On teabagging

Photo by Aaron Wiener of the Washington Independent

If you’d like to be spared this teabag rant, read no further.

Okay, the teabagging guys – and they were almost entirely guys – proved a pretty easy target yesterday. So full of ill-focused rage, many ventured far beyond the familiar waters of self-parody and sailed confidently into the realm of national laughingstock. Part of this, obviously, is due to the fact that most did not know what teabagging was before they settled on that unfortunate term (clip not terribly safe for work).

Anyway, from what I could tell, the nation’s teabaggers hate taxes, gays, President Obama, communists, pork (clearly just the spending kind), the Federal Reserve, fascism and Congress – who, according to the clown in the photo above, should be hanged (and he apparently missed the news that Sen. Clinton is no longer in Congress). One guy, perhaps angling for double nutball points, combined his hatred of fascism and Obama, arguing with a straight face that our president is a fascist, “because he is one.” Right.

Things I didn’t see hated yesterday: Bush’s eight-year spending orgy, being taken to war on false pretenses, the dilution of the rule of law, the political firing of insufficiently partisan U.S. Attorneys, the now inarguable establishment of the U.S. as a torturing nation and the poor post-war care for injured soldiers. Those all got a free pass yesterday.

I am certain that there were sane, sensible opponents of the measures being undertaken to get the economy moving. No one is happy about the bailouts and giant spending packages – we’re all pissed. But since none of these wackaloons saw fit to fire up the hate-machine when it could have done some good, these protests were intellectually bankrupt from the get-go; more juvenile tantrum than honest protest. That said, I hope they do it every year…I needed the laugh.

Advertisements

Author: Scott

I am a married father of two. I graduated from Rock Bridge High School and then Mizzou before spending six years in the Washington, D.C. area. We returned to Columbia, Missouri in 2006.

3 thoughts

  1. By the same token, I hope every time you see a Code Pink exercise, you also recognize the “wackaloon” component, although you obviously agree with their opposition to war. I also hope you laugh at them and their “intellectual bankruptcy.” Or is it only bankruptcy if you DISagree with them?

  2. Absolutely, there are wackos on all sides. And I don’t know if Code Pink’s opposition to all war is intellectually bankrupt so much as naive and dangerous.

    As far as Iraq goes, In a job interview with the Member of Congress I eventually worked for she said a number of colleagues though Colin Powell’s presentation the day before had been a hoax. I thought “who the eff are these nuts?” But of course, it pretty much was.

    Anyway, I was initially on Bush’s side, given Hussein’s apparent designs on WMDs and interest in using them against us. But as the bogus claims and drifting rationales for invasion piled up after the fact, I changed my tune…but I’m hardly a peacenik.

    Oh, and there is nothing more hilarious that 20-something hipsters protesting whatever. Like the NYU protests last month, those were priceless.

  3. Regarding the, um, other meaning of the term…you might find this deply amusing:

    http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=04&year=2009&base_name=shuster_if_youre_planning_simu

    And regarding the first poster’s question, I think we all need to remember that agreement on a general point of policy does not equal support. For example, I generally take an environmental tilt, being an organic farmer and all. But I consider Greenpeace, PETA, and those sorts of groups to be “wackaloons” of the first order. Thinking that CAFOs are a bad idea does not make one an animal-rights activist, and so on.

    As one of the “sane, sensible opponents of the measures being undertaken to get the economy moving”, I see those protester folks as doing more harm than good, in the same way that Moveon damaged the center-left cause during the Bush years far more than it helped. Arguing for a financial policy that involves more responsiblity, less complex taxation, and streamlined government does not need to involve personal attacks and unrelated bile. I rave plenty on my blog about ridiculous government, but I don’t need help from the Anarchist wing of the Republican party to do so.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s