So, what she's saying is: "I worked hard and got what I wanted, and you can too, and if you don't, it's simply a failure of your will."

Yeah, I'm so not buying that.  If she wants to be tough on fat cats in their "$2000 suits and $400 haircuts" why is she de facto supporting the insurance companies, big banks, and investment companies who have got us into this mess?

Man, her rhetoric is all over the place and exceptionally sloppy. It was a fucking stupid speech. All this really was was an appeal to emotion with little logical consistency.

Quite a few bullshit "touchstone" covered. The ever present "welfare moms are everywhere," the god awful Horatio Alger myth. But, I am confused. She touts being a success story ("Because that is what kind of country this is," seriously she says she had the choice to become a success because this country allowed that choice, and yet she is bitter because... why?) She has a home and swimming pool even and yet she identifies with those who have no jobs or two jobs and can't pay for gas and ... and ... what?

So, I wonder, does she drive on public funded roads? Just what schools did she go to? Student Aid? Friends or family in the military? Is this rally being held in a public space? If they want secession whats up with the American flags? Air, rail, and highway travel are all federally subsidized.

In essence, she sounds exactly like the politicians she derides. 

You know, pull out all the federal workers, all federal monies and subsidies, all disaster relief that Rick Perry had the gall to plead for after his infantile tirade, all the military bases, tear down and dismantle the federally paid for "boarder defense" along Mexican boarder, call in all loans made by federal agencies and Texas would be pretty barren.

Texas can be a great state, it can be great because it lives in a pretty good country. A country that has tremendous flaws, to be sure, but that provides an awful lot of good as well, and that is partially because of economy of scale.

@ edge: precisely the reason I left Texas, and precisely the reason I have no intention of going back.

I understand the teabaggers all too well. Whiney middle class whiteys.

I thought we just didn't allow Loblaw comments.

I don't see why identifying this woman as a total ignoramus is a political move.

If she (and all the morons who cheer her) want to secede, we should let them. If she doesn't want to be an American, good riddance.

Where is the outrage?  Did it die in the 60s?

This may be Texas talking here, but it could be anywhere, Minnesota, North Dakota...could be a gathering in any church basement or a school cafeteria where round-bottomed good folks(some say),who are fed up with 'me' and 'not getting my share'...so they join this now, noisy, tea-bagging band to gain power. They become a group and become 'we'...but all they really care about is 'me', which is a limited view embracing only that small circle of understanding they recognize as 'family'. Nobody else really matters...that's a bad attitude, you bet.

I give them one lump or two...and not in the cup. Texas, Minnesota... it's the dumbing down of the country and it's sad indeed.

"The Texas Iconoclast"is an old paper revived in some years ago by two out-of-step  journalists...right in the heart of George Bush country. It is both print and online where it has developed a world readership because of its critical news line which is not a  community news guide for the locals but does a pretty critical look a the greater national 'community'...and The Texas Star Iconoclast is worth reading. They are surviving as other papers are dying...should tell us something?

Perfect....I hope that all Liberals do not take the opposition to the current "Tax and Spend" mentality of the seated Senators and Congress men and women seriously. Then the mid-term elections will result in a complete take over of the majority of both the House and Senate. Wake up America...all incumbents from both sides of the aisle need to go! How is that Hope and Change working for you now.

I guarantee... I absolutely guarantee that completely replacing the current crop of Congress with another crop will result in just as fucked up politics. If not more.

Two reasons: like it or not it is a representational democracy, that means politicians come from us. Yeah, I agree that too often it is the wealthy and elite that end up in congress, but not always and actually economic status can often be a poor indicator of how progressive, honest or fair a given politican is.

Secondly, totally replacing congress means you end up with a bunch of newbies, and likely, given the current political climate, a bunch of newbies that are radicalized and polarized. As friggen deadlocked Congress is now, it would be worse. 

The only problem with hope and change I am having is the unprecedented obstruction by the Republicans and the weak-kneed response by just enough Democrats. Up until now I have supported the idea of a filibuster, but franklly given the mockery it is be made of I'd be pretty happy to see it go away, even taking future consequences into account.

What's gonna happen, OG (and I don't mean any offense here) is that we're gonna replace the 2,000-dollar suit and 200-dollar haircut politician with an identical two grand suit and two-hundred-dollar haircut politician ... and *this* time, thanks to our illustrious "supreme" court, their campaigns are going to be completely bankrolled by corporate "free speech."

and rubes like the broad in the video are going to happily vote to elect them, because she lacks the intelligence to really tell the difference between the jokers she hates and the jokers that're standing in line to replace them.

I am so proud to live in such a tolerant and open minded community that uses such terms as "broads," "infantiles," "political ignoramuses," "whiney middle class whiteys," "misinformed morons," "rubes," and "racist handjobs."

Wow. Bring out the race card for those of us who don't agree with the Obamessiah.

FYI, the lady speaking is of mixed race. Is she racist too?

I found her story compelling for very different reasons. I think she is misrepresenting a bit. Her FB page has her getting out of HS in 92 (presumably at 18 ish) with an AS in pre med in 96 at 22 ish. So, she already had a big leg up by the time she hit the cross roads. I am thinking she didn't have it so tough, though she may well have had little supervision and made bad choices.  I suspect she got a lot of benefit from the nations welfare system prior to this cross roads. I am wondering if she would have made it that far, without it.

Brief footnote: Don't hesitate to check out "The Lone Star Iconoclast" from Crawford Texas to get an alternate view of Texans...it's a stone's throw from the George Bush compound one way; and the other way, a small Norwegian-American settlement called Cranfill's Gap who probably would never indulge in reading this far-out news rag if they share the embedded reserve of Minnesota Nice Nordics? When other print media, news sources are dying or being bought out by other corporations...what's it doing right I do wonder?

 Maybe because it threatens the comfort of the status quo rather than offering pablum editorials. Conflict and debate strengthens the mind even if you don't agree with the editorial point of view?

Or maybe it's the only newspaper who has its own song...check it out "They Dwown Their Bullets in Blood"...lyrics compliments of the publisher...way to go eh?

Today we are all home scholars and morans.

We need to tolerate other's rights to  express their beliefs. We don't have to quietly tolerate the beliefs themselves. The belief that we're   anywhere near a socialist state is just plain stupid. We just gave $13 trillion to Wall St. There's a lot of populist anger out there, but with the Tea Baggers it is misdirected. Some say this is our Weimar Republic moment. A disgruntled populace is looking for a strong man to make them feel safe from "enemies" within and without. This is all blunt instrument propaganda from the right wing and fortunately it doesn't work on thinking people.

You're correct, we're not a socialist state.  I'd like it to stay that way.  As a business owner, I don't want the government to come into my business and business sector to tell me how much I can pay my employees and dictate how much of a profit I can make.  Far fetched, you say?  That is exactly what is happening in several different industries, and if it can happen there, it can happen here.

And for the record, Wall Street did not receive $13 trillion.  That is our national debt, which will be expanded by another $1.6 trillion under the current spend-happy administration.  I'd like to hear someone explain the benefits of the government spending more while tax revenues are dropping.  I expect a myriad of smart-assed remarks, but maybe I'll find a nugget of intellect from someone.

Wall St received $13 Trillion in  loans , guarantees and giveaways from the Treasury, Fedreal Reserve  and FDIC

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=armOzfkwtCA4

Oops, maybe it was MORE than $13 trillion

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/wealthofnations/archive/2009/09/22/tracking-the-19-trillion-bailout-funds.aspx

Also: Social Security has a 3 trillion dollar SURPLUS. Speaking of loans- that surplus was borrowed to pay for other things and make the budget look closer to balanced. 
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090302/greider
Ironically, that surplus was accumulated partly because Ronald Reagan raised the FICA payroll tax on working people while he was cutting taxes on corporations and the rich. A guarantee on the funny money created by investment banks hardly constitutes free enterprise.

Mr. Zoomerang says the stock of corporations make up part of our retirement. That touches on another myth, the myth of the populist stock market. 10% of Americans own 90% of stock wealth. Half of major corporations pay ZERO federal income tax. The richest 1% of Americans own as much wealth as the bottom 90% combined.

"Is she a racist too?"

Well, conservatives are always bloviating about how people of color are just as racist as whites.

I'll bite Zoomerang. 
The majority of economists of all political stripes support deficit spending in recessions, a major tenant of Keynesian economics.  When the economy dives income tax revenues fall sharply.  If the government "tightens their belt" accordingly and lays off workers, delays building projects, reduces social security checks, reduces aid to states etc, it removes that economic activity from the economy increasing the severity of the downturn, which lowers income tax revenue more, so government cuts more and the country gets into what is known as a death spiral.

This can be illustrated by a similar problem that has been caused by our shift from defined benefit retirement (such as social security or a company pension) to defined contribution plans (such as 401Ks).  When recessions happen, defined benefit plans keep paying the same, so pensioners can keep 'stimulating' the economy the same as they did in the boom.  401(K)s on the other hand dropped by about 40% in 2008 as the market crashed panicking both retirees and those thinking about retirement, so they  pulled back their spending, which reverberated through the economy deepening the recession.  Also during the boom when the market was soaring to new heights for no apparent reason, bloated 401k's made people feel rich and their increased spending helping to inflate various bubbles.

So in short, a government, like a pension, that spends consistently through the business cycle, or increases spending during downturns (ie stimulus) mitigates the economic ups and downs, but a government that changes drastically in downturns, like a 401k, contributes to volatility.

Of course on the other side of the coin, this strategy requires fiscal discipline to pay off the debt in good times which of course hasn't been happening.  I'm very concerned about debt now as I was before last January.  I was concerned when George W. cut taxes on the wealthiest by $1.3 trillion without cutting spending.  I was concerned when we started two wars, without any plan to pay for them, or when we added billions to the deficit for the Medicare Part D drug company giveaway.  Since conveniently my memory goes back to before Obama took office, I remember how alarmed I was when Dick Cheney said deficits don't matter.

