head.
Dead huh? Two times now the House has passed a plan. First, Ryan's plan then C, C & B. Both times the Demwits in the Senate shot the plans down. Shot down without a plan of their own except to demagogue other lawmaker's plans. They have no plan other than nonsense. 66% of the people support the C, C & B and they don't. If people don't see what needs to be done with the Senate in 2012 then they are either stark raving mad or blind.
Dead huh? My ass...
The Frog
Becky: Got it. Among our "ancestors", I've lucked out in a sense--when grandparents and parents passed, I ended up not having to be that involved. Turned out my Mom still had enough assets (inherited from her own parents when they passed wa-ay back in the day) that she was able to cover Dad's nursing home expenses until he passed. Then she STILL had enough left to remain in her own home until 48 hours before she passed.
It helped immensely, of course, that my kid sister is a nurse who checked in on her every day, often complete with a passel of beloved grandkids in tow.
Glad to hear your husband got his disability. And we (Pam and I) do know about grand mal seizures. She's had a ton of 'em. Fewer every year after we hooked up, and I'm the one who diagnosed them as purely stress-triggered, but still.
I also intuitively mastered a technique we've never seen or heard of anywhere else. Whenever I see Pammie heading into a grand mal, I wrap her up in a hold you probably wouldn't consider if you weren't lovers in the first place, spanning her lower spine (reaching around) with my right hand and cradling the base of her skull with my left.
And I TALK her out of it.
Wait. That's a whole Hub right there, isn't it? Yep....
Dexter: Thanks. He had my nostrils flared right out and snorting fire for a bit there; that's for sure.
Frog: Confession time--sort of. I saw that spiel a second time, after this Hub was published. Looked like the word he actually used was "finished." "The TEA Party will be FINISHED."
Still sounds like "DEAD" to me, though, so yeah, I'm not changing the original text. Close enough for No Spin Zone work.
Hannity, on the other hand--and on the same day--was underscoring the need for Republicans NOT to cave in.
I'm guessing Sean knows full well Bill is (as you say) sometimes "the most pompous ass on the news"...and just quietly shakes his (Hannity's) head when nobody's looking....
Anyway, like you and millions of others, I surely don't feel EITHER "dead" OR "finished". Mildly irritated? Definitely.
Of all the irritating things O’Reilly does, his condescending attitude toward his audience tops them all. He constantly refers to listeners as ‘the folks’, and many times, he has admonished a guest to use terms ‘the folks’ can understand. He doesn’t seem to realize that he’s insulting his audience by assuming they’re a bunch of ignorant hicks and rubes (probably clinging to their guns and Bibles!) to whom he must talk down.
He's another New York/Harvard elitist, and the rest of us are 'the folks'.
Come to think of it, that habit of his has been grating on me a bit, too. Being one of "the folks" and all.
Could have something to do with my tendency to forget to turn on the TV lately...:)
(*Click*)
Great article. Good comments too, but the one the Frog Prince made got me riled again ... where he said the Democrats shoot the proposals down in the Senate. More proof, as if we need it, that our Senators now represent their parties and not their states. How many states would recall their Senators if they could because they have not represented their States legislatures? Repeal the 17th amendment, and
Remember to Vote in November 2012.
Have no idea who Bill is but the piece was quite entertaining.
Jim: Agreed; the 17th Amendment really needs to go, and November 2012 is definitely the first step in that direction.
Cardisa, you made my day. Poor Bill!
You'd have no reason to know of him unless you watch Fox News. He has the highest rated show on that channel--or at least the highest paid--titled "The No Spin Zone". Which is a deeply inaccurate title, as any who watch it long enough can attest. He thinks of himself, or at least advertises himself, as a political conservative, but (at least lately) seems to agree with those on the left (such as President Obama) far too often for the tastes of many of us.
And he gets all, "I know better than dummy you" when he does it, which is the irritating part.
I caught on to Bill OReilly a long time ago. It's BRAIN FOG, coupled with conceit and arrogance. Stir that all up and it makes a real noxious soup.
