Mike Maloy

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 3:40 p.m.

Me. I am accountable to myself John and would appreciate it if you could extend the common courtesy of not generalizing me with your stereotypes without having the slightest clue about me.

John Q

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 1:15 p.m.

"The difference here is that you somehow believe that you can legitimately characterize and judge by the group, while subjectively dismissing that entitlement to other posters." No, the difference is that I can point to specific individuals on the left who were critics of Bush and are critics of Obama. Who in the tea party movement can you say the same about?

Mike Maloy

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 7:31 a.m.

"The difference between them and the tea partiers is that the tea party nation was largely silent to Bush's actions." The difference here is that you somehow believe that you can legitimately characterize and judge by the group, while subjectively dismissing that entitlement to other posters.

John Q

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 10:14 p.m.

"I would then ask why I, or any tea party supporter would, could or should, accept as legitimate, such criticism from Obama supporters whose previous condemnation of the war on terror (patriot act, wire taps, renditions, etc.), are now silent and unmotivated in their opposition to Obama's utilization of each and every one of those techniques?" Which Obama supporters are you talking about? There's plenty of Obama supporters who criticized Bush's actions and are voicing the same criticisms about Obama. The difference between them and the tea partiers is that the tea party nation was largely silent to Bush's actions.

dk

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 12:03 p.m.

Please follow this logic: a) Mr. Murrow claims the Tea Party is racially motivated, "This is about race, pure and simple" b) Mr. Murrow claims certain popular media reflect the left. c) That certain media claim that the Tea Party is responsible for the defeat of Bob Bennett. d) Bob Bennett is a white, male, republican, 3 time senator from Utah. e) I ask Mr. Murrow to explain the hypocrisy behind his initial statement. f) My post gets deleted twice. Can I either get an explanation for why the post gets deleted or put me in touch with the person who will cancel my Thursday and Sunday delivery of this paper. Thanks.

Mike Maloy

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 10:42 a.m.

Mr. Q, You seem to have selected the only the latest post in what was an ongoing series with the poster formerly known as Edward Murrow. I don't claim the WSJ or the Washington Times as my voice any more than I would saddle you with the mantra of Keith Olberman or Rachel Maddow. However, I was informed that thought and ideology expressed outside of said media is "teapartyist logic". I would ask that you read all my posts so you have the benefit of context. I would then ask why I, or any tea party supporter would, could or should, accept as legitimate, such criticism from Obama supporters whose previous condemnation of the war on terror (patriot act, wire taps, renditions, etc.), are now silent and unmotivated in their opposition to Obama's utilization of each and every one of those techniques? Indeed, Obama has even expanded some of them. Apparently the indignant posturing about morality and adherence to the rule of law that was an issue when Bush was CiC, was not a position of principal, but of naked partisanship. I don't necessarily take issue with that, in fact Ive come to expect it from the American left. However, I'm not about to accept the ill-conceived charges hypocrisy from an obviously hypocritical constituency.

dk

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 12:42 a.m.

Murrow wrote: "This is about race, pure and simple." Your proclaimed mouth pieces of the left are blaming the TEA PARTY for the defeat of Bob Bennett. Of course I'm referring to the WHITE MALE REPUBLICAN 3 time senator Bob Bennett. Yep, sounds like it's all racially motivated to me.

John Q

Thu, May 13, 2010 : 5:31 a.m.

Mr. Maloy, I didn't realize that the Washington Times and the WSJ were the leading voices of the Tea Party movement. No one said that there weren't some conservatives who criticized Bush. The criticism is aimed at the Tea Party movement and its followers who largely sat silent and unmotivated by all of the activities that they claim they oppose and were only stirred into action when Obama was elected President. Personally, I believe that 95% of the tea partiers are the typical hard right-wing of the Republican Party who would have opposed 95% of what Obama would have proposed. To the degree they criticize their party, it's only for not jumping high enough to their demands.

John Q

Wed, May 12, 2010 : 6:53 p.m.

