Here's the fantasy: The US is full of leftist voters who just don't turn out like those meanie Republicans. In 2009, racist whites turned out because they were upset by Obama. Trump is much worse than Obama, so billions of Americans are turning out to stop him. Why, just look at the Womyn's March which brought out three million women to stop Trump. Those women and others want to form a liberal Tea Party, they all said so. And Chuck Schumer walked through the crowd and he estimates that 20% of those chickies didn't even vote in the election!! That means billions of potential new liberal voters just waiting to turn out. There are other groups too, being brought out by groups who can act like liberal versions of the Koch brothers (who created the Tea Party). These are groups like Planned Parenthood and other progressive groups. The only thing we need to worry about is keeping them from turning against the Democrats like the Tea Party did with the Republicans.
Oh boy.
Some reality...
1. The Tea Party was an organic movement of working (mainly) whites who had been sh*t upon for decades and turned out for a specific purpose. These were selfless people with a work ethic and organization skills, and felt their lives were being ruined by the government's abuses. By comparison, leftists -- be they Pussyheads or OWS or student rioters or Seattle anarchists or BLM or whatnot -- are selfish lazy whiners who are consumed by their wants, formed into exclusive racial/gender tribes, and want to impose their will upon others. One of these things is not like the other. One forms an effective unit, the other becomes all rapey, pollutey, and violent tantrumy.
2. The idea that the Koch's created or maintained the Tea Party is a liberal fantasy. Trying to build in that model won't work. Building with that model creates the modern progressive left... astroturf, not a Tea Party movement. All the people likely to engage in that model are already engaged.
3. The Womyn's March was not 3 million women. That's propaganda, and it's delusional to believe your own propaganda. The real number was probably closer to 500,000 nationwide. That's 0.3% of the number voters in 2016. If all of them were new voters, they still would not have changed the election. Twenty percent of them (the supposed "new voters") represent just 0.06% of voters. That's barely margin of error stuff, and definitely wouldn't have changed the election. What's more, the idea that even 20% of them didn't vote is ridiculous. Those crowds were wall to wall turned-out leftists, they were not some silent majority brought to action. Said differently... there aren't very many of these people and the voters the Democrats are hoping to find don't exist.
4. The Womyn's March is already dead and gone. It's not forming. It's not building behind the scenes. It's dead. How do I know? Two things. First, there has been no evidence at all of them continuing after their weekend fun. This is a bunch of people promising to get together more often from now on when they are drunk at a party... they never follow through. There are no local meetings, no buzz. Even the Townhalls being filled with leftists right now are all just astroturf turning up for an hour or two -- several progressive groups are actually bragging about sending their people to disrupt these meetings.
Secondly, as I said before, look at the mindset of the pussyheads. These are people who have deluded themselves into thinking that "raising awareness" is the equivalent of solving a problem, and it doesn't even bother them that there is already 100% awareness on the issues they are "solving." These are the people who think snarky online comments, SNL routines, and leaving nasty reviews at Nordstroms is "political action." These aren't achievers. They are people whose ideology is that their personal problems are the result of people discriminating against them and they want to feel better: Accept Me!! Stop shaming me!! Stop making me feel bad about myself!! Stop having more than I do!! Stop making me pay for my own mistakes!! Those aren't people who can coordinate to form a movement, or get along for the good of the group, or even find a common purpose.
The idea of a liberal Tea Party is fantasy.
21 comments:
Have to add... More proof the Womyn's Revolution is over: Starbucks is running an ad about how they all "stood together during tough times."
Yep. Past tense. We did it, girls! We stood up to the bad man! We made a difference! Now go buy overpriced "coffee" (read: milkshakes) to celebrate ou victory and raise awareness of uh... stuff.
Some more thoughts on the Grammy's.
1. I seriously don't remember Adele's performance at all the way the media is presenting it. She said the line cleaned up and then seemed to a stop a few lines later and said, "I can't mess this up for him." Then she went back and sang it with the curse word in it. I took "mess" as referencing artistic integrity.
Now the media is reporting it the other way around -- she sang the curse word, stopped, and redid it without the curse word because she had "messed up" the line. I really don't think that's how it happened. Anyone else see it?
2. The media is lavishing praise on Bruno Mars for the Prince tribute. He did a good job doing the one song he did, but it wasn't anything special, and the audience got bored after the start. Adele's tribute was much more personal and memorable, even if I didn't particularly like it.