By golly, mslizzee, I think you've got it! Noxious soup it is!
Tonight, I noticed, he was the only Fox pundit spouting that nonsense. Or at least, both Sean Hannity and Neil Cavuto had the right of it. Not sure about Chris Wallace; had something else going on during his bit.
he is an arrogant insufferable bore. I can't believe anyone can watch him and not blow up their TVs.
Ghosty,
I think oreilleys ratings were slippin so he has to "stir the pot" to get some interest back...
TH
BPop: He sometimes gets by in my office, but only because if there's nothing else "exciting" available, I tend to default to Fox News, low volume, just running in the background when I'm at the computer.
tom: That's likely the case, but it's not working too well in this household!
Ghost, I believe that O'Reilly has shifted, as mentioned above. However, I believe the motivations to be different. This is an observation, an opinion, so I couldn't quantify or rather wouldn't put forth the effort to quantify its reasoning. So its value is less than full, and I present it with respect and in that manner.
I believe that the Tea Party is a reaction to time, to change, a phase coming to and end and an affected party within that phase, lashing out. Many Tea Partiers have admitted that they haven't been involved in politics B.O. (before Obama). That in itself would lend itself to being a reaction obviously. The first recorded Tea Party event was January 24th, 2009. By Feb 19th, the day of the first national protest, several had sprung up. Obama was inaugurated on January 20th, 2009. In 4 days of his presidency, the Tea Party was born. So, this wasn't a happenstance, it was a reaction.
You appear to have quite a revolutionary and violent paradigm to this conversation. You use violence based analogies in your argument, relate the economic debate into a context of violent war, and present the opposition in a manner as their intent were to physically eliminate you from the argument. That, in itself, is somewhat concerning.
I believe O'Reilly moved left as a reaction to the Tea Party. I believe he is somewhat reasonable and intelligent and caught that this movement is a particular reaction that would be detrimental to the future of our country, in all relative terms, if allowed to influence the national policies at hand...and chose to present certain debates with a less partisan or "agenda-ed" manner.
Texasbeta: That's a pretty decent post; let me at least attempt to respond in kind! :)
1. There is no question that the startup of Tea Party is "a reaction" to the conditions of the times. On that point we agree completely.
2. I don't believe the Constitutional Republic is a phase coming to an end but rather an institution worth restoration.
3. I do use war based analogies, but those are commonplace in politics on both the left and right. It's part and parcel of the language, not only in such langauge as "targeting" a political opponent but in the massive "war chest" any serious candidate wishes to have at his or her disposal. I do not promote violence. On the other hand, yes, I do see politics as analogous to war. It has tactics, strategy, attacks, maneuvers, victories, defeats, armies (of supporters and/or detractors), the works.
4. Whether or not my paradigm to this convesation is "revolutionary" depends entirely, I suspect, on the political orientation of the individual viewer. If cutting the size of government, restoring the selection of U.S. Senators to the state legislatures , defending the Second Amendment, etc., are considered revolutionary--then yes, I most certainly qualify. It doesn't seem revolutionary to me, though, but more like hauling on the reins in an attempt to stop a runaway horse.
5. Do I believe that the opposition would like to physically eliminate me from the argument? In general, no; I understand that the vast majority of people (regardless of political views) are not inclined in that direction. But then again, have I had death threats in response to my writings? Yes, I have.
Am I overly concerned about them? No. But pretending they did not exist would be foolish indeed.
6. I agree that O'Reilly is intelligent enough. About the reasonable part... don't see that so much. Could he have moved to the left as a reaction to the Tea Party? That's a possibility I have to admit I hadn't considered. You might be right at that; he often seems subtly uncomfortable when the Tea Party is the topic.
7. You believe the Tea Party is "detrimental to the future of our country". I believe it is literally the salvation of our country. It's not likely the two of us could ever close the gap between those two positions.