"Now, I learn that the deficit has tripled and will be in that range for years to come (based on White House projections)." The deficit hasn't tripled. The claim that the Bush deficit was "only $400 billion" is only true if you believe in the fiction of the Bush administration math. Bush never accounted for war spending in the federal budget. Obama has. Bush approved the funding of the TARP which also added to the federal deficit. Obama inherited an economy plunging into a recession and pushed for tax cuts and stimulus spending to offset that. One can take issue with how those funds were spent. But I haven't seen any credible economic recovery plan that wouldn't have required additional federal spending and tax cuts (which increase the deficit). More details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget#Deficit

savant

Wed, May 12, 2010 : 9:34 a.m.

Where was I when Bush ran up budget deficits of $400 billion... I was in the voting booth voting for Barack Obama because the GOP lost any credibility as a party of fiscal responsibility. I did not believe that Obama would necessarily reflect my spending priorities but I believed he (and those advising him) would strike a more appropriate balance between revenue and spending. Now, I learn that the deficit has tripled and will be in that range for years to come (based on White House projections). As someone who was furious about $400 billion deficits (and voted accordingly) does it not make sense that I would be even angrier about a $1.3 trillion deficit. As someone who has watched Greece go down the toilet because of their overspending, does it not make sense that I would be bothered that our deficit (as a percentage of GDP) is Greek level? So, when I complain about Obama's leadership, does that mean that I was not a racist in November, 2008 in the voting booth, but have become a racist since then? The real racists are people who can't make an honest appraisal of our current situation because they still dream at night of frolicking nude in the forest with Obama and a herd of unicorns under a rainbow that ends at the pot of gold that will cover the $1.3 trillion deficit.

Alan Benard

Tue, May 11, 2010 : 11:28 p.m.

I'm glad Rick Keith has the time, gumption and stomach to sit there and listen to this foolish, selfish guff and make appropriate, disapproving noises.

Ram

Tue, May 11, 2010 : 2:15 p.m.

Edward: Just because it comes from a special tax doesn't mean it is a different form of revenue. It is a tax like any other. If we reduced the social security tax, it makes it more feasible to increase taxes on other areas no? Or to reduce our foreign borrowing?

Mike Maloy

Tue, May 11, 2010 : 1:45 p.m.

One other thing...not that it really matters. Only one "L" in my brand of Maloy. There is some question as to just how drunk or illiterate, or combination thereof, my people were coming off the boat. :-)

Mike Maloy

Tue, May 11, 2010 : 1:13 p.m.

Teapartyist logic? Thats fine, we can do it your way. See below multiple links to WSJ & Washington Times articles critical of Bush and deficit spending between 2001 and 2006. I was able to google these in about a minuteshundreds more are available if you care to participate. Regardless, here we have conclusive evidence, according to your criteria, that the right objected to bushs deficit spendingthus validating the tea party movement. I would hope that your sense of intellectual integrity would compel you to stand up for the teaparty when we are confronted by such small-minded harassment as weve seen on this thread http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB114852164473662603-tIRsdE_KdG7HF5y4ocM9Z5Bf72U_20070525.html http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB111282698216100132-oGnQKkV_guNprR__U8NEr4aX3G8_20050507.html http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-2576613/Spending-orgy-in-behemoth-budget.html http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-1351643/Bush-s-first-try-at.html http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5172707/House-Republicans-vow-to-prod.html

Edward R. Murrow's ghost

Tue, May 11, 2010 : 12:25 p.m.

@Mike Malloy: You asked about the absence of the left's outrage. I told you where to find it. You could also find it in the editorial pages of the New York Times and of the Washington Post, as well as in The Nation, among many other publications. Not certain how it's "cover" to help you find something you, apparently, do not know exists and asked for help finding. Guess that's teapartyist logic. Good Night and Good Luck

Edward R. Murrow's ghost

Tue, May 11, 2010 : 12:18 p.m.

Ram, Social Security is its own separate program and has its own separate revenue stream, as does Medicare. Cutting/Eliminating SS or M benefits does not add up to money available for other programs. There are several ways to reduce the cost of health care substantially, none of which the Obama administration fought for (Note to @Mike Malloy: the left is outraged about this, too), among which are the elimination of the anti-trust exemption granted to health insurance companies, the creation of a public option, and/or (God forbid) the creation of a single-payer system. These would bring immediate and substantial reductions to our nation's medical bill. Good Night and Good Luck

Mike Maloy

Tue, May 11, 2010 : 12:12 p.m.

