I haven’t said a great deal about the burgeoning “tea party” “movement” because (a) it’s incredibly stupid, and (b) I knew some colleagues were working on some more in-depth efforts in this regard than I could possible stomach.
Boy he sure sounds like William Rutledge all of a sudden, doesn't he?
Having attended a "Tea Party" tax protest myself, I have to feel a little incensed when someone tells me that something I had done was incredibly stupid. I felt neither stupid nor incredible when I was at the protest. All I felt was a sense of belonging to a large (and growing) group that felt tax increases, even for the most altruistic reasons, would not aid me or the economy.
People like Barack Obama. Not everyone! 30 percent or so of the people say they disapprove. And in a country of 300 million, that means it’s easy to get together a big meeting of people who really hate Obama. But it’s clearly a relatively modest minority of the population, comparable in size—and probably largely overlapping with—the group of people who approved of the job George W. Bush was doing all the way ’till the end.
Believe me, there are not a lot of Bush supporters at the tax protests. If anything, independents and hard line conservatives are the rule there. Many tax party protesters felt Bush was as fiscally irresponsible as Obama will probably be. Many at tax party protests are Ron Paul supporters.
I like James Robertson's comment to Yglesias' post:
Hmm. So it’s absurd because you don’t approve. As opposed to the anti-war protests (which have magically fizzled out - makes me wonder about the principles of those people), of which you approved.
Right….
Bear in mind that the original tea party in Boston was in favor of a policy that very few colonials approved. But then again, I’ve seen Matt yearn for an alternate reality with no revolution, so I guess it all makes sense.
_
0 Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen