Tea Party- please explain

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The last two comments have completely lost me. What are we talking about?

A while back I made a crack about the Tea Party being more Wonderland than Boston, and likened Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to the Mad Hatter and March Hare. Since then several people have complained that it is a misrepresentation to call Rush a tea partier. Implying that he's mad does not seem to have been a problem, though.

[Anonymous]

I am the person who quibbled on the representation of Rush as Tea Partier. I'll agree he is mad--and I appreciate your attempt to pun. Maybe there are other ways you can use the Wonderland/Tea Party analogy? You're off to a good start. Work with it--you might have something there!

By the way, the Post today talked about liberals wanting to create an 'answer' to the Tea Party-- "One Nation" or something like that? It said they were facing the exact same issues as the Tea Partiers: broad coalition, divergence in messaging. Hopefully they will be treated a bit more fairly though.

[Anonymous]

I think the fact that the tea party is getting this level of discourse, at least hear, demonstrates they aren't being treated as unfairly as some might argue. If we were truly being unfair, we'd simply say, "Oh, they're all a bunch of racists!" or "They're just crackpots, don't even listen to them!" I always try to seek a more nuanced understanding of groups or individuals, because we tend toward overgeneralizing and oversimplifying, making some folks good and some folks bad and only viewing them through those lenses. I ultimately disagree with much of the tea party's platform, though do think they have some great points on some big issues, but am bothered by the explicit racism that I have seen present at rallies and other representations of their message. I know they are not all racist and that is not a core part of their message, but for me, the racial animus that is present is too much for me to fully support them. But I respect their right to organize, to protest, to run their candidates, etc, etc, etc. And I think not taking them seriously would be the biggest mistake for anyone who does oppose their policies, because they certainly should be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the fact that the tea party is getting this level of discourse, at least hear, demonstrates they aren't being treated as unfairly as some might argue. If we were truly being unfair, we'd simply say, "Oh, they're all a bunch of racists!" or "They're just crackpots, don't even listen to them!" I always try to seek a more nuanced understanding of groups or individuals, because we tend toward overgeneralizing and oversimplifying, making some folks good and some folks bad and only viewing them through those lenses. I ultimately disagree with much of the tea party's platform, though do think they have some great points on some big issues, but am bothered by the explicit racism that I have seen present at rallies and other representations of their message. I know they are not all racist and that is not a core part of their message, but for me, the racial animus that is present is too much for me to fully support them. But I respect their right to organize, to protest, to run their candidates, etc, etc, etc. And I think not taking them seriously would be the biggest mistake for anyone who does oppose their policies, because they certainly should be.

I think half the people here are / were saying that as the initial response to OP's questions. Some of us have pushed back on that, which is perhaps where reasoned discourse and respect enters into the equation.

Along these lines, the below is kind of funny! So far, no takers!

"Andrew Breitbart Offers $10,000 Prize for Anyone Who Can Document Tea Party Protesters Yelling N-Word at the Congressional Black Caucus Saturday

Matt Welch | March 25, 2010

Considering that some of the staffers within proximity of the alleged slurs were reportedly pointing cameras toward the crowd, this would seem like easy money if the story is true. As Michael Moynihan pointed out earlier this week, the anecdote has been presented as fact all over the journalism world."

http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/25/andrew-breitbart-offers-10000

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:[
Along these lines, the below is kind of funny! So far, no takers!

I hope you are not serious. If you side with Breitbart, then you are calling John Lewis a liar. I'm sure Lewis has been called worse by better, but that's not going to help your credibility much. There were multiple Congressional witnesses. There is film of a Tea Partier spitting on a Congressman and "n-word" signs have not been that unusual at Tea Party Events. Check out this story about a Tea Party founder (and Washington Times writer) who was caught with such a sign:

http://www.alan.com/2010/05/21/n-word-sign-maker-now-tea-party-columnist-for-washington-times/

There were also plenty of witnesses to Tea Party members calling Barney Frank the "f-word". So, given the number of well-documented incidents, and the Congressional witnesses, I don't know why you would think Lewis is lying.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[
Along these lines, the below is kind of funny! So far, no takers!

I hope you are not serious. If you side with Breitbart, then you are calling John Lewis a liar. I'm sure Lewis has been called worse by better, but that's not going to help your credibility much. There were multiple Congressional witnesses. There is film of a Tea Partier spitting on a Congressman and "n-word" signs have not been that unusual at Tea Party Events. Check out this story about a Tea Party founder (and Washington Times writer) who was caught with such a sign:

http://www.alan.com/2010/05/21/n-word-sign-maker-now-tea-party-columnist-for-washington-times/

There were also plenty of witnesses to Tea Party members calling Barney Frank the "f-word". So, given the number of well-documented incidents, and the Congressional witnesses, I don't know why you would think Lewis is lying.

