Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Just the Right Amount of Tea

As regular readers are well aware by now, The World fully supports the means, methods and ideas of the movement to organize "Tea Party" protests around the country, especially the latest move to organize a Tea Party March on Washington for September 12th. Because this event is set to take place on a Saturday, it may very well guarantee maximum turnout.

One of the problems that we are seeing with the movement, however, is that since the April 15th events across the country were so successful, everyone and their brother now wants to have a "tea party." I received a Facebook notice inviting me to a Tea Party in Memphis at the weekend (as if there were none on April 15th in West Tennessee!). I have also learned of a series of Tea Party protests planned for Flag Day (June 14th) and for the 4th of July itself.

It should be the desire of every citizen who is concerned about the ever-expanding tyrannies of the federal Leviathan to see that these protests succeed no matter when they are planned. It is understandable that local organizers in many places, many of whom are novices to the political process, would want many repeat performances in order to try and build momentum in advance of the 2010 federal General Election. However, organizers should also be warned that there is as much a danger in over-saturation in the press as there is in doing nothing at all after April 15th, thereby encouraging the media to continue to ignore the Tea Parties. If there are too many protests organized too close together, this may have the impact of diminishing attendance. Far worse than that, however, would be to have the protests so often that word of a Tea Party on the evening news becomes routine, something akin to word that there are anti-globalization protesters at yet another international economic or political meeting. The presence of these protesters has become so normal that the leaders of nations, the legal authorities, and the news media simply expect that they will be present, mention them in passing, and go on with business as usual as though nothing different from the ordinary is occurring.

Conservatives and others concerned about the direction of government in our country need to be careful to insure that future protests are well-timed to avoid the kind of over-saturation that some protesters on the Left are guilty of, in order to insure that when Tea Partys are held in the months and years ahead the protests have the kind of impact that this movement had on April 15th.

Labels: , , , , , ,


At Wednesday, April 22, 2009 8:44:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Always anticipation love can the instantaneous appearance. Has been searching. May also say that has complied with that sentence: The man loves woman's process is: Likes - fearing bothersomely -; But the runescape accounts woman loves man's process is: Does not matter - cares about - is dead set on. the runescape money aquarius's woman as if very vacant is loving, no matter the object is the day scorpion or other, does not have the security sense, as if is the feeling which all thermoses have. Could not find own position, was at a loss how to proceed. Present's I am this at runescape power leveling least. drops, turns head in no way looked. Said left, came back in no way. But in the caring, forgets oneself at heart thinking, one kind suffers, from thought that person is waiting for you in there, the result is actually, he already turns around.

At Wednesday, April 22, 2009 11:21:00 PM, Blogger Steve Mule said...

Outside of the Fox News Universe the Tea Parties accomplished nothing. Attendence was minimal, no one really knows what the point was; other than they don't like Pres. Obama, they don't like taxes and ... and that's about it.
It was nothing but an exercise in coordinated astroturf by Fox News and others. A very, very funny astroturf excercise.


At Thursday, April 23, 2009 11:46:00 AM, Blogger Matt Daley said...


Nice recitation of CNN and MSNBC's talking points. I imagine that you're probably a fan of the biggest hack currently in the world of journalism, CNN's Susan Roesgen (sic).

(And just so we're clear, the "Fox News Universe" encompasses a LOT of people...many more than the "CNN Universe" or the "MSNBC Universe". You'd be well advised not to dismiss these people out-of-hand. But you're free to do so, if you're foolish enough.)


At Thursday, April 23, 2009 1:09:00 PM, Blogger Steve Mule said...

I don't watch CNN or MSNBC. I have no idea who Susan R. is, and I don't subscribe to lefty-talking point sites (does the left even have any?). The tea-parties did nothing. They were a media sensation because Fox News said they were. What's happened since? Nothing!! More people came out to see Pres. Obama during the primaries and general election than went to any of the tea parties.


At Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:34:00 PM, Blogger Matt Daley said...