Ghost, apologies for going off topic, but please do write a hub about the technique you use to stop Pam's seizures (and the physiology behind it). Sounds very similar to the technique a now-deceased friend used to use on me to stop my stress-induced migraines, which in some ways are distant cousins of full-blown seizures. In both, signals in the brain get scrambled and everything else goes haywire. I know after a migraine subsides, I feel like a limp dishrag for hours, same as some feel after a seizure.
Since you asked, JamaGenee, I'll do that. And not to worry about going off topic--caretaking others is hardly ever off topic, when you get right down to it.
Thanks, Ghost. Looking forward to that hub!
Ghost - Thank you for engaging in the conversation and allowing me to contribute as well to your forum.
If you would allow me to go point by point.
The Tea Party being a reaction to begin...was it a reaction to Obama in particular, the economic situation of the time with the massive job losses occurring, the government bailout of the banks, Santelli's rant, etc?
What was it a reaction to?
On Feb 19th, Santelli pulled out his rant on national tv, and the next day Facebook had a page calling for Tea Party protests across the country and FOX was using the term to identify a group. So, was it a direct reaction to that rant?
If it was Obama, how could a reaction occur within under a month of his Presidency?
If it was a reaction to the job losses, then why were they so in favor of allowing the auto industry to collapse along with its supply chain? Why would they favor deregulation of the very market instruments that allowed it, and provoked it to happen?
If it was a reaction to TAARP, why was the furor at Obama and not Bush?
Was it a reaction to a changing psyche within the country, to allow a black guy with a name that resembles two of our most feared and hated enemies at the time, who has Islamic connections, albeit ending when he was 5?
Was it a reasoned and planned step to harness the methods and dissemination methods of the first health care debate, in response to potential for a governmental reaction to the corporate elements that caused a recession, that involved lax regulation and oversight, and the potential that said oversight and regulation would soon occur again, increasing overhead?
The second point refers to me referencing a phase that is ending, and you considering the referenced phase to be the idea of a Constitutional Republic. I am by no means referring to a Constitutional Republic as a phase, nor was the reference pertaining to the structure of our political system, but rather a reference to the phase of a pure white male majority decision process and focus of power, as well as the idea of supply side economics/trickle down theory as being a legitimate idea. Essentially, I am referring to the end of the Reagan era, however acknowledging that Reagan has become a myth, and in practice, Reagan could be considered a liberal by today's standards.
Apparently, you are under the impression that our very Constitutional Republic is under threat.
In that case, I am curious as to why you believe that. In what manner is our representative government itself under threat?
Is it that the Constitution is not being followed to your interpretation? If that is the case, is it that you want original intent, and what about amendments?
Also, I find it curious as well that you want to return the Senate selection away from the people's vote, and to the State's legislature to vote. I find it very curious that a populist movement would position itself as to strip direct influence of the people, to a select few State Representatives.
I suppose finally would be whether the Tea Party is good for the country or bad. From the perspective that most of the Tea Party, admitted people who "just got into politics" and therefore have less experience and knowledge of said topic, who at times, from my perspective, show less understanding and knowledge of our very history...could be a contributing factor is in question. From my perspective, and this isn't with much value obviously but I am seeking a better understanding if I am incorrect, the Tea Party appear to be an amalgam of groups, some militia anti government types, some easily provoked and less informed, and some directly moving the system along in order to promote corporate interests.
I appreciate being able to present my perceptions, even if they may be offensive. I am doing so in order to further my understanding of your perspective, and at times, I am not able to do so without presenting beliefs that might appear to be directly insulting. I wish I had a better method of relaying my concerns, but appreciate your allowing me to do so.
JamaGenee: The Hub is published; thanks for the nudge:
Texasbeta: Hey, two sizeable posts in a row, and I'm not even offended yet--you're getting good at this! LOL!
Let's start with, "What was the Tea Party a reaction to?" About the only answer I have for that is what my personal reaction involved, and that was definitely to Obama. Not personally per se, but the moment my wife and I saw him on TV (never heard of him before that) when Hillary was still in the lead in the primaries (early 2008), we looked at each other and immediately said,
"Uh-oh. If he gets in, we're in serious trouble."
