Taliban or Tea Party?
 

I realize that Aaron Sorkin is kind of a political hack, but in the Newsroom finale, the main character does a monologue where he compares the Tea Party to the Taliban.

The point isn't that the Tea Party beheads people it disagrees with, but rather there are quite a few similarities between the Tea Party and the Taliban, and by extension most hard-right groups such as:

Ideological purity, compromise as weakness, a fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism, denying science, unmoved by facts, undeterred by new information, a hostile fear of progress, a demonization of education, a need to control women’s bodies, severe xenophobia, tribal mentality, intolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the U.S. government.

I think the Republicans need to take their party back because these people aren't Republicans. And they don't stand for American values. For lefty lefties like me, they're terrifying. A left/right discussion and resulting compromise is a good thing. An I'm right and you should die command is not how democracies work.

I love Aaron Sorkin. I feel like he has been able to eloquently state what I've been feeling for a long time.

What's craziest about the Tea Party to me is that they're almost completely different than they were at their inception. If the Republican Party is pulling hard right to appeal to the Tea Party, the Tea Party already pulled hard right to appeal to the Evangelical vote.

I actually identified with them at their inception.

They are no longer recognizable.

It seems like a turnkey base which will believe absolutely anything they're told by their leaders. This idiots will vote against their own interests--lowering taxes on billionaires while raising their own taxes. (the Ryan plan)

I really identify with the character Will Mcavoy. I'm a pro-gun, pretty economically far-right Republican, but I'm embarrassed at the things this party has done recently. So much that if Romney plays silly season politics as the rest of his party has, I'm casting lots of votes for Democrats in local and federal elections this November.

In fact, the only Republican I'll probably vote for is Tom Coburn.

In the past, I was strictly independent. I have supported both sides, depending on the position and the candidates' stance on the issues. This tea party stuff is worrisome. I will only be voting Democrat this November.

Kevin, you nailed it on the head when you said that the followers will believe anything and vote against their own best interest.

The blatant disregard for science and fact is scary. The scapegoating of teachers and education is mind boggling. A very populated county in the area started school about two weeks late because the county commissioners were unwilling to support a small property tax increase to cover the school system's budget. The reasoning was that people wouldn't want to move there if property taxes were higher. A poor school system that isn't open will keep a lot more people out than a slight property tax increase. It is in our society's best interest to have an educated population. Is the system perfect? No, but it's also not past the point of no return, either.

Finally, I can't support a group that hates women.

I think the comparison is apt.

This is probably because for most of the "normal" TPers at the inception, they got what they wanted and went home. The crazy zealots that continue on are in it really as anti-Obama righties. That means they are for anything that is opposite of what Obama is for with the goal of getting him out of office in 2012. Not really the original goals of the Tea Party, but essentially lines up with the goals of the GOP. Little do they know they are cutting of their noses to spite their faces.

Mike Castle, et. al. would agree with you.

I can't believe they've targeted Orrin Hatch.

I can't recall where I read the article, I believe it may have been Washington Post, but it basically said that there has been a decline in hate groups that are being watchdogged because they have all joined the Tea Party. That's how I personally view them.

I have always been a line straddling Independent but I will be voting for President Obama because I too cannot abide the women haters that Republicans have become.

The problem is we don't have politicians that represent the views of the people anymore. Poll after poll show that the majority of Americans are moderates regardless of their political affiliation yet the people keep electing these far left/right radicals to office. Moderate Repubs and Blue Dog Democrats should be the majority in Washington yet their kinds are going extinct it seems.

When I realized I had nothing in common with the Republicans in 2000, I started identifying as an Independent. The self named Conservatives and what now passes as Republicans scare me very, very much. Feminism is not a dirty or liberal word.

True story.

Tea Party is to Republicans as Westboro Baptist Church is to Christianity.

33girl (and other Pennsylvanians), ever wonder what John Heinz would be doing now if not for that terrible accident?

The problem is that it seems like it's only those on the far left or far right that are motivated to vote in primaries. So even if a ton of moderates vote in the general election, the candidates coming out of the primaries are already skewed to the sides.