You say they did nothing because you don't have the first clue about their purpose. And as far as the event being a media sensation...gee, ya think?? If this had been some mass gay-rights or marijuana-rights protest, CNN and MSNBC would have been all over it and would have publicized it in much the same way that FOX publicized the newsworthy Tea Party protests. Instead of covering the conservative protests, CNN and MSNBC decided to mock protesters and be derisive about their complaints.

But just because FOX covered the event...that doesn't mean that FOX (or any other large group) was behind the protests. They may have ultimately helped coordinate some of it, but the true organization was on a grassroots level. Here in NW Ohio, there were multiple protests, all well-attended. And none of them were covered by the major media nor were they affiliated in any way with large Republican/conservative orgs.

As for nothing happening's been a week. This ain't a short-term movement, son.


At Thursday, April 23, 2009 9:42:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's be honest. Those are the same people that went to McCain/Palin rallies. Last I recall those didn't work out too well. Moaning about taxes that the majority of Americans will see decreases in next year and beyond the 2010 and 2012 elections doesn't seem like a winning strategy either...

At Thursday, April 23, 2009 11:20:00 PM, Blogger Matt Daley said...


I didn't go to McCain/Palin rallies, so obviously, you don't know what you're talking about.

As for taxes...a sizable percentage of Americans don't pay any tax to begin with. Everything they pay into the system, they get back, sometimes more. So, when you talk about those people getting "tax deductions", you're talking about them getting more money from the government, not paying less into it.

For those who actually do pay you REALLY believe that all the spending the federal government is doing right now is going to result in tax reductions for them? Say you earn $90K per year. You think you're going to pay less?

Where would that money come from? You can only tax earnings above $250K so much.

And regardless...even if middle-class tax payers do get a break, that savings is going to evaporate pretty much the instant the "cap and trade" tripe gets signed into law...


At Friday, April 24, 2009 7:29:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm pretty sure most of the attendees weren't Obama supporters, so you do the math.
Conservatives' hatred of the poor is already well documented. We don't have to rehash it here. Also, it doesn't matter whether you believe it or not. It is already known that the middle class will get tax breaks into at least the next two election cycles. The fractured economy is keeping energy prices down so even with supposed passing on of cap and trade expenses to consumers it won't get us back to Dubya era prices. Unfortunately, the economy will take at least a few years to brink back from what was done to it in 8.

At Friday, April 24, 2009 10:08:00 AM, Blogger Matt Daley said...


Ah, okay. I see the logic. It's sad and disturbed...but I see the logic. If you don't support Obama or his policies, you must have been some mindless troll who attended every McCain/Palin rally possible. Thanks for giving me a clue.

Frankly, I know a lot of people who are anti-Obama and who also were anti-McCain/Palin. But hey, who am I?

And conservatives "hate" the poor? Bwah? I guess that must means that either all conservatives are rich or what few poor conservatives are poor are "self-hating poor". family's income hovers around what would be considered as the poverty line...yet I'm conservative, and I most certainly don't hate myself.

I just don't want Big Brother getting all up in my business while I try to pull my family up in the truly American way -- by myself, without Big Brother's help.

And I don't want to owe Big Brother in the long run, either.

As for "it is already known" that the middle class will get tax breaks through 2016...according to who? Are you talking about Obama's campaign promises, or are you talking about the already-enacted piddly little tax break put into my weekly paycheck that amounts to squat on a per-week basis?

If you're talking about his campaign promises...let me laugh in your face now. Campaign promises are broken so often, they should never be taken seriously.

(And if you're going to respond to that with "hope and change", kindly tell me what kind of "hope and change" those poor kids in D.C. are experiencing -- including kids in the school Obama chose for his own girls -- as they're denied a quality education by Obama...)

Finally, you better realize quick that cap and trade doesn't just have to do with oil. Oil prices may be depressed now...but that doesn't mean that your electric bill won't skyrocket when cap and trade gets passed. You wait and see on that one...


At Friday, April 24, 2009 10:35:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


It's obvious that you don't know much - about the tax system in particular or about anything in general.