You let Olberman and Maddow speak for you? Regardless, I moved out of the insulated la-la land that is Ann Arbor years ago and now live in the public la-la land that is D.C. Every weekend for five years, loud, dirty and sometimes violent leftist protests against Bush and the war on terror. Now? Nothing. I don't need Olberman or Maddow for cover. I live in the epicenter of the hypocrisy.

Ram

Tue, May 11, 2010 : 12:07 p.m.

@Edward: I can handle the compromise of changing specifics to make the program more solvent. That being said, do we want to prioritize Social Security over other areas of spending? Is it important to maintain such a program when we have to borrow for our spending? Medicare is a complex issue, and I think simply saying we need to lower costs isn't a good enough answer. I don't know how we would do it, and I'm not convinced the bill that Congress recently passed is going to help us out (provide health care for 30 million dollars at a negative cost to our budget deficit? sounds fishy to me).

Edward R. Murrow's ghost

Tue, May 11, 2010 : 12:04 p.m.

@Mike Malloy, The left is outraged at all you have cited. You, apparently, haven't been paying attention. Watch Olberman and Maddow and you will see sharp criticisms of Obama from the left on the issues you raise and on others. Pay Attention!!! Good Night and Good Luck

Rick Keith

Tue, May 11, 2010 : 11:58 a.m.

While the nation bled blood and treasure, Bill Bigler wishes he could have protested but didn't. Now that this administration is trying to stop the bleeding by investing in THIS country, Bigler is protesting. Do you even know the meaning of the word "hypocrisy"? And have you read the Constitution? Rick Keith

Mike Maloy

Tue, May 11, 2010 : 11:58 a.m.

Hehthe moderators (correctly) took away the if your opposed to a black presidents policy youre racist canard, so I see weve defaulted to the back-upyou didnt protest when bush was blowing up the deficit? gambit. I wonder what happened to the lefts outrage over the patriot act when Obama renewed it? I wonder what happened to the lefts outrage over military tribunals when Obama adopted them? I wonder what happened to the lefts outrage over wiretaps when Obama utilized them? I wonder what happened to the lefts outrage over predator drone strikes after Obama more than doubled them, and thereby exponentially increasing the murder of innocent women & children non-combatants? I wonder where the lefts outrage is now that Obama has unilaterally ordered the murder of an American citizen, without a trial, without due process of any kind. Bush never did thatwhen I think of power like thatStalin is the name that comes to mind. I cant see any aspect of the war on terror that the left, and Obama didnt deride for five years, until of course they took power. And after copying & pasting bushs blueprint what do they do? Continue to blame bush of course. Take a snif of what youre shoveling

John Q

Tue, May 11, 2010 : 11:43 a.m.

An excellent take on the contradictions of many Tea Partiers when it comes to their "distrust" of government and how deep that it actually runs. They love the exercise of government power - when it benefits them. Interesting that few of these Tea Partiers expressed this distrust when GWB was in charge. "In my experience, the average Tea Party adherent doesnt have a blanket distrust of institutions and far from it. He reveres the American military, imagines that American soldiers can successfully establish a functioning democracy in Iraq, doesnt object when even a Commander-in-Chief he loathes invokes sweeping powers to fight terrorism, generally trusts the criminal justice system to effect fair outcomes, affords police officers the benefit of the doubt when they arrest Harvard professors or suspected drug dealers or especially suspected terrorists, believes that local government officials in Arizona can enforce federal immigration law without unduly impinging on the civil liberties of legal residents and American citizens, wishes that Christian churches played a more influential role in American life, etc. I dont mean to imply that Tea Party attendees are uniform in their beliefs there is more intellectual diversity than is commonly supposed but what Ive just described are all commonly held views. - Conor Friedersdorf. http://trueslant.com/conorfriedersdorf/2010/05/09/why-a-more-libertarian-gop-is-desirable/

Edward R. Murrow's ghost

Tue, May 11, 2010 : 11:28 a.m.