3. Adele won best song and best album which I think you will see described in ominous racial overturns tomorrow. Beyonce was supposed to win for her BLM album about black women. Beyonce actually started to get up when she thought she won best song. But the white chick won, so it must be racism.
Of course, "Formation" sucks and as does "Becky With the Good Hair" and everything else I've heard from the Lemonade album. By comparison, Adele's song is pretty incredible.
3. The overall show was super boring.
4. The show was without politics except for Busta Rhymes, who got fat and lousy. "If you wanna party with me, put your hand where my eyes can see..." Nah, you party alone, Busta.
5. The host was ok, but never very funny. He lacked both bark and bite, but was a safe choice.
6. Music really is returning to the 1980's. Almost everything sounded like it could have come from the radio in the early 1980s.
7. Daft Punk showed up... but did nothing all that interesting. Disappointing.
Real people actually watch the Grammys? I watched Flash on Netflix with the kids and sat in the hot tub with the wife before bed. Night!
The difference between the two? ...
The Tea Party, by pushing social conservatism to the side in favor of taxes and too government size, swung the Republican Party towards the center.
The liberal protests are pushing the Democratic Party further to the left.
Koshcat, My wife watched it. Wouldn't have been my choice.
ambisinistral, That's a great point too. The Tea Party, despite liberal smears, was essentially a gathering of people with common sense views rather than politically ideological views, and they pushed things to the center -- fiscal sanity, pay attention to the middle class.
The "liberal Tea Party" is pushing a far left agenda based on identity politics.
That mean their target audience is much smaller and likely already engaged, whereas the Tea Party really was a group who had dropped out of politics because neither party spoke for them anymore.
Yes, the Tea Party had an actual adult tax-payer based agenda/platform - Fiscal Responsibility of our government as we are the tax payers who give them our $$$. Reminding our Gov't officials that they works for Us; We do not work for them.
I also point this out this out because I think that it is important to note: The average age of the TP'ers was/is abt 50-55 yrs old; the average of these new protestors (and OWS) is abt 18-22 yrs old.
So this is really just the newest iteration of Occupy Wall Street. An unorganized/organized emotional "protest" "'cause things ain't fair!". It has also been compared to the shortlived "answer' to the Tea Party...the Coffee Party 'cause they met in expensive coffee houses and drank coffee to protest ironically. It really didn't catch on. And it is also showing how not teaching kids how to lose can backfire...
The disturbing issue coming up now though is that Obama may be staging a quiet coup by encouraging these protests and possibly giving material support through DNC 2013 action group "Organizing For Action" (f/k/a "Organizing for America" founded in 2009 by the DNC to win more elections; which may have also been "Obama For America", his 2008 campaign organization).
Bev, That's a fascinating bit of irony. The left essentially neutered their own side by teaching self-esteem and helplessness to these dipsh*ts. LOL!
Interestingly, I saw an article today that concerned teachers are now trying to teach students to avoid "fake news." Ha ha. So the same group of "worst students at college" who haven't been able to teach kids to do basic math and reading are now going to teach them to separate truth from fiction? Good luck.
Not to mention, doesn't it seem that anyone who got an actual education should already be able to do that? Pathetic.
BTW, there are four reasons not to worry about a coup.
1. Obama is too lazy.
2. Obama is as bad at organizing at the Pussyheads.
3. These people can't be organized, won't turn out, and won't stick together.
4. Gun owners are on our side.
Good point about Obama. In all of the years Obama claimed to be a community organizer, no one could ever point to anything that he actually organized.
#4 is definitely works in our favor. Though I must say, I think that Trumpsters and Conservatives in general have been very good at not really pointing this out much.
Bev, Look at his time in the White House. He dropped tons of duties because he was too lazy to do them. He never met with Congressional leaders. He did nothing to engage voters. Look at how he handled Obamacare. All he did was go on vacations and occasionally offer nasty attacks: "Work harder... get it done!" In eight years, he did nothing. He was too lazy and lacked organizational skills. And forget bringing people together. He's an insulting asshole.
On the gun thing, it won't even take conservative. Two cops with shotguns could stop the whole "Liberal Tea Party" in their hipster tracks and send them Ubering back to Instagram to pat themselves on the back for the danger they faced.
Lenin would be proud. LOL!
I'll get behind "pussyheads" but I was really hoping for "vag-hats" to take off. That the left is again hoping for a leftist "tea party" to arise really highlights just how bereft of ideas they are. I read a laughably misguided analysis of the Tea Party by a Democrat Party campaign manager that claimed the Tea Party coalesced around shared opposition to Obama and only later developed political objectives of their own, and because of that, there is reason to believe the leftist tea party will follow the same evolution.