Let's deal with your ignorance of the tax system first. You state "a sizable percentage of Americans don't pay any tax to begin with." I guess you don't count sales taxes, gas taxes, payroll taxes, etc... If you make minimum wage (which I suspect you are qualified for this category), you make around $12k a year. At this wage, you probably don't save anything, so you are a 100% consumer, thus everything you make gets taxed upon your consumption. If you make $250k a year, you get the privilege of getting to save a lot - and you don't get taxed on what you save. Think for a minute of the Walton family. They make billions each year by employing thousands at minimum wage, not giving them health benefits, and selling those same people low-cost Chinese made crap. Proportionally, they pay much less in taxes than the janitors that clean their stores - yet they benefit more from the tax system. Despite this gross inequality, you crow about the unfairness of returning to Regan-era tax rates on these over-privileged few.

Those tea-bagging parties were not about taxes and spending, they were anti-Obama through and through. None of those idiots made a peep during the Bush years. Obama tries to clean up the Bush mess and these yahoos come out of the dark corners they normally hide in.

As far as your other less-than-enlightened views, I'll ask you about your "conservative" views on national defense. Why aren't you in the military defending the country right now? Isn't the "conservative" view that you pay your bills? Then why your opposition to the attempt to pay the bills that Bush ignored for so long? isn't the conservative view that the government should stay out of people's private lives? Then why support the government intervention into personal reproductive rights? Isn't the conservative position blah, blah, blah.

let's face it, conservatism is a failed philosophy. It doesn't work on any level. It obviously is not a successful governing philosophy an, judging from the individuals who profess to practice it, it's a failed personal philosophy.

Let's face it, when conservatism has devolved into nothing more than a mechanism to defend torture or the right to torture, it clearly is a morally bankrupt failure at all levels.

Prove me wrong. Don't just spout some failed talking point at me - give me an instance where you or you beloved conservatism have succeeded. My guess is that once again, you will fail.

At Friday, April 24, 2009 2:27:00 PM, Blogger Matt Daley said...

Well, since I don't even know who "you" are (since you choose to hide behind a veil of cowardice), it's hard to address "you" specifically.

Anyway, let's go through what you had to say...

First, since we were on the subject of tax deductions, I figured that we were talking about INCOME tax...because you can be damned sure that items such as sales tax and gas tax aren't going down for anyone anytime soon. And I think it kind of speaks for itself that everybody pays those taxes. If you needed that to be specifically pointed out to you, I'm sorry for disappointing you. As for payroll tax, that's a form of income tax. Didn't you know? Yes, people get that taken out of their paychecks...but a sizable part of the working population gets every damn cent of that money back in the form of tax refunds.

And yes, I do "crow about the unfairness of returning to Regan-era tax rates on these over-privileged few". I hope to be one of those privileged few through hard work and sacrifice. And even if I never am, I certainly don't hate those who do hold those positions, regardless of how they got there. Would you rather we live in a place like Ethiopia, where NOBODY has anything? What would our country be like if we didn't have the "privileged few"?

Just because life isn't fair enough to allow for everyone to be "haves", that doesn't mean that nobody should be "haves".

Anyway, you talk about "less-than-enlightened", but you blather on in super-generalities about the people who attended the Tea Party protests (and use a juvenile liberal talking point as a way to refer to the event, to boot), so I think you don't have ground to stand on about being enlightened.

Oh, wait...I forgot. When a liberal talks about being "enlightened" to a conservative, that means that the conservative hasn't been properly educated. Only idiots could be conservatives, right?

The fact is that people like you claim to be for the poor and disenfranchised...until they disagree with your sick worldview. Then all they're good for is mocking and derisiveness. You call them stupid, backwards hicks. They're jokes at your cocktail parties...until you need them again at election time. What hypocrisy.

As for why I'm not in the military right can be assured that I would be if it were not for a congenital disability that prevents me from service. (I can't wait to see you make fun of this...) But I can also assure you that I come from a family with a long history of military service, including a grandfather who bombed the Germans back to the Stone Age in WWII and a father who very nearly gave his life for his country in Vietnam (only to come home and get spat on by hosers such as yourself).