@Ram, If there are no changes what soever in Social Security, the fund is projected to remain solvent until 2037. Minor changes such as raising the maximum amount of pay that is taxable, incrementally raising the retirement age, and instituting a means test for recipients will extend that solvency for decades. Medicare is a different and far more difficult issue, tied to the fact that our nation spends 19% of its GNP on health care compared to the European average of 12% for a similar level of health care quality. Get our national spending down to 12% and the problem will be long way toward being solved. But let me encourage you to set the example for the nation by renouncing and signing away your Social Security and Medicare benefits. Who knows, you might start a trend! Good Night and Good Luck

Ram

Tue, May 11, 2010 : 10:56 a.m.

Also, I think people misunderstand the Tea Party's stance on taxes. Taxes are necessary - we must support a vital military, maintain proper law & order, fund a strong infrastructure, etc. However, less and less Americans are paying taxes - and those who do have to pay are paying more. Redistribution of wealth is glorified stealing, and it is leading our country into a heavily divided era. Everybody seems to want something for nothing, and Politicians like to say they can provide such as service.

Ram

Tue, May 11, 2010 : 10:50 a.m.

David: Bush isn't a member of the Tea Party, and he never will be. The status quo Republicans of the past 20 years are just as big-government as the Democrats are. Thats why there is a new group like the Tea Party which is advocating for smaller government. I hate when people associate the Tea Party with the likes of George W. Bush - wrong! Also, you want to know where we should cut? How about ending Social Security and Medicare? The money isn't there anyways, its all a big house of cards waiting to collapse at the smallest push...How about ending bailouts of corporations and financial institutions that deserve to fail? We will never advance as a nation if we reward the losers of our economy...How about we honor the Constitution, the law of the land, instead of nominating Supreme Courts justices who will "bring a fresh perspective"?

red9seven

Tue, May 11, 2010 : 10:30 a.m.

Mr. Bigler, Being a strong advocate of fiscal responsibility, I was hoping for a better response. It seems like the comment section offers a better picture of how to achieve that, and it doesn't include a group that's better at developing sound bites than at encouraging meaningful dialogue on how to attack a serious issue that will impact generations to come. You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. When the Tea Party members shift from the latter to the former, I'd like to be engaged in your process.

yaah

Tue, May 11, 2010 : 10:21 a.m.

If the teapartiers actually would list specific spending cuts they favor enacting, other than being vague and talking about "entitlements and earmarks" I might have more respect for them. But the ones I talk to say spending cuts for defense should be off the table, if not expanded. There should be more funding for prisons. And spending cuts to medicare are also off the table. AND you want tax cuts. So what, you want to cut medicaid which is already pretty bare bones? That might save about 0.1%. What else? I am as against big government as anyone but the meaningless rhetoric has to stop.

Edward R. Murrow's ghost

Tue, May 11, 2010 : 7:06 a.m.

T: No, this discussion has begun to convince me the teapartyists are not about race. My apologies. No, this thread shows that the tea party suffers from massive ignorance of our nation's recent past. There, feel better? Good Night and Good Luck

David Briegel

Mon, May 10, 2010 : 7:35 p.m.

Golly M. Ronnie and the Bush Family never heard of a "veto"? Golly. Gosh! Phony as $3 bills!!

David Briegel

Mon, May 10, 2010 : 7:32 p.m.

You can have all the opinions you desire. But facts matter. 20 years. Not just a few. 20 years of Ronnie and his disciples. The genius Bush Family. 20 years. Not one, single, solitary balanced budget. Not One! (can't type in all caps) Not One!! Fiscal Conservatives? Where? In your dreams!!!

David Parker

Mon, May 10, 2010 : 6:34 p.m.

