The VO | A “Progressive” Version of Tea Party 2.0

A “Progressive” Version of Tea Party 2.0

Apparently the progressives are trying to co-opt Tea Parties. These folk are every bit as much wingnuts as the wingnuts on the right.

A Facebook friend linked to this. I was hoping it would link off to The Onion. Unfortunately, it doesn’t. Good grief: Tea Party 2.0 - No Representation Without Taxation:

If President Obama gets a new start on his presidency in 2010, then progressive, liberal Americans should also get a “do-over” on our activism in support of real change. We need to a chance to throw our own Tea Party. I’m calling it Tea Party 2.0 and I have a Facebook page!

...

Tea Party 2.0 has three demands:

Tax the Rich. Obscene profits and corporate bonuses have no place in a democracy.

Abolish the US Senate. The Senate is undemocratic. Most senators represent corporations, not you and me.

Medicare for all. We have a great need to cut through all the crap on health care and propose something that everyone can understand - Medicare for all.

The Senate part is the most amusing:

John Adams felt otherwise and opposed the single-chamber body, claiming “it must produce confusion and every evil work.”

Adams was wrong. Today, it is the Senate and its unequal representation and its filibuster rule that is blocking the body politic like a necrotic intestinal infarction.

...

Without the Senate, we would already have health care reform with the public option - passed by the House in November. We would already have a cap-and-trade system to put us on the path to a low carbon, clean energy economy - passed by the House last July. It is the Senate that is responsible for much “confusion and evil work.”

And that last paragraph is why Adams was exactly correct, and why Elbridge Gerry (who refused to sign the Constitution and opposed its ratification) said, at the Convention, “The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy.” Rather than abolishing the Senate, we should be strengthening it by repealing the 17th Amendment.

Read the whole thing, if you can stomach it. They have a Facebook group. I’m tempted to join it just so I can twit them.

These people are every bit as dangerous and frightening as the Religious Right. Lord help us

Comments:

Seriously, the Democrats are so fucking spineless and lazy. All they would have to do to get shit done is actually make Republicans filibuster shit. All of a sudden the filibuster would return to its rightful place as a final check/balance of the majority party because they would want to go home.

Posted by pfluffy on 02/19/10 at 03:37 PM from

What a bunch of clowns. Every aspect of that statement is hilarious. I thought this summed up how ironically self-parodying it is:

No Representation Without Taxation

Gee, you mean the lowest income-earners who pay no income taxes at all shouldn’t have representation? Brilliant.

Even funnier is that “Tea” in Tea Party stands for “Taxed Enough Already.” Hell, the original Boston Tea Party was carried out by landed men with property who were being overtaxed. Idiots.

All they would have to do to get shit done is actually make Republicans filibuster shit.

Rush Limbaugh used to say that about Democrats during the judicial nomination filibuster threats. Huffington Post actually has a good explanation for why the Democrats don’t do it: it would be a waste of time and make them look ineffectual.

To get an idea of what the scene would look like on the Senate floor if Democrats tried to force Republicans to talk out a filibuster, turn on C-SPAN on any given Saturday. Hear the classical music? See the blue carpet behind the “Quorum Call” logo? That would be the resulting scene if Democrats forced a filibuster and the GOP chose not to play along.

As both Reid’s memo and Dove explain, only one Republican would need to monitor the Senate floor. If the majority party tried to move to a vote, he could simply say, “I suggest the absence of a quorum.”

Posted by Thrill on 02/19/10 at 05:40 PM from

I thought this summed up how ironically self-parodying it is

This is why I thought it would link off to The Onion when I saw it in my friend’s FB feed.

Posted by dwex on 02/19/10 at 06:41 PM from

Recent Comments

From: Burning the Quran: Good Idea or Bad?
(@10:59AM 09/08/10)
fingerbang: Unfortunately, the lunatic fringe does seem to be running things in the Muslim world… What source or place, other than your ass, did you pull…

From: Burning the Quran: Good Idea or Bad?
(@10:53AM 09/08/10)
fingerbang: What do you think Allahu Akbar means? All it means is God is Great. That’s it. The term is used in almost all facets of…

From: Burning the Quran: Good Idea or Bad?
(@10:38AM 09/08/10)
Manwhore: Since you seem determined to deny Rudolph his creds, perhaps the KKK would have been a better group to mention. I realize that have probably…

From: Burning the Quran: Good Idea or Bad?
(@10:16AM 09/08/10)
Manwhore: Manwhore, I was responding to pfluffy’s specific comment which I quoted, and she did indeed seem to be implying that this “potential for violence” was…

From: Burning the Quran: Good Idea or Bad?
(@08:56AM 09/08/10)
pfluffy: tell me, does anything having to do with White Separatism, where the common held belief that whites go to Heaven and non whites all go…

Site Info

Total Entries: 2574
Total Comments: 17407
Total Trackbacks: 1
Most Recent Entry:
  09/07/2010 11:11 am
Most Recent Comment on:
   09/08/2010 10:59 am
Total Members: 93
Total Logged in members: 4
Total guests: 10
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on:
  09/08/2010 11:42 am
The most visitors ever was 321 on:
  10/22/2008 07:03 am

View more stats at:

The Victorious Opposition

A “Progressive” Version of Tea Party 2.0

Trackback Info:

Comments:

Members

Share This Page

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Blogroll

Syndicate

Search

Translate This Page

Categories

Archives

Site Info