As for your other questions...I didn't support Bush, because Bush wasn't a true conservative. Pre-emptive wars and vast government expansion aren't exactly conservative principles. And I don't support government intervention into "reproductive rights" least, not on the federal level. I don't support a Constitutional amendment banning abortion. However, I do support the rights of states to ban the procedure (or keep it legal) if they so desire. Same goes for same-sex marriage.

Conservatism hasn't failed because we haven't had a conservative President in office for over 20 years now. The last two Republican Presidents (both Bushes) weren't conservative...they were Republicans. There's a difference, genius. Republicanism of the last 20 years has failed.

When the Republican Party decides to get back to its true fiscal (as well as social) conservative base, then maybe we can see if the philosophy will succeed or fail.


At Friday, April 24, 2009 3:29:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, what you are telling me is that it's fundamentally unfair that Obama proposes to increase the top tax rate from 36% to 39.5%? Somehow that would make us like Ethiopia? Good God, man, that's delusional! Between 1932 and 1986, the top marginal tax rates were between 50% to 94% - and there was plenty of wealth created for the masses. hell, conservatism often speaks fondly of the glorious 50's where the top marginal tax rate was 91% on all income over $400,000 - and you are bitching about 39.5%?

Look, statistically (and realistically) speaking, you ain't going to get rich. If, at your age, you aren't close to being there, you're not going to get there. I understand your argument, but I've never understood why folks such as your self would fight to the death for the wealthy who you've made rich - but I'll give you credit, you admit that you like the unfair tax situation that benefits the top 1% of the country.

Now let's talk a minute about your fundamental misunderstanding of the tax system in general. If the government spends, then it must pay - we can both agree to that. However, the government can't "get another job", it must increase it's revenue through taxes. If it's not income taxes, it's taxes on other items. In Tennessee, we don't have income taxes, so the major source of tax revenue is sales taxes. When the Federal government collects less federal income taxes for distribution to the states, the states have to compensate - thus, you can't separate the two. All taxes are intertwined.

The last thing I noticed was that you couldn't come up with a "conservative" success. All you did was mock liberals - well, I can name a lot of what I consider to be "liberal" successes: 40 hour work week, anti-child labor laws, social security, rural electrification, safe workplace laws, national parks, interstate highways, etc, etc, etc. The list goes on and on. Face it, conservatism is a failed philosophy. it only works to scare people and people will only be scared for so long. You say that Bush wasn't a "true" conservative, but I would suggest that he was the ultimate "conservative." He favored business over people, he successfully removed most regulatory oversight from, well hell, everything, he intermingled government and religion, he expanded government intrusion into people's personal lives, he expanded the police state, he fought useless wars. He was the embodiment of everything "conservative." One of the problems with the Republic Party was that they supported him so whole-heartedly that they can't back away from his unpopular policies without looking like the biggest bunch of hypocrites on the planet. Also, I'll be the first to admit that I haven't read everything that Oats has written, but I can't find anything in the archives that appears to be critical about Bush - please direct me to a post to help me out here.

Lastly, I'm sorry to hear that you have a "congenital disability" that prevents you from serving in the military. But I've heard that canard from a lot of people like you - so I'll just trust that you wouldn't lie about something like that -because there's a special level of hell reserved for those who would send others to fight and die for causes they push, but won't serve in themselves. I hope this doesn't include you.

At Friday, April 24, 2009 5:23:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Obama won not by Bush vs. Gore/Kerry margins, but closer to a Clinton vs. Dole landslide. Runnning on an already debunked bigger taxes premise and a lost election, you and your tea party friends won't have enough votes come 2010 and 2012.

The problem is you love yourself too much and don't care much about anybody else, let alone the people who aren't as privileged as you.

Google for some factual, expert analysis of Obama's tax plan and you can see for yourself. You can start with if you'd like. Stop drinking the Limbaugh/Faux News kool-aid and you may actually end up helping both your party and our country instead of hindering them.

At Friday, April 24, 2009 9:16:00 PM, Blogger Matt Daley said...

See...this is what is so monumentally stupid about Anon posts. How am I supposed to tell one poster from someone else when both people are posting as Anons? Couldn't you guys at least give yourself some kind of identifying handle that would aid in the discussion?

I suppose I'll just have to use the timestamps for now.

Anon from 3:29pm>

Look, my essential point would be this -- there should be no need to tax at that rate. Frankly, there should be no need for a federal income tax at all. I could support a national sales/excise tax, but the federal income tax is basically a direct slap in the face of the writers of the Constitution, who intended for the federal government to be small, with limited powers.

As for me liking the current tax situation...why wouldn't I? I get every cent back that I pay through the year in taxes taken out of my more. This year, I got over $4000 in federal refund, despite paying far less than that in actual tax. Next year, with a second child, the refund may well be over $6500. Who wouldn't like that?

As for all those "liberal" successes...they're all a function of the federal government taking a far greater role than they were ever intended to have. And if you think Social Security is a success...heh, wait until the day it becomes insolvent. Think you're going to get what you're entitled to? Better think again.

And you must have no clue as to what real conservatism is all about if you think of Bush as the ultimate conservative. You could call him a neo-conservative, I suppose...but that would be akin to what you would call blue dog democrats, or DINOs. They're not real.

Finally, as far as my ability to serve my can bet your ass that I wouldn't lie about that, and I agree that there is a special section of hell reserved for those who would. I'm too proud of what my family has accomplished -- including my brother-in-law, who has spent the last several years touring Iraq and Afghanistan, seeing my sister and his toddler daughter only sparingly. I also have cousins and a nephew-in-law who have served recently. If it were even remotely possible for me, I'd do it, no questions asked. I'd gladly give my life...just so you can have the right to rant and rave about how all my conservative buddies are crazy and ill-informed.


At Friday, April 24, 2009 9:23:00 PM, Blogger Matt Daley said...

Anon from 5:23pm>

First, the "bigger taxes premise" is not debunked. Obama still has 3.75 years left in office, if not 7.75. Give him time...he's got to pay for his spending somehow.

Second, I never once claimed (nor would I now) that Republicans will have enough votes in 2010 or 2012. Then again, if things keep going the way they are, such truths might change.

Third, you don't know me, so how in the world could you possibly know how much I care about myself compared to anyone else, much less how privileged I may or may not be?

To fill you in, I'm not very privileged -- I'm in a specific minority with an incredibly high unemployment rate, and my family's income is quite low, indeed. I'm a Catholic who cares deeply about others and who gives as much as he can (which is, unfortunately, not much) but would love to give more if I only had more to give.

One thing is for sure -- it's pretty obvious that you don't care about anyone who doesn't hold your political and world views. That's sad.

Fourth, you might want to stop drinking the Olbermann/MSNBC kool-aid. Those hacks are every bit as hackneyed and stilted as Fox News has ever been accused of.

(Has Olbermann EVER had anyone on his show that he doesn't see eye-to-eye with...anyone that would ever challenge him?)


At Saturday, April 25, 2009 12:20:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Yes, taxes will not go up within the next few election cycles. Worst case, the tea parties are at least premature. Read up on it yourself and don't take anybody's word for it.

Yes, I'm sure dressing up for the tea party was fun and after a tough election cycle allowed for a bit of escapism for you and your friends. However, it wasn't a serious news event that needed 24hr coverage, especially given that its touted purpose will be a non-factor in next few election cycles.

No matter how bad off you think you are, there are people that would kill to be in your shoes. Being near what the government calls the poverty level is far removed from truly being poor. I've been in your shoes before and I'm happy to pay taxes that support your and others' well-being. Being Catholic or any other religion doesn't make you any more righteous or important than others.

I try to keep abreast of all sides of an issue and spend portions of my days/nights watching/listening on both sides of the tv/radio dials. I wouldn't visit this blog if I didn't.

At Monday, April 27, 2009 2:27:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oklahoma Man Arrested for Twittering Tea Party Death Threats


Post a Comment

<< Home

Locations of visitors to this page
Profile Visitor Map - Click to view visits
Create your own visitor map