Here we go again:
Andrew,The reason why Sullivan's logic is twisted in knots is because it is so hard to defend the indefensible.
On your blog you state:All protests against spending that do not tell us how to reduce it are fatuous pieces of theater, not constructive acts of politics. And until the right is able to make a constructive and specific argument about how they intend to reduce spending and debt and borrowing, they deserve to be dismissed as performance artists in a desperate search for coherence in an age that has left them bewilderingly behind.
Perhaps I missed it, but can you direct me to your coverage of the anti-Iraq War protests where you excoriated them for lacking a detailed plan of withdrawal and standing for nothing more than "End the war"?
Apparently the current standard is that no protest movement is legitimate unless it contains a "constructive and specific" alternative -- talk about moving goalposts.
Your logic in attacking the tea party movement is becoming ever more tortuous.
Regards,
Colin
2 comments:
looking at this, i realized this has ABOSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH TAXES
it just provides a long-needed outlet for these dying white "Christian" lunatics to vent. the 2008 election was the death-throes of their WASPy Euro white reign which began in 1492. The whole Fox NEws/Hannity axis is built on martyrdom, or victimhood. Poor Christians trying to survive in a godless, leftist USA, hell-bent on destroying everything that made this country great.
but the world is changing. demographics are foreboding for them. this will be a non-white, Democratic country for perpetuity, unless the GOP reaches out to hispanics, etc.
instead, the right-wing is contracting, lashing out. it's a natural pyschological phenomenon. they can't win. they have nothing to offer. just fear, bitterness.
the "tax"/"bailout" excuse is just that - a cover for their litany of greiveances as oppressed white Christians: abortion, Islam, multiculturalism, etc. these are the same lunatics (like my step-uncle ) who compalin when they don't allow a nativity scene in their town square.
their little wonderful Christian world is disintegrating, and instead of being a non-pussy about it, they're little whiny bitches. they don't care about taxes, bailouts, budgets. if they did, as you mentioned, they would have been out in force 7 years ago.
now they see the writing on the wall.
party's over assholes!
The tea parties did offer "constructive and specific" suggestions about how to reduce spending, contrary to what Andrew Sullivan claims. Indeed, many of the tea parties arose in opposition to Obama's $800 billion stimulus package, which the Congressional Budget Office says will actually shrink the economy in the long run, contrary to Obama's claim that it was needed to prevent "irreversible decline."
The tea parties specifically identified two massive spending programs that need to be cut. The first is Obama’s $800 billion stimulus package. The second is the Obama Administration’s mortgage bailout, which would benefit even high-income people with modest mortgages (hence the “I can’t afford your mortgage” sign wielded by many protesters).
The protesters are right to protest the Administration's broken promises (like Obama's promise to enact a "net spending cut") and out-of-control spending.
Andrew Sullivan dismisses the tea parties as “opposition to the Obama administration’s spending plans, manned by people who made no serious objections to George W. Bush’s.”
I certainly made “serious objections to George W. Bush’s” spending plans. I condemned his costly prescription-drug entitlement in the Washington Times, and repeatedly condemned the $160 billion Bush “stimulus rebates” in 2008. I called his $700 billion Wall Street “bailout bill dangerous, inflationary, unnecessary, and unconstitutional.” And I condemned his multibillion dollar auto bailout.
Post a Comment