Although I'd make the argument that Obama's actually a lot closer to the center (even right of center sometimes) than people like to acknowledge because it doesn't play into the Socialist Muslim Immigrant narrative.

Very true.

Yep

And yep.

Oh my stars, YES, even Yesser!

Preach!

I actually don't see the Tea Party as the west version's of the Taliban. They're more like the west version of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East or the Prosperous Justice Party in Indonesia. It's interesting that when it come to their social outlook, both movement are almost the same. Who are the Taliban of the US, I'd say the Montana Freeman are the closest you'll get to the Taliban. If given the same circumstances, I'd say they have the potential to be as vicious as the Taliban.

Mary Poppins is a proud Independent, and not a GOP supporter since 2000.

You can call me a "reverse boll weevil."

LOL.

First I will identify myself as the lone conservative Republican commenting on this thread...so let the feeding frenzy begin. :D

While I may or may not agree with all of the tenets of the Tea Party, I am far less concerned about a group that assembles by obtaining the proper permits, behaving in an orderly fashion and maintaining proper care of the facilities that they use than those on the far left that "occupy" public areas in such a manner that sexual assaults are not uncommon, nor is spitting on police officers or becoming involved in violent behavior and various other misdemeanors and felonies.

I would rather see people stand up for their beliefs by making them known in an articulate and intelligent manner than to dress in bright pink, furry costumes as vaginas, looking utterly ridiculous and demanding the arrest of Condeleezza Rice for war crimes.

I would rather hear people discuss the issues, regardless of their stance, than ridicule a public servant for his weight (Gov. Christy) or refer to an intelligent, successful, black woman as a "dirty, worthless whore" or a "House Nigger" simply because she has the audacity to disagree with their views. (Mia Love)

In my humble opinion, there could be a far more constructive discourse and greater possibility of successful solutions, if BOTH sides would concentrate on the issues and finding a common ground rather than allowing our disagreements to deteriorate into name calling and ridicule.

And I must confess that I do not think that the main stream media, which, unfortunately, many people depend upon rather than doing their own research, does not help.

If a conservative made the remarks that left wing liberal, Samuel L. Jackson made about being upset that the hurricane was missing Tampa and the possibility of "wiping out" those in attendance there would be a media uproar. If a conservative attacked the children of President Obama the way that far left liberals attack the children of Sarah Palin, the women's groups in this country would be up in arms, but it's okay, and humorous, to feed on the children of a conservative.

However, when Republicans have someone make a completely idiotic and totally uneducated remark like that of Todd Akin (Yes, I admit it)...it's headline news for days. Yet I don't hear those same media outlets being outraged at the numerous remarks tossed about by the left wing.

While there are extremists on either side of the issue that can be scary...I must confess that I find the behaviors of those on the far left to be considerably more disconcerting than those of the Tea Party.

I will step off of my "soap box" now and end my rant with the hope that we can disagree in a civil manner. Thank you.

That's the thing, right? It's drawing a comparison between apples and kittens. Representative Akin (along with Paul Ryan, btw), has sponsored bills in the House that would restrict abortion rights. It's pretty obvious now that he's using factual inaccuracies to support that view. There have been hundreds of times when Democrats proposed and sponsored bills based on factual inaccuracies - use one of those to support your point - not Samuel L. Jackson who's not an elected official or someone dressed up as a vagina.

And if someone thinks Malia and Sasha Obama haven't been attacked or snarked on, they should look harder. The difference is that Malia and Sasha haven't taken any type of political stance that I've seen besides "vote for my dad, he's a good dad." Which is what any child of a politician would say.

Where do you do your research?

That's such an apples:oranges comparison. You should know better.

http://www.angryblacklady.com/wp-con...k-to-kenya.jpg

riiiiiiight....

How do you know this was done by anyone on the left? Do we know exactly who made that Wikipedia edit? Has no one on the right ever called the President a racially pejorative term?