So in this specific instance, why was nothing caught on camera? If you know of footage--send it in to Breitbart. I believe he is donating 10,000 to the NAACP, which is nice.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
So in this specific instance, why was nothing caught on camera? If you know of footage--send it in to Breitbart. I believe he is donating 10,000 to the NAACP, which is nice.

This is really not relevant to whether the n-word was directed at two members of Congress. If you want to call John Lewis a liar, just do it. Don't play silly games.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the fact that the tea party is getting this level of discourse, at least hear, demonstrates they aren't being treated as unfairly as some might argue. If we were truly being unfair, we'd simply say, "Oh, they're all a bunch of racists!" or "They're just crackpots, don't even listen to them!" I always try to seek a more nuanced understanding of groups or individuals, because we tend toward overgeneralizing and oversimplifying, making some folks good and some folks bad and only viewing them through those lenses. I ultimately disagree with much of the tea party's platform, though do think they have some great points on some big issues, but am bothered by the explicit racism that I have seen present at rallies and other representations of their message. I know they are not all racist and that is not a core part of their message, but for me, the racial animus that is present is too much for me to fully support them. But I respect their right to organize, to protest, to run their candidates, etc, etc, etc. And I think not taking them seriously would be the biggest mistake for anyone who does oppose their policies, because they certainly should be.

I think half the people here are / were saying that as the initial response to OP's questions. Some of us have pushed back on that, which is perhaps where reasoned discourse and respect enters into the equation.

Actually, no one said that. I was the person who initially brought up the racism within the party and I said this:
"What is particularly scary is that much of the opposition to Obama is not policy based but racially based. This is certainly not an original or core tenet of the movement but has been brought in by people looking for a venue to sound off. This is evidenced by some of the signage now popping up at rallies that is pretty explicitly racist."

From there, there was alot of debate about just how much racism was present, how "core" it was to the party, and what the responsibility of the party was to address this element from within.

I never made that contention, and I have been the person primarily involved in calling out the Tea Party on the racism that is present. Perhaps other comments stuck in that characterized the entire party as such by other posters, but I A) have no recollection of that (and am too lazy to go back through all the pages to confirm, sorry) B) am not responsible for that, and C) have explicitly disagreed with that sentiment.

It's not fair to misrepresent your opposition and then take issue with that misrepresentation. It is called a straw man argument and is an informal fallacy within debate.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So in this specific instance, why was nothing caught on camera? If you know of footage--send it in to Breitbart. I believe he is donating 10,000 to the NAACP, which is nice.

This is really not relevant to whether the n-word was directed at two members of Congress. If you want to call John Lewis a liar, just do it. Don't play silly games.

Are you saying that all the people who said the n-word was not employed are liars? It seems rather difficult to prove, and odd that with the prevalence of camera phones etc. no use of the n-word in this scenario was captured.

[Anonymous]

They would be lying if they did hear it and say they didn't hear it. Maybe the didn't hear it. That doesn't mean it wasn't said. Lewis said he heard it. If you are saying it was never said, you are either accusing Lewis of knowingly lying or somehow mistaking something for the n-word. Which is it?

[Anonymous]

I was told by a TEA party member that it meant "Taxed Enough Already."

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Are you saying that all the people who said the n-word was not employed are liars? It seems rather difficult to prove, and odd that with the prevalence of camera phones etc. no use of the n-word in this scenario was captured.

Again, if you want to call John Lewis a liar, just do it. Please stop your silly games.

Have you even bothered to research this incident? Or, are you simply relying on what Andrew Breitbart has said about it? Because, Breitbart himself is no angel. In an attempt to prove that nobody yelled the "n-word' at Congressman Lewis, Breitbart showed a video of the Congressman in which no such epitaph was used. However, that video was of the Congressman "leaving" the Capitol Building rather than "arriving" (as it was represented by Breitbart). So, Breitbart himself has issues with accuracy and truthfulness. In fact, this misrepresented video has been part of Breitbart's "evidence" in his campaign to show that the Congressmen lied.

Now, the Congressmen walked from the House office buildings on one side of Independence Avenue to the Capitol Building on the other. Nobody has presented a complete video of their entire walk. As such, there is no video and/or sound evidence to prove either way what happened (this is why Breitbart has had to misrepresent the available video).

Obviously, it would be impossible for protesters to know everything that was yelled unless they walked along with the Congressman. That's especially true since a major protest was going on in front of the Capitol Building and creating a lot of noise. So, I am not saying that those who said no n-word was used are liars. I'm saying that they were not in a position to speak about anything other than was directly within their earshot (and that was not a wide area).

Similarly, are you at all familiar with camera phones? First, most are not very good cameras, let alone sound recorders. A picture cannot tell what someone may have yelled. The sound quality of camera phone recordings is poor, especially when there is as much background sound as would have been there that day.

As a result, there is no technological means to prove what happened. As far as I know, there are no protesters who can accurately testify to what happened during every step of the walk. So, that leaves us to the word of John Lewis and Andre Carson. I don't know much about Carson, but I do know a lot about Lewis. If Lewis said it happened, that's good enough for me. In a similar manner, there are a number of Republican Senators whose word I would have no reason to doubt in such a situation.

