Humorless.
Without a sense of humor, politics is insufferable, and the strangeness of the Tea Party phenomenon is that everytime I see someone who claims to be a representative of the Tea Party, such as this dour Michael Patrick Leahy, it worries me that there is no sense of the ridiculous in the Tea Party -- and a complete vacuum of irony. Leahy is a founding father? Are the other founders grumpy, too? Is this the smarty-aleck of the outfit or just fellow with time on his hands? Worrisome and puzzling. The notion that there truly is a competing Coffee Party makes it even sillier that Leahy decides that he has to restate endlessly what the Tea Party think it is, or what he thinks it is. The Coffee Party? Hey, Leahy, consider it is likely a prank. A handsome genius puts up a graphic with coffee cups popping up on the screen and claims this is spontaneous growth? Looks like a prank. Sounds like a send-up. Note (above) that the Coffee Party declined to appear opposite Leahy. And Leahy is happy to be there, debating the empty chair of java. Presents the possibility that Leahy is a send-up? Nah. Dueling beverages?
Who Fears The Tea Party?
It remains a mystery why anyone fears the Tea Party. It is also possible that the Tea Party is a send-up. It can feel these days as if we have wandered into a novel under construction by a distracted Sinclair Lewis. "It Can't Happen Here" turns into "It Can Happen, But It Won't Be That Scary Here." What Leahy has to say is routine, derivative, unhelpful, a sturdy B for civics. The question unanswered is, why are we listening to Leahy? Why does anyone fear Leahy? The fellow may be humorless, but he is clearly rational and dull, the kind of guy who can supervise and manage and learn. Shrug. "Limited government... free markets... and ..." Leahy does spring upon the name Soros with regard the Coffee Party, which he declares, "...big government... collectivist..." Shrug. Again, a B for partisanship. Perhaps I am an easy grader. B-.
I consider myself a tea partier, and I am nothing short of hilarious at times. Sometimes I start laughing before I even get the remark out of my mouth, and am rendered dumb. Other times, people even laugh along with me. I will be laughing especially hard when Reid and Pelosi have to look for honest work this coming winter.
If you can never laugh at yourself, you are screwed, simply put, but JB, is it that the Tea Party can't laugh at itself or politicians in general? The dems have no sense of humor save for Joe Biden, who is a walking and talking punchline, and the republicans are moribund in humor. The only people that are laughing are late night show hosts.
Fear crowds out humor. Tea Partiers are profoundly afraid that Obama will cheat them of their birthright. By the way, RBO in one of their older threads has exposed the coffee thing as a scam: One person dressed in bibbed overalls - who has since fled the country - with a website and a fax machine. There's nothing to it - though the MSM would like it to be.
i take delight in little old ladies who are pissed at pols. they can generally speak for themselves. tea parties are anti-groups. they are coincidental assemblies of like-minded individuals. they are defined by similarity circles rather than by essences.
tea party spokes-persons are self-designated. i am skeptical of them and of reporters who turn to them. they can certainly speak for themselves but when they try to articulate what the congregation "thinks" why not ask the embarrassing question "how could you know?" just because he jumps to the front of the crowd?
tea party organizers are people who say "Wednesday at noon in the park" loudly and frequently. they are totally comprehensible, admirable and helpful. they enable like minded folks to recognize other like minded folks. they are enablers rather than leaders.
do movements need leaders? cats may travel in bands when they sense something interesting but trying to herd them shows that the would-be herder has forgotten they are cats. cats are individuals.
The folks who came up with the Coffee Party Meme are "Oh so smart (TM)" Coffee can be branded like that Dijon mustard: Espresso and Cappuccino are something elites drink on the Coasts, especially those European types.
Salt of the earth Muhrikens (Americans to you all) Drink Maxwell House at home, and Dunkin Donuts Coffee on the road. 6 dollar Mocha Frappacinos are for the effete elites.
Tea on the other hand is simple, even Herb tea is considered soothing and not an extravagance. Everyone drinks Iced Tea in the South. Tea is economical.
So the Coffee Party is for higher taxes and less fiscal responsibility? I think they are putting some Bushmills or Jameson's in their coffee.