Good job, Bill. Probably the main reason for the Tea Party, IMO is protesting high spending that leads to high deficits and likely higher taxes to pay for same. A Liberal would probably view tax increases as only way to reduce the deficit. Obviously during the last year Washington has drastically increased spending and deficits to come. That's what really ignited the Tea Party. To argue Bush also increased the deficit, doesn't excuse it. IMO. Most Tea Partiers are and many were against Bush on that. Hopefully, for our country's sake we will elect more REAL conservatives, cut spending and grow our way out of this. I was there on Tax day and obviously Rick was the heckler. Obviously from what he wrote, he's a liberal. He's entitled to his opinion. If he wants to start his own Tea Party, have at it. But it appears your version is well represented in the Democratic Party. Maybe you ought to start there. :-)

Edward R. Murrow's ghost

Mon, May 10, 2010 : 9:42 a.m.

Mike, First, Republicans controlled the United States Senate for the first six years of the Reagan presidency so, whatever happened in Congress, both parties played a role. Second, the story with Saint Ronnie and Big George is the same as with Little George. Neither president ever came close to proposing a balanced budget. Every budget they sent to Congress proposed between $200 billion and $400 billion in deficit spending. As with Little Bush, Congress tinkered with the details but did not change the macro result. And, as with Little Bush, I do blame Democrats for not taking on the president for this disastrous fiscal policy. But, in the end, Congress largely enacted the budgets requested by the president between 1981 and 2009. No president in that period, therefore, can blame Congress for the nation's fiscal mess. They got the budget they requested. In this regard I do have some sympathy for the first Bush. He inherited is fiscal nightmare from Saint Ronnie and, working with Democrats in Congress, succeeded in raising taxes that began to staunch the bleeding. Many economists credit Bush's efforts as one of the root causes of the economic expansion of the 1990s. Yes, Virginia, higher taxes can be good for the economy. Just as Obama has inherited staggering future deficits from Little Bush (the day Obama took office the CBO was projecting trillion dollar deficits for the next decade), Big Bush and Clinton inherited staggering future deficits from Saint Ronnie's fiscal policies. So the key question for conservatives is this: if Reagan's fiscal policies were good for the economy (the running of then-massive deficits--again, he proposed those deficits--they were a result of his policies), why are the same policies not good for the economy now, especially when, in the current circumstance, the economy is far more in need of government stimulus than it was in the early 1980s?

mike from saline

Mon, May 10, 2010 : 7:55 a.m.

@Tigger "The National debt quadrupled under Ronnie and big George! What was the makeup of Congress at the time? We elect a President, who is the leader of the Executive Branch [one third of the Federal Government]. He's not a King. We are not UNDER him! Congress contoles the purse strings.

Edward R. Murrow's ghost

Sun, May 9, 2010 : 10:03 p.m.

Correction to my last: The DEBT quadrupled under Reagan and Bush I, not the DEBT. Also, a word on sources. The debt numbers come from: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm For individual year budgets, Wikipedia has excellent breakdown of each year's budget. That for FY 2009 can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

Edward R. Murrow's ghost

Sun, May 9, 2010 : 9:56 p.m.

@kayjay: Bush proposed a budget deficit of $1.4 Trillion for FY 2009 (beginning Oct. 1, 2008--the FY 2009 budget inherited by Obama when he took office) and this did not include any spending for the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. Bush proposed a proposed a deficit of $240 billion for FY 2008 and this did not include any spending on the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. These deficits were a product of huge tax cuts coupled with massive spending increases in the first Bush term. You might have a valid claim had Bush proposed balanced or surplus budgets those last two years of his regime, but he proposed almost $1.7 Trillion in deficit spending those two years with no accounting whatsoever for the costs of the war. I do blame Democrats for this mess--they didn't have the political bravery to tell the president "NO!!!". But to suggest that Bush gets a pass for his past two years in office is ludicrous. His budgets, in the macro, were adopted. There was tinkering with the details, but not with the larger numbers. The national debt on Sept. 30, 2001, (the last day of Clinton's last budget) was $5.8 Trillion. The national debt on Sept. 30, 2009, (the last day of Bush's last budget) was $11.9 Trillion. Moreover, the economy was "hooked" on that deficit spending--an economic equivalent of crack cocaine. Trying to eliminate overnight that deficit either by tax increases or by spending cuts (or a combination of both) would crash the economy. So anyone with even a marginal understanding of Macroeconomics understands that the projected deficits for the next decade or so are the residue of Bush II (just as the deficits of Bush I and of the first Clinton term were the residue of the sainted Ronald Reagan). Now, you may not like this, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Well, not unless you appear on Fox News, anyway. @Engineer, Reagan's fiscal policies? What, exactly, were those policies? The national debt on Sept. 30, 1981 (end of last Carter budget) was $997 Billion. The national debt on Sept. 30, 1993 (end of last Bush I budget) was $4.4 Trillion--a quadrupling of the national debt in 12 years under Reagan and Bush I. So what, exactly, were Reagan's fiscal policies that brought prosperity? Looks to me like his fiscal policy was to run massive deficits. Now, there is an argument that this does stimulate the economy, and that it did in the 1980s. It's called Keynesianism. But if Reagan's running massive deficits is what worked in the 1980s, why are you so opposed to it now? Or didn't you know that Saint Ronnie and Big George quadrupled the deficit in 12 years?