So, again, this boils down to whether you are calling Lewis a liar. Playing games is just a waste of time. As for Breitbart, I have no qualms about calling him a liar and a fraud.

[Anonymous]

Maybe there isn't direct video evidence of a tea partier yelling the N-word, but there is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izUvidBH-_o&feature=watch_response

Now, we can't conclude that the man spit on Cleaver because of racism, but it's also clear we can't hear a damn word being said by either of them. I'm not saying that man called him an n-word. But using amateur recording devices in a raucous crowd is going to result in very little usable audio. So while there may not be clear audio/video documenting the use of the n-word, the video we do have is far from conclusive that it WASN'T said. Now, it's impossible to prove a negative, so the onus is on Lewis to offer proof to convince naysayers of his account.

But let's evaluate the situation. Lewis is one man who gains little from accusing a nameless, faceless individual of hurling racial epithets. He also had his story corroborated by those with him. He is a well-respected member of Congress. To doubt him is to call him a liar or to insist he misunderstood something else that was said (a position I have yet to see articulated).

On the other side, you have a group of individuals who have a lot to lose if proven to have used such an epithet. A majority of those recording were members of this group, so it's within the realm of possibility that video/audio exists but has not been brought forward. If the word was said, folks who were saying it wasn't either were not in a position to hear (likely true for the vast majority of people at the large rally) or are lying. If it was said, at least one person is lying: the person who said it. They may be lying through silence, but it is a lie nonetheless.

So, there are a few possible scenarios:
1.) No n-word used. Lewis and all others who claim to have heard it are lying.
2.) No n-word used, but another word that sounded similar was used and was misheard by Lewis and his crew and them only. Everyone else understood the word properly except Lewis and his people. No one is lying, though no one has offered what the other word may have been.
3.) The n-word was used. Many folks didn't hear it and have said such. Some folks, likely those closed to the individual(s) who said it, heard it and are either explicitly lying or have chosen not to come forward because the incentive not to is quite strong.

Given all these scenarios, I am likely to conclude that 3 is the most likely, followed by 2, followed by 1. Now, that is hardly an open-and-shut case. But we can play games about what was or was not recorded or we can be reasonable and do our best to make speculative assessments based on what we DO know. Because at this point, no one can say with certainty whether the word was or wasn't said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was told by a TEA party member that it meant "Taxed Enough Already."

"Palin's Always Ready To Yap"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe there isn't direct video evidence of a tea partier yelling the N-word, but there is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izUvidBH-_o&feature=watch_response

Now, we can't conclude that the man spit on Cleaver because of racism, but it's also clear we can't hear a damn word being said by either of them. I'm not saying that man called him an n-word. But using amateur recording devices in a raucous crowd is going to result in very little usable audio. So while there may not be clear audio/video documenting the use of the n-word, the video we do have is far from conclusive that it WASN'T said. Now, it's impossible to prove a negative, so the onus is on Lewis to offer proof to convince naysayers of his account.

But let's evaluate the situation. Lewis is one man who gains little from accusing a nameless, faceless individual of hurling racial epithets. He also had his story corroborated by those with him. He is a well-respected member of Congress. To doubt him is to call him a liar or to insist he misunderstood something else that was said (a position I have yet to see articulated).

On the other side, you have a group of individuals who have a lot to lose if proven to have used such an epithet. A majority of those recording were members of this group, so it's within the realm of possibility that video/audio exists but has not been brought forward. If the word was said, folks who were saying it wasn't either were not in a position to hear (likely true for the vast majority of people at the large rally) or are lying. If it was said, at least one person is lying: the person who said it. They may be lying through silence, but it is a lie nonetheless.

So, there are a few possible scenarios:
1.) No n-word used. Lewis and all others who claim to have heard it are lying.
2.) No n-word used, but another word that sounded similar was used and was misheard by Lewis and his crew and them only. Everyone else understood the word properly except Lewis and his people. No one is lying, though no one has offered what the other word may have been.
3.) The n-word was used. Many folks didn't hear it and have said such. Some folks, likely those closed to the individual(s) who said it, heard it and are either explicitly lying or have chosen not to come forward because the incentive not to is quite strong.

Given all these scenarios, I am likely to conclude that 3 is the most likely, followed by 2, followed by 1. Now, that is hardly an open-and-shut case. But we can play games about what was or was not recorded or we can be reasonable and do our best to make speculative assessments based on what we DO know. Because at this point, no one can say with certainty whether the word was or wasn't said.

Did not see any spitting. Perhaps spittle flying from shouting? I heard lots of "Kill the Bill". No n-word. I am prepared to concede that the Congressman 'heard' the n-word, but with no proof and SO MANY cameras recording devices etc. present, not prepared to concede that anyone actually said it.