There may be a kernel of truth to the idea of what brought the Tea Party together. (I'll only concede a kernel, though.) But there is obviously more to it than that when you consider the list of leftist "answers" to the Tea Party that failed to amount to anything. If you want a quick laugh, check out the "Impact" section on the Occupy Movement's Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement#Impact
Two hot takes on Adele: I may not be a professional, but the first thing anyone learns about performance, be it music, drama or dance, is you keep going through the mistakes, you don't stop and start over. By needlessly restarting to get the lyrics "right" she reduces George Michael's legacy to the word "bullshit." Great move. (Besides, I bet Michael would've easily cleaned up his lyrics for a spot in prime time. He was an artist, but not an are-teest.)
tryanmax, That is hilarious! So their "impact" was (1) people searched the word "Occupy" a lot in 2011 online... but that kind of stopped in 2012, (2) Al Gore once said "occupy Democracy", (3) they created a space-thing where people could like come together and like say things and stuff, (4) some Congressman who was on their side already offered some bill that the left periodically offers and it got ignored, and (5) they had a lot of fans in Spain who probably did something at the local level.
That sounds like the resume of a loser.
The TP was a longtime "brewing" (har, har) during the summer of 2008 on a local/state level. The mortgage/stock crash and bailout talks it began to build steam. It was when they started talking bailing out the US Auto industry was the real catalyst for me. Then one fateful day, CNBC reporter Rick Santelli said we needed a new Tea Party..and that was the boiling point.
tryanmax, What I find most funny about this liberal Tea Party idea is that they aren't even being honest about what caused the Tea Party to come into being. They truly have deluded themselves with their own bias. Nor do they seem to get how useless they are. What you have, as a result, is pathetic hipsters and wannabes sitting around writing articles about how they plan to manipulate armies of people who don't exist. The whole thing is a strange sort of jerk-off fantasy.
As for Adele, I get her point, but I think it was ill-founded. She should have just said the word initially rather than changing her mind midway through, because you're right about this making his legacy into the word "bullshit." She could have avoided all of that by just saying it the first time.
Further, they introduced him as a man "whose music was about being inclusive and being who you are." Wrong. His music was about hiding the fact he was gay... the exact opposite.
Moreover, I'm also not a fan of the choice of music to honor him. If I'm going to honor George Michael, I'm not picking "Fast Love" as the song. That was a meaningless throwaway. I'm picking "Freedom," which was about him breaking out of the image that had trapped him and hinted at his being gay.
Bev, Exactly. Economic disaster. Stupid moves to bailout insiders. Budget exploding. Suddenly, people who were never particularly involved in politics decide that something needs to be done. The Tea Party was not spontaneous. It was not spur of the moment. It was not planned top down.
The Womyn's March: Was not in response to any real crisis. It was a tantrum aimed at the public for voting in ways these people didn't like. It was basically formed before Trump even took office, i.e. pre-crisis. It was staffed top down by existing political organizations.
Those are very different things.
Andrew, good call on a better George Michael song pick. Plus, "Freedom" is one people actually know. "Fast Love" strikes me as "which George Michael song sounds the most 'Adele'?"
If the [EXPLICIT] version releases on iTunes, I'll know all I need to know.
Re. the Grammys, as much as I dig Bruno being able to channel Prince (and damned if Mark Ronson's intro to "Upton Funk" isn't deliciously straight outta Controversy or Dirty Mind), among others, I like him better when he's just being himself.
Not so coincidentally, I spent last night reveling in the Purple One's return to Amazon Music's streaming catalog with 1999, Sign 'O'the Times, and Parade. An evening much better spent, though still not as awesome as seeing Adam Ant perform Kings of the Wild Frontier (plus 14 more) in its entirety Saturday night down in Tucson. There's an 80s redux for ya, AP!
OT: Mike Flynn has resigned. He's the guy the anti-Trumps were worried about because of ties to Russia.
Again, I am actually impressed with the speed with which Trump gets rid of his problem people.
EP, Bruno Mars is so much better doing his own thing. And in terms of the tribute, I really thought they needed to do some special -- not just playing one of his songs. They should have re-written one or something clever.
tryanmax, "Freedom" would have been perfect on so many levels -- the gay thing, his trying to break away from the celebrity trap, the freed from the burdens of the world, etc.
Post a Comment