And the Tea Party is one of the reasons we are where we are. This is a group which couldn't even agree to raise the debt ceiling. Ridiculous.

Even her post drips with extreme disdain for opposing opinions.

The attacks on Bristol Palin began in 2008, when she was a pregnant high school student. I do not believe that the fact that she later (in 2009) became a public figure in her own right, makes the decency of targeting her for her mother's views retroactive.

Also as a mother, I do not believe that my children are responsible for my beliefs and actions once they reach their 18th birthday. If someone disagrees with my views, they should argue their position with me, not make personal attacks on me, and certainly my children should be off-limits. In my opinion, this should hold true whether one is a public figure or not...it is basic decency.

I hope that the tone of my post does not come across as disrespectful. I do no mean it to be. I would simply like to have another opinion considered. Thank you.

I won't participate in the feeding frenzy -- as a moderate Democrat, I agree with almost all you said. I do, though, agree with others that the comparisons you make are apple and oranges, and I do tend to think that the 'left wing liberal" in "left wing liberal Samuel L. Jackson" risks moving away from the civil discourse you rightly call for. It seems to me that labels like "left wing liberal" and "right wing conservative" have pretty much ceased to have any meaning beyond the pejorative "extremist."

I would also say that I have seem some Tea Party rallies that made some Occupy protests I have seen look like garden parties -- the level of vitriol and, well I don't know how else to say it but ignorance about our government, was disconcerting to say the least. I'm certainly not saying all most Tea Party folks are like that, nor am I saying all Occupy protests are garden parties. I'm agreeing with your assessment that there are extremists and loonies at both ends of the political spectrum. I don't think it's helpful to have a contest on whose extremists are the looniest or scariest.

I do also think there is a tendancy among all of us to think that the "other side" gets more of a pass from the media. Sometimes it may be true, but not always. There's Todd Akin, there's Anthony Weiner. As for the Palin kids, I have a hard time thinking a comparison to the Obama kids is apt. I don't think the Obama girls have being doing reality TV. Yes. as you say comments about Bristol Palin began earlier (though she was 18/almost 18 at the time), and as I recall, there was lots of condemnation from all quarters about those comments.

As for Samuel L. Jackson's tweet, accuracy matters. He didn't say anything about "wiping out" those in attendance at the GOP convention. He tweeted "Unfair S---t: GOP spared by Issac ! NOLA prolly F-----d Again. Not understanding God's plan!" (Later, he tweeted "Daayum! Poked a Hornets nest, hunh? Apologies to God, Tampa, da GOP& Isaac(sp)! Who played the Race card?!") Was he being funny or offensive (or both)? Certainly up for debate, and there's a lot of it out there. But he didn't speak of the possibility of "wiping out" those in attendance. Criticize what he said by all means, but if civil discourse is what we're after, let's not attack what he didn't say or put what he didn't say in quotation marks.

Meanwhile, I heartily recommend (again) Patriotic Grace: What It Is and Why We Need It Now by Peggy Noonan.

As for the children of politicians, we could go back twenty years ago to when Chelsea Clinton was only 12 or 13 and the subject of nasty jokes by Rush Limbaugh and John McCain.

Oops...I mistakenly put this as part of the quote section in my reply. This should have been after the quote about Mr. Jackson. My apologies.

Since I want to be open minded to other points of view I will agree that Samuel L. Jackson, someone I consider to be on the far left, is not a nominee and is simply expressing his political views as a private citizen in the public view. Similarly, Rush Limbaugh, someone I consider to be on the far right, was a private citizen in the public view expressing his (equally outrageous) opinion during the birth control controversy about the "character" of Sandra Fluke. He was fodder for the mainstream media and liberal organizations for days...unlike the chirping of crickets regarding Mr. Jackson's remarks.

Those jokes were completely out of line and were both deplorable and unacceptable...as are those regarding the children of any politician.

Is context relevant here? Limbaugh is an influential political commentator with the top-rated talk radio show (15 million listeners). He made his comments on that radio show, and he intended them to be part of his as political discourse. Those comments have both the potential to reflect on the sponsors of his show and to influence lots of Ditto-Heads.