What we were reacting to was:
1. His snake-oil salesman appearance. Not because of ethnicity; neither Pam nor I have an ounce of racial prejudice within us. But we are both biased against tax-and-spend liberals, and we saw a bad one a-coming.
2. As the months passed, and he took over the Party, was clearly going to be the Democratic nominee, we went from a mere "Uh-oh" to severe alarm. Nor were we alone. I was driving water truck, hauling to and from drilling rigs, and everyobdy in the oilpatch was spooked. We didn't trust the guy, didn't believe his policies (were he to become President) would be good for any of us...and we were right.
How right? The day after his election, the lender who had promised to finance my truck purchase so that I could move up from company driver to owner operator--which would have tripled my gross and doubled my net--the lender closed its doors. It was a small, privately backed outfit, the backers had no confidence in Obama, and that was the end of that parade.
From Election Day 2008 forward, energy companies began pulling in their horns, shutting down, laying people off and stacking their rigs.
So it was not at all a matter of a reaction happening in a matter of days--many of us (very much me included) had been reacting in increasing alarm to Obama (and his policies) for nearly a year prior to that first Tea Party get-together.
By January of 2009, my employer had lost so much business (because of the general shutdown) that the company necessarily went into survival mode. I was not laid off, but did lose 12 hours per week of overtime at $34.50 per hour. With a disabled wife and all her care coming out of my pocket, that was enough to put us under water.
By early February 2009, I'd crunched the numbers, and there was no way we could stay in Colorado and make it. If we tried, our savings would be gone in 6 months and we'd not even have enough left to rent a U-Haul to get out of Dodge. So we set things in motion.
In the end--which in our case was mid-April 2009, when we moved to Arizona--the business community's lack of confidence in Obama had cost me (not counting the new truck that never happened) an $80,000 per year driving job and a $242,000 house that eventually went to foreclosure.
So, bottom line: I wouldn't presume to speak for every Tea Party member out there, but my reaction was to (a) Obama because of (b) his policies which (c) flat-out put us between a rock and a hard place and doesn't appear to be letting up any time soon.
Another reaction, for me and for some of the Tea Party members with whom I'm acquainted, was (and is) definitely to Obamacare. Many of us definitely feel we have a bone to pick with him over that one, and it's a bone big enough to look like it came from the thigh of a T-Rex.
Obama's ethnicity has nothing whatsoever to do with any of this. I'll vote for Herman Cain in a heartbeat if he happens to be the Republican nominee in 2012, and so will the rest of "us".
In truth, I definitely am under the impression that our Constitutional Republic is under threat. We could go on for a very long time on this one, but for the moment, let's take the election of Senators. Why would I want to give that power back to the state legislatures?
Simply this: With both Houses of Congress having their members elected by popular vote, the power of the states is drastically reduced. In a Democracy, if you can appeal to the lowest common denominator among the voting population, you can produce a majority. But majority rule is also mob rule. With one House selected by popular vote and the other selected by legislators who at least presumably knew a little something about the needs of each state, we have an actual system of checks and balances as clearly intended by the Founding Fathers.
Right now, Harry Reid holds a bigger club over the heads of other Senators than do the states. Not a good thing long term.
When the Senators became electable by popular vote, the people did not gain power--the federal government did.
About democracies: I cringe every time I hear the word. They die young.
Okay, on to the "good or bad for the country" aspect of the Tea Party. Yes, many members (and no, they're not all old white men) have abstained from political activism until now--but that does not mean they're ignorant of our country's history or, most imporantly, that they lack either education or common sense. The problem with the political class, at least on the federal level, as that once a caree politician makes it to D.C., he or she tends to end up "fitting in" (with a few notable exceptions) rather than truly representing the people who elected him (or her).
The makeup of the Tea Party: You asked for a better understanding if you happened to be incorrect. Brother, tell you what! The "amalgam of groups" you listed isn't even in the same solar system with the Tea Party I know!