BenWoodruff

Sun, May 9, 2010 : 9:39 p.m.

Kayjay, Did "W" ever VETO a spending bill? I think not. If he was so conservative, why didn't he veto the evil Democrats spending bills?

Kayjay

Sun, May 9, 2010 : 7:47 p.m.

Correction: In recent history the national debt rises $1 trillion per term (4 years).

Kayjay

Sun, May 9, 2010 : 7:42 p.m.

Tigger, it is true that when "W" took office Jan 2001, the national debt was $5.7. However the Dems took control of Congress in Jan 2007. At that time the debt was $8.7 trillion. That equates to $3 trillion, not the $6 trillion you attributed to Bush. Historically national debt rises $1 trillion per year, but Obama spent $1.5 trillion in eleven months, and his health care reform, cap & trade, pork/earmarks will add $3.5 trillion. That is why the Tea Parties were created. Nothing to do with race. But if you want to make it an issue, I don't believe Obama would have been elected if he were "white". He would not have generated the Acorn interest, and therefore would not have won.

Engineer

Sun, May 9, 2010 : 7:17 p.m.

Just how long can Owebama be in office and the blame still be on Bush? Clinton brags about prosperity that was set up by Reagan's fiscal policies that we need today. As for Obama he is spending at a rate far greater than any previous adminastration. Bush was in office for 8 years and Obama has spent at least half as much as Bush in a quarter of the time. It does not have a thing to do with race but everything about having good conservative values that will lead this country back to prosperous times. Look at Massachusetts where people have finally wised up. Go Tea party!!!!

Nick

Sun, May 9, 2010 : 5:55 p.m.

Mr. Bigler- As the President succinctly stated last week: you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

WSC

Sun, May 9, 2010 : 8:47 a.m.

I agree with Alan, gill and Tigger. The original tea party of over 200 years ago was based on the concept of no taxation without representation. Those patriots had real problems with a dictator for a ruler, and they had a point. They needed to be represented by leaders who had the majority interest at heart. That meant a legislature, and that meant a separate country. Most of us know the rest. What tea party aficionados seem to forget is that because of the sacrifice of true patriots like Paul Revere and Thomas Paine, in this country we all now have equal representation under the law. All ARE represented. Equally. Even the Tea Party. They just dont like the outcome of the majority opinion. And thats fine. A sore loser is a good way to start a political party. I just dont feel the main plank of that party should be based on fear tactics. In the last two elections the majority of voters disagreed with old-fashioned Republican rule and voted in the liberal party. Its was a clear message that their extreme conservative viewpoints and the Politic-of-Fear was no longer a viable way to run a country, especially one as great as the United States. That they paint anyone not sharing their stark beliefs as traitors to be feared. It just goes to show how weak their arguments continue to be. Upon first hearing any fear-based ideology, such as the Tea Party screams of "Obamacare" and Socialism, trigger red flags in my mind. When you approach an argument as basic to our countrys political beliefs in individual freedoms, the seven second sound-bite and the clapboard slogan will get you through the door. But once through that door the argument begins in earnest and you need to bring the facts backing up your arguments, no matter how wild they may seem at first. I dont see any facts from the tea party. Just a continuation of the standard slogans and conservative fear tactics. And I never see any indication from such groups on how we are going to recover and then sustain our economy from its present state, one devastated by the ruinous Reagan/Bush I/Bush II economic policies. Just fear of any recovery that may be promoted or achieved by Democrats. The fact that the people within such Tea Party groups will not be honest and truthful with their complaint and outrage against President Obama is understandable. Racism is no longer in vogue in this country (unless you live in the South-West and you hate brown people. Then, I guess, its ok). But to be led by a black man? Relax, Tea Partiers. To borrow from Margaret and Helens latest fine blog: We survived Bush, youll survive Obama. If you dont think this country is big enough for two diametric viewpoints, then, A), youre wrong, and B), if you cannot accept A) then this time youre the ones who are going to have to think about leaving, because were not going anywhere. This is every Americans country, not just yours, and you no longer get to think that it is only you that determines who stays, who goes and who gets to speak.