Jackson is an actor who tweeted the comments. Granted, he has over a million followers (seriously?), but still, it's a tweet from an actor. Does anybody really care? (Perhaps my bias is showing. I simply don't see the point of tweeting.)

Limbaugh actually has the ability to influence politics. I don't think the same can be said for Jackson. Under those circumstances, do the two comments carry the same weight or deserve the same response?

YES. Every. Freaking. Minute. You must be channelling my mom. If he hadn't died, I probably wouldn't have taken the step I felt I had to take earlier this year, which is becoming NO Party. Because the Republican Party would probably still be what it was founded to be.

No one looks to Samuel L. Jackson on the left for political commentary, but we all know millions on the right subscribe to Rush Limbaugh, and he is paid a pretty penny for those thoughts. Yet again, your comparison is poor. If you want to compare someone, how about the prayer group that claims to have gotten God to move the hurricane from its intended coarse to Tampa and the GOP convention by sending it to MS/LA. That's not offensive?

This. Gingerdeltaz, this is the problem I have with your post. It sounds like you are trying to say that the Tea Party extremism is ok because there are people on the left who are worse. Do you really want to start a competition where we all trot out examples of idiots on either end of the spectrum? How about the guys who got kicked out of the GOP convention for throwing things and making racist comments to an African American cameraman? Threats on the lives of House Democrats after votes on health care reform?

I'm doing exactly what I agreed with MC is silly to do, but only to illustrate the point. I don't think anyone here is going to say that extremists on either side are ideal. The problem is that many (most?) Tea Party members can be numbered in the "extremist" category, and it's starting to make it look like the entire Republican party belongs in the extremist category, which I do not believe is reality. I would think that more moderate Republicans would be concerned about the image that the Tea Party is giving to the rest of the right.

(I will also agree that comparing a professional political pundit like Limbaugh, someone whose family has long been associated with politics and who is known synonymously with the Republican party, with an actor like Samuel L. Jackson, who is known for being an actor, is laughable.)

Your comment about "left wing liberal" and "left wing" really made me stop and think. I must admit that I have used those terms so casually and carelessly, that I did not give enough thought to the fact that they are labels and can certainly be inflammatory.

That was definitely a "teachable moment" for me. You are correct. I have an aversion to labels, yet I was using them myself without having thought them through. It's time to remove those labels from my discussions. Thank you.

I looked at the Peggy Noonan book on Amazon and was impressed by what I saw. I'm getting ready to download it now.

I appreciate that you did not join the feeding frenzy. :) It's certainly not enjoyable, but I did know that I was setting myself up for it when I chose to share the only differing opinion. I don't take it personally at all and respect that the others submitting posts are simply expressing their views as well.

Both sides have done it. No one should be proud of it.

Bristol Palin has now become a public figure in her own right, and frankly, I think she deserves it.

No problem. We all have a tendancy to do it, because it becomes part of "the way people speak." We've been condititioned for it.

Hope you like it. It's been some years since I read it -- I should probably read it again as a "vaccination" for the next two+ months.

I assumed she was talking about Trig Palin, who is still being made the butt of jokes due to his Downs Syndrome. :(

http://www.tmz.com/2012/08/20/wayne-...t-sarah-palin/

No serious person has ever made a joke about Trig. Poor baby was a new born when his mama was thrown into the spot light. Honestly, Palin put her own children in the spot light in the way that no other politician ever has. When you use your kids as props, people feel like they are fair game, whether or not that is fair. Comics, which you have pointed out, make a living saying outrageous things. Wayne Brady is not a part of the political dialogue and should not be used as an excuse to ramp up rhetoric. Making fun of those with disabilities is distasteful regardless of their parentage...God knows the joke didn't bother Trig any at his age, but others with Trisomy 21 may not take so kindly to the joke.

If I didn't know better I'd say it sounds like you're defending people who choose to attack Palin's children.

I have never heard anyone joke about Trig. That's disgusting. Who does that?