First of all, there is no "amalgam of groups" whatsoever. There could possibly be some members who are also members of militia organizations--anything is possible--but so far, I've yet to hear even one other member say he (or she) was involved with the militia in any way, shape or form.
As for "easily provoked and less informed", I'm not quite sure what you mean by "easily provoked"--most of us are pretty even-tempered folks from what I've seen, just calm and deeply determined. They're certainly BETTER informed than any other bunch I've seen...and constantly adding to their own knowledge as well. Our own small group is constantly bringing in political candidates to speak to us as a way of us learning more about their policies, holding classes on political issues, you name it. A whole lot of these folks are serious students and eager learners.
"Moving the sytem along to promote corporate interests." Hm. Well, if by that you mean that we (Tea Partiers overall) tend to believe in the free market, you'd be right. If you believe it means we don't want to provide any oversight to detect and reduce corruption in mega-companies, though, that's not true.
We're not ignorant, and we do know that the greater the power, the greater the potential abuse of power--whether that power is accumulated in a corporate boardroom or the halls of Congress.
The makeup of our local group, incidentally, includes retired folks (like me), school teachers, firemen, ranchers, housewives, college students, and more.
Ghost,
I agree with you completely. I view any temporary increase in the debt limit as a potential ugly necessity, only to be agreed to if debt reduction is mandated by law at the same time and goes into effect within a short time thereafter.
Since the whole point of fiscal reform is to close the deficit and reduce debt, a debt ceiling increase preceding the needed austerity is an anachronism, and runs the risk of more "can kicking," unless the increase is necessary for technical reasons (such as the amount of time necessary to apportion budget cuts and implement increases to the tax base), and the austerity itself can't be "wriggled out of" later.
Stu
Can't add much to that, Stu; you've summed it up nicely.
"If the Tea Party doesn't go along with the debt limit compromise, it's dead. The Tea Party is over." Did Oreilly really say that? He does do some good on his show,I guess sometimes you just have to take the bad with the good or else all your left with on other networks is the bad. I listen to Mark Levin - check out my latest.
I saw rerun of that bit later that night and realized he actually said the Tea Paty was "finished" rather than "dead". "Finished" and "dead" being synonyms in my mind in this context, though, it's the same thing.
I think the Tea Party came about no matter who would have been President. Americans have reached their limit with the actions of DC. I will include what Wikipedia says about the movement. As for Obama, I to did not like him the first time I saw him. It has nothing to do with how he looked or the color of his skin. It was due to the speech he gave. I then researched him, his record in Senate, his experience to be Commander in Chief. I truly believed he was not ready to be President but felt if he took more time in DC he might have a better shot. I am sad to see I was correct, he has not been a good leader, and we as a country are far worse off than we were before he took office.
On January 24, 2009, Trevor Leach, chairman of the Young Americans for Liberty in New York State organized a "Tea Party" protest in response to "obesity taxes" proposed by New York Governor David Paterson, and out-of-control spending. Several of the protesters wore Native American headdresses similar to the band of 18th century colonists who dumped tea in Boston Harbor to express outrage about British taxes.[36]
Some of the protests were partially in response to several Federal laws: the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008,[37] the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,[38][39] and a series of healthcare reform bills.[40]
New York Times journalist Kate Zernike reported that leaders within the Tea Party credit Seattle blogger and conservative activist Keli Carender with organizing the first Tea Party in February 2009, although the term "Tea Party" was not used.[41] Other articles, written by Chris Good of The Atlantic[42] and NPR's Martin Kaste,[43] credit Carender as "one of the first" Tea Party organizers and state that she "organized some of the earliest Tea Party-style protests".