Here we go again--JB trying to wrap his Manhattan brain around the expanse of the USA. I too would proudly label myself as a tea party person--hang out with a few, support the cause, give a few bucks, can't find much incorrect about what is generally said. it may not be apparent, but I am a fairly sophisticated, traveled, well read, completely "toothed", own one foreign and one American car, pay bills, did the big corp career, have and had several small businesses. JB's analysis of TP's is about as deep as Janet Napalitano's understanding of terrorism fomenting in Yemen.
I don't know who this guy is; JB says he doesn't either and then goes on to generalize madly about the tea party movement. that's real depth of thought. If you're interested, do some homework outside the city limits; if not, be more circumspect--you're making a fool of yourself.
I actually like the fact that the tea party movement has no slick front guy; I've know that is in fact a sure sign of more-of-same. I see it as actually juvenile to insist that a movement have a pretty face and facile tongue. And if you are the adversary, it is scary to know you don't know who the general is, is there a general in this army. Or, might we be actually seeing shared values, organic social movement, guerrilla political warfare.
I'm going to "pile on" with my own critique of JB, maybe to get it all over in one grouchy thread. My complaint is that he forgives himself too easily for his mistakes. An older example would be Larry Johnson's "insider tip" that John McCain would be named Secretary of Defense... how's that SecDef thingy workin' out fer ya, John? A recent example would be the whip counts of under 200 for the HCR, followed by an interview with the Roll Call guy a couple days later who says, "I think Pelosi has the votes or they wouldn't be bringing it to a vote" to which John says "I agree." Huh? Pretty big flip-flop from under 200 to I agree that she has the votes, within a 48-72 hour period, with no explanation offered as to what happened. We all make mistakes (I predicted the US hockey team to get the Gold, e.g.) but we all have to own up to them or at least explain why we went awry.
Re the whip count. The voices who have told me under 200 are date-stamped. Steve Dennis was an outlier on Thursday eve 11 when he said that Pelosi was close. Salena Zito rode with Jason Altmire voters to DC on Wednesday and Thursday last week, to protest Altmire (4 PA) voting yes. Altmire remains on the fence. If Pelosi had the votes, she would move this on Monday 15; she would have moved it last week pronto. The votes are not there, and she cannot risk a failure. They will test it with the sidecar bill, if and when it is constructed. The Hill says the whip count is at best in the 215 range. At best. Stupak said on Friday 12 that he and his No votes were being bypassed. Now we hear Kucinich is a definite no. The vote wanders around, depending upon the spinner; and my reporters just repeat the last thing they are told that day. No hard count. (Also, in re McCain SecDef: the Gates choice was the next best thing that POTUS could manage: same direction as McCain, just not ornery.) And re consistency: I do not try to be. This is the news about events that haven't happened yet, or may not happen. Known unknowns. What works on Thursday 11 does nto work on Friday 12. Events are in the saddle.
I suppose if you had gone from 215 to 200 I wouldn't have complained about inconsistency.
Also I don't expect to be able to split 215 from 214 or 216. But it shakes me up when we go from 200 to 215. It means somebody didn't do their homework (not saying you, just one of your sources.)
I'll tell you what Lou, there is not a radio host, certainly on a major radio station, that has the ability to tell a narrative as well as Mr. Batchelor. He has a distinctive refined voice as well and when I listen to it at night, it reminds my of the nights I spent summering in Jackman Maine when my father would read to me while I was going to bed. Dad did not have the refined dialect that Mr. Batchelor has, but he had the same calm baritone that would lull me to a nice sleep. I miss my dad and those nights in Jackman, but I get to visit sometimes when I listen to the stream from WABC.
My earlier comment taken by itself seems a bit harsh in its criticism of JB. I was shocked that JB answered my criticism personally. This told me that he took it to heart a bit more than I would have thought possible. I apologize to John and to anyone else I may have offended with my criticism. I think if you look at the body of my commentary on this site you will see an almost gagging preponderance of hero worship on my part peppered with a bit of sarcasm here and there about missed predictions. So, I apologize, sincerely, but also quite frankly don't see what the big deal is: if I had as big a batch of "worshippers" as John does I wouldn't mind a little scud missile across my bow every now and then. As it is, I get the scud missiles without any mitigating hero worship! LOL Life's a Pelosi, then you die.
Also, the phone is not allowed to ring, the dog is not allowed to bark, and the fish are not even allowed to blow bubbles when the John Batchelor show is on.