mike from saline

Sun, May 9, 2010 : 8:28 a.m.

@ braggslaw, let me try and explain gil's comment. A2.com's moder- ation policy forbids name calling. This is a creative way for calling Tea Party members, "racist", without actualy saying it!! Looks like it works.

braggslaw

Sun, May 9, 2010 : 8:12 a.m.

This supposed co-dependency between the U.S. and China is one-sided as the flow of wealth is only in one direction. China is attempting to build up their own consumer demand and remove their dependence on their export industries. The only thing they need is oil and coal and they are snapping up reserves everywhere with the cash U.S. consumers have given them. The day will come when the Chinese consumer market is bigger than the U.S. consumer market -that is the day the Chinese communist party can basically disrupt the U.S. economy with only a small burp in the Chinese economy. It will happen, there are only 50-100 people making the big decisions in china. They have no voter feedback.

braggslaw

Sun, May 9, 2010 : 8:08 a.m.

how did this become an issue about race?

Technojunkie

Sun, May 9, 2010 : 8:01 a.m.

If you want to talk hypocrisy, how about the Democrats who went on and on about the federal deficit? No supply sider had the audacity to run anywhere near $Trillion annual deficits and monetize that debt as our government under total Democrat control is doing now. Apparently deficits are OK when the President is half black? But seriously, the way we're going America's collapse is going to make Greece look trivial. All we want is for the federal government to obey its Constitutional restraints. Neither party can be looked at as a good example, merely bad and worse. If the Tea Party movement can help to find representatives who obey the Constitution much like the NRA helps to find representatives who obey the Second Amendment, more power to them.

Edward R. Murrow's ghost

Sun, May 9, 2010 : 7:38 a.m.

"There will be a reckoning at some point and the Chinese will have the ability to crash our economy by manipulating the market for the U.S. debt that they hold." We are the largest purchaser of Chinese-made goods. If they do this, they will send their own economy into a tailspin. The fact of the matter is that the US and China are locked in an economic embrace, one dependent on the other. And this might not be a bad thing given the rising level of geo-political competition between the two. And ditto to Gill's comments. Funny how the teapartyists just discovered we have a $12 Trillion national debt, $9 Trilliom of it acquired under Reagan and the Bushes. And, most astonishingly, $6 Trillion of it acquired under Bush II. But it's now, with a black president, this overwhelmingly white movement, its members who "want their country back", discover the debt?? Yeah, right. The debt is a red herring. This is about race, pure and simple.

Gill

Sun, May 9, 2010 : 7:24 a.m.

The Country was handed over to the Chinese during the Bush years. Where were you people then? Oh, that's right, Bush is a white male which makes his actions ok...

braggslaw

Sun, May 9, 2010 : 6:29 a.m.

This is America people have the right to say stupid things. I am upset with the present administration in Washington because we are spending money we don't have and the debt is held by the Chinese Communist Party. I don't believe in taking money from those who earned it and redistributing it to those who did not earn it. I am not talking about multi-millionaire wall street hacks, I am talkin about people decided to work their butts off and are now being punished for their success. That is not America. There will be a reckoning at some point and the Chinese will have the ability to crash our economy by manipulating the market for the U.S. debt that they hold.