This is where folks like Alan Abramowitz miss the boat: "...*[T]he differences between Tea Party supporters and the general public become most striking*".
No, Adam and Tom, the Tea Party is a grass roots organization representing the majority of the general public; as you both will see on November 2nd. On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 8:28 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > At 07:48 PM 10/20/2010, you wrote: > > Grand Old Tea Party > Tea Partiers are extremely conservative, almost all of them voted for > McCain, and they make up a third of the GOP > By Alan Abramowitz > > Salon/APA key question raised by the spread of Tea Party protests and > the emergence of Tea Party candidates in numerous House, Senate, and > gubernatorial elections is whether this movement represents a new > > > > *If Teapartiers are virtually ALL Neocons (voters for Neocon McCain) ... > why would the Neocons be panicked? > > > **Neocons Panic Over ‘Tea Party’ > **How sweet it is! > *by Justin Raimondo <http://original.antiwar.com/author/justin/>, October > 06, 2010 > > The tiny but well-placed – and very well-financed – political sect known as > the > neoconservatives<http://www.google.com/search?q=site:antiwar.com+neocons&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGLL_enUS400US400&ie=UTF-8&hl=#sclient=psy&hl=en&rlz=1B3GGLL_enUS400US400&q=neocons+site:antiwar.com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=c6affe93747c32d0>is > in panic mode. > Discredited<http://www.amazon.com/They-Knew-Were-Right-Neocons/dp/0385511817/antiwarradio>by > the disastrous > war<http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0816/US-in-Iraq-What-s-been-left-behind>in > Iraq, and > implicated <http://www.thenation.com/article/agents-influence> in the > trail <http://stage.tp.techprogress.org/2005/11/02/hadley-non-denial/> of > lies <http://motherjones.com/politics/2004/01/lie-factory> that led us > into that quagmire, the neocons are deathly afraid that the jig is up: that > their agenda of perpetual war and extravagant “defense” spending is coming > up against the > limits<http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/10/03/the-new-antiwar-populism/>both > of the US Treasury, and the willingness of the American people to > finance it. > > They’re living in fear of the so-called tea party, the spontaneous > grassroots rebellion against runaway federal > spending<http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11878>that has > successfully challenged the GOP establishment and wants to cut big > government down to size – with a meat axe. Not that the tea partiers have > even brought up the idea that military spending ought to be treated like all > government spending and summarily subjected to the chopping block, but, hey, > the whole idea of preemption as a strategic principle > originated<http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/wolfowitz1992.htm>in the neocon > brain<http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/01/14/richard-perle-still-crazy-after-all-these-years/>. > We’ve had a veritable fusillade of op eds, > first<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/23/AR2010092305493_pf.html>from > Danielle Pletka and Thomas Donnelly in the > *Washington Post* the other day, and > today<http://www.heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2010/10/Peace-Doesnt-Keep-Itself>it’s > the > *War Street Journal*‘s turn to go to the barricades for the Old > Cause<http://www.amazon.com/Perpetual-Peace-Harry-Elmer-Barnes/dp/0939484013/antiwarbookstore>. > > > *Weekly Standard* editor Bill > Kristol<http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=8591>, > Ed Feulner <http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/f/edwin-feulner>, longtime > chief honcho at the Heritage Foundation, and Heritage policy wonk Arthur > Brooks <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Brooks>, onetime > “compassionate conservative,” make the case for cutting little old ladies > off of social security while letting the big defense contractors off the > hook. The party line is trotted out in partisan terms: citing President > Obama’s Aug. 31 > speech<http://projects.washingtonpost.com/obama-speeches/speech/380/>announcing > the supposed “end” of “combat operations” in Iraq, in which he > pointed to the costs of the Iraq occupation as one reason to draw our > mission to a close, they snicker: > > *“It is encouraging to see Mr. Obama concerned about deficits and debt. > But his concern with the military is largely misplaced. It is neither the > true source of our fiscal woes, nor an appropriate target for indiscriminate > budget-slashing in a still-dangerous world.”* > > Well, then, why argue about the “true source” of our looming bankruptcy if > cutting the military is off the table from the start? I guess they want to > cover all their bases, which shows how nervous they must be – as they ought > to be. Because while neither > Obama<http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/02/01-9>nor the > tea > party<http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/07/08/military-expert-sarah-palin-fights-to-ensure-tea-parties-support-insane-bloated-war-budget/>is > making any overt moves in the direction of the War Party’s toy chest, the > neocons are truly worried about the latter: the fact that Ron > Paul<http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/10/05/neocons-panic-over-tea-party/original.antiwar.com/paul>is > one of the Tea Party’s heroes is enough to cause them acute discomfort. > Nor is Paul the only one in those circles calling for a reevaluation of our > foreign policy and > gargantuan<http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1941>“defense” > expenditures. > > So the neocons have to clothe their argument for more spending in “fiscal > conservative” drag. Thus they are mad as hell about “the president’s > proposed budget for 2011” which “will add $10 trillion in debt over the next > decade.” No mention is made, however, of the trillions in > debt<http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500803_162-4486228-500803.html>accrued by > the Bush administration, where their comrades-in-arms held sway > for eight years. “By 2020,” they wail, “the federal government will owe $20 > trillion, or $170,000 per American household. That’s a beast that must be > stopped”: but the tea partiers know it’s a beast with two heads – and > they’re one of them. > > Oh, but this is “a beast that has not principally been fattened on a diet > of Pentagon spending,” they aver. “Even with the costs of Iraq and > Afghanistan, this year the Department of Defense will spend some $720 > billionabout 4.9% of our gross domestic product, significantly below the > average of 6.5% since World War II.” > > The old GDP trick is tired, and unlikely to work on readers of the *Wall > Street Journal*, many of whom may be more aware than the Average Joe that > GDP, or gross domestic product, includes all domestic spending and > acquisitions, *including government > spending*<http://www.amazon.com/Depression-War-Cold-Studies-Political/dp/0195182928/antiwarbookstore>: > every time Ben Bernanke and his friends speed up the printing presses, it’s > all counted as part of “GDP.” That’s why this metric generates complete > baloney: a more useful one would measure the *private > sector*<http://www.philkerpen.com/?q=node/17>GDP<http://www.philkerpen.com/?q=node/17>, > i.e. the real source of actual wealth and productivity in the US economy. In > real terms, the percentage of national wealth consumed by military spending > is much higher. > > Go here <http://blog.mises.org/14134/tax-receipt-fascinating/> and look at > the “receipt” you would get if the feds thought enough of you to give you > one, in return for your taxes. The military is divided up into several > different items, but add them all together and it looks like the Warfare > State rivals the Welfare State in terms of sheer extravagance. It’s worth > noting that the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are right up > there all by themselves at number five, just below the big entitlement > programs and the interest on the national debt. And those are just the > military expenditures they tell us about: if we add the “classified” > “off-budget” items handed out to the CIA and other clandestine agencies and > “special projects,” plus the opportunity costs of allocating this huge sum > to the military sector, the real price tag is much higher. > > In the face of the overwhelming reality of skyrocketing military costs, the > neocon triumvirate simply makes up their own numbers: > > *“Defense spending has increased at a much lower rate than domestic > spending in recent years and is not the cause of soaring deficits. Even as > the United States has fought two wars, the core defense budget has increased > by approximately $220 billion since 2001.”* > > Perhaps they simply define the “core defense budget” as DoD expenditures > alone – or else the neocons have invented their own branch of mathematics – > but the fiscal reality is this: since 2001, money for the military has nearly > doubled <http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending>. > According to Laicie Olson of the Center for Arms Control, military spending > totaled $437 billion in 2001, and by 2011 had climbed to $720 billion. > > “We should be vigilant against waste in every corner of the budget,” the > triumvirs aver, “but anyone seeking to restore our fiscal health should look > at entitlements first, not across-the-board cuts aimed at our men and women > in uniform.” > > They always hide behind this trope: it’s for the troops in the field. > Except it isn’t. Those soldiers who have been severely > wounded<http://www.homefrontthemovie.com/abouthomefront.php>or otherwise > traumatized <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31596375/> in the neocons’ wars > come home to an economy that has no > jobs<http://www.marketwatch.com/story/high-unemployment-could-last-a-long-time-2010-10-05?dist=countdown>for > them, and a healthcare system that treats them like > sh*t <http://www.truth-out.org/060509A>. Remember how soldiers’ families > had to send them body > armor<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101061,00.html>, > fer chrissake, because the military wasn’t providing it? It isn’t about “our > men and women in uniform,” it’s about the hugely expensive weapons systems > that were designed to face off against the Soviet > Union<http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/m/military_aircraft/f22_airplane/index.html>– > an enemy that no longer exists. And speaking of enemies that no longer > exist: how much money are we spending maintaining a string of military bases > all across Europe<http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/eucom.htm>? > They’ve been there since the end of World War > II<http://www.antiwar.com/stromberg/?articleid=656>! > While the neocons are always screeching about how this or that tinpot > dictator is the equivalent of Hitler, there seems little likelihood the real > thing is making a comeback in Germany. Ditto Korea, which has tens of > thousands <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forces_Korea> of US > troops stationed in harm’s > way<http://original.antiwar.com/prather/2009/03/27/how-bush-pushed-north-korea-to-nukes/>, > just waiting for the nutty North Koreans to blast them with a couple of > nukes. > > Why are they there – and at what cost? > > After this fusillade of phony numbers, the triumvirs wheel out the big > guns: > > *“Furthermore, military spending is not a net drain on our economy. It is > unrealistic to imagine a return to long-term prosperity if we face > instability around the globe because of a hollowed-out U.S. military lacking > the size and strength to defend American interests around the world. > > “Global prosperity requires commerce and trade, and this requires peace. > But the peace does not keep itself. The Global Trends 2025 report, which > reflects the consensus of the U.S. intelligence community, anticipates the > rise of new powerssome hostileand projects a demand for continued American > military power. Meanwhile we face many nonstate threats such as terrorism, > and piracy in sea lanes around the world. Strength, not weakness, brings the > true peace dividend in a global economy.”* > > If commerce and trade are dependent on the US military policing the world, > then it’s a zero sum game, because there is no bigger drain on our economy > than our grossly extravagant military budget. It is a fiscal cancer eating > away at our vitals, as any honest set of budget numbers will show. And why > can’t our trading partners take up some of the responsibilities of policing > the sea lanes and other trade routes: isn’t trade a two-way street? > > Yes, no doubt the