But I can agree with the teabaggers that we need to cut spending.  Let's start with corporate welfare, bs farm subsidies that pay rich people not to grow food on their lawns, defense spending, infrastructure encouraging endless suburban sprawl, ethanol subsidies, giveaways to drug companies.  Let's get rid of the massive government programs that read our email and tap our phones, let's stop subsidizing gasoline and coal.  But no, if Obama really tried to get a reign on things Republicans and teabaggers alike would howl in protest.  So it's really not based in reality to say that one party is for big government and one for small government.  Maybe a more real conversation would result if you asked what government should do.  Because sure, a lot of teabaggers don't want an EPA, but they want it codified in the constitution that gay people can't get married, how is that small government?  Our country is real corrupt , sometimes it feels like a banana republic, I understand the outrage.  But what I don't get is being angry at the bankers but wanting to give them what they want, or this nationalistic anti-government attitude. It's so schizophrenic.  It makes me think of this event I saw on CSpan a few months back where the most corporate-tool politicians were blatantly patting themselves on the back for fomenting this "keep the government's hand off my Medicare" teaparty rebellion through talk radio and Fox News.  I'm sorry, but you guys are being played for angry fools.

@ Resol: Played for angry fools by FAUXNEWS, because anger, resentment and frustration are so very easily exploited, and Rupert Murdoch co authored the book on the subject with Rush Limbaugh.

The Teabag movement has been coopted by Two Thousand Dollar Suit and Two Hundred Dollar Haircut personality cult talking heads whose ONLY motivation in all of this isn't the dissemination of ideas or the advancement of a cause, or hell, even the encouragement of real cooperative change...no, their ONLY motivation in all of this is MONEY. And pissed off people = MONEY. Once the Teabaggers figure all of this out (or should I say IF they figure it all out)...they'll be able to actually form individual cognitive ideas and opinions and perhaps actually start THINKING for themselves, instead of letting these bozos fill their heads with shit all day.

The Teabag movement *really* could have been taken a lot more seriously had BeckHannityLumbaughCo not gotten their hooks into it.

A good number of the people that are out there shouting down politicians in town hall meetings and berating field reporters of the "drive by liberal media" have absolutely no clue about what Socialism actually is, and they're being exploited. Played. Hoodwinked...and "looking out for the little guy" Limbaugh and his cronies are laughing all they way to the bank.

TimK,

And there is the other trope that always pops up.  Can you make cogent argumentative points without resorting to jingoism?

Next will you go for "then the terrorists will win." ? 

Please, grow another dimension.

Zra,

I don't hate America, I hate America's government.  I hate the one party system (the party of bigger government).  I hate paying for two simultaneous wars that are unwinnable (make that 3 wars - add the war on (some) drugs) .  I hate that more and more of my freedoms are being usurped for security theater.  I hate that seemingly intelligent people can't debate without foaming at the mouth, calling people names, or parroting insults.

Now, Zra and TimK, why do YOU love America?

This pretty much sums it up: http://bobloblawlawblog.ytmnd.com/

Before you go to the Bob Loblaw weblog, be aware it pops my antivirus up - it's infected with some kind of Downloader virus.

The only time I foam at the mouth is when I'm starting up on a pint of suds ... and the last time I laid out the laundry list of why I love my country, I was in junior high doing a paper for the VFW...

Been there, done that. Don't feel the need to justify my existence or sense of place to anyone without a service record and ribbon bar.

You got baited, Bob.

Sucks, huh?

To casually dismiss the anger of the Tea Partiers without investigating the cause of that anger seems foolish to me. 

Try a little more empathy and a lot less vitriol.

Dave,

Well some folks (myself included) are against any non-voluntary distribution of wealth; upwards, downwards, or laterally.  Your broad brush strokes paint them all the same violent shade of red.  You saw the word "non-voluntary" in that sentence, right?  If not, read it again as many times as you need to get my point.

Originally, before certain Republicans co-opted the Tea Party movement (it threatened to split the GOP down the seam and expose its hairy arsehole), they were all  about the federal deficit, TARP, Government Motors, Cash for Clunkers and the stimulus.  Co-option is an age old tactic that provides immediate benefits: look at the anti-war movement.  Its not about resisting the war anymore, its about social justice and neo-Marxism.  Ask Cindy Sheehan about changing winds.  You still can't deny that there are a lot of pissed off people out there (even before the co-opting commenced), it might be wise to listen to what they are pissed off about.

Sure the U.S. isn't a socialist state ... but that's just a difference of degree, not kind.  It's not really a capitalist state either (despite what Michael Moore says).  I would describe it more properly at a corporatist welfare state.  On that I think we agree.

Thank you for your well-spoken comment.

Wooo... Yeah! Work work work! Buy buy buy!