Carender first organized what she called a "Porkulus Protest" in Seattle on Presidents Day, February 16, the day before President Barack Obama signed the stimulus bill into law.[44] Carender said she did it without support from outside groups or city officials. "I just got fed up and planned it." Carender said 120 people participated. "Which is amazing for the bluest of blue cities I live in, and on only four days notice! This was due to me spending the entire four days calling and emailing every person, think tank, policy center, university professors (that were sympathetic), etc. in town, and not stopping until the day came."[45][dead link][41]
Carender also contacted conservative author and Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin, and asked her to publicize the rally on her blog.[45][dead link] Carender then held a second protest on February 27, 2009, reporting "We more than doubled our attendance at this one."[41]
According to pollster Scott Rasmussen, the bailouts of banks by the Bush and Obama administrations triggered the Tea Party's rise. The interviewer adds that the movement's anger centers on two issues, quoting Rasmussen as saying, "They think federal spending, deficits and taxes are too high, and they think no one in Washington is listening to them, and that latter point is really, really important
First national protests
On February 19, 2009,[47] in a broadcast from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, CNBC Business News editor Rick Santelli criticized the government plan to refinance mortgages, which had just been announced the day before. He said that those plans were "promoting bad behavior"[48] by "subsidizing losers' mortgages". He suggested holding a tea party for traders to gather and dump the derivatives in the Chicago River on July 1.[49][50][51] A number of the floor traders around him cheered on his proposal, to the amusement of the hosts in the studio. Santelli's "rant" became a viral video after being featured on the Drudge Report.[52]
In response to Santelli, websites such as ChicagoTeaParty.com (registered in August 2008 by Chicago radio producer Zack Christenson) were live within 12 hours.[53] About 10 hours after Santelli's remarks, reTeaParty.com was bought to coordinate Tea Parties scheduled for Independence Day and, as of March 4, was reported to be receiving 11,000 visitors a day.[53]
According to The New Yorker writer Ben McGrath[47] and New York Times reporter Kate Zernike,[41] this is where the movement was first inspired to coalesce under the collective banner of "Tea Party". By the next day, guests on Fox News had already begun to mention this new "Tea Party".[54]
As reported by The Huffington Post, a Facebook page was developed on February 20 calling for Tea Party protests across the country.[55] Soon, the "Nationwide Chicago Tea Party" protest was coordinated across over 40 different cities for February 27, 2009, thus establishing the first national modern Tea Party protest.[56][57] The movement has been supported nationally by at least 12 prominent individuals and their associated organizations.
Wow. I'm impressed by the LENGTH of that post, American View.
It also happens to make sense. I don't doubt the Tea Party was going to manifest (at least sooner or later) whether Obama or someone else was elected...though I do feel that both his openly radical policies and the style he uses to promote them have at the very least spurred the movement's growth like fertilizer spread on crops. And followed by a good rain.
Ghost,
Your theory is factual. Prior to 2009, the TPM was not even a formal movement, but just a concept for a potential movement. The TPM did not start building grassroots membership in earnest until about mid 2009. It was clearly a reaction to Obama's bills/EO's that violated the Constitution, his significant spending incareses, and fear about unrestrained increases to FIT rates. I know Obama hates the TPM, but in all truth there is nobody on earth more responsible for turning the TPM from a concept into an actual movement than Obama himself.
Stu
You bet, Stu. It's kind of like thanking the rattlesnake underfoot for helping you set a new world record in the high jump, but hey, motivation is motivation.
HAHAHAHA - Great analogy!!
Glad you like. :)
Love it - may print the thread off, go to DC at night, and tape it to the front door at 1600 PA. Ummm, make that super-glue (Obummy will try to remove it).
Better yet, maybe a quick laser etching. They'd have to change out the whole door.
On our tax dime, of course. There's always a hitch.
Great idea Ghost! And that door ain't coming off. I'm going to claim a bunch of phony tax credits to pay for a replacement steel vault door with 12" thick rotator sockets, and I'll laser the text in with a blow torch. That puppy is there to STAY!
LOL!
American View Level 7 Commenter 10 months ago
Ghost,
Oreilly was a far right commentator a few years back. But he has moved left. Maybe he was not selling enough books, i dont know. But I know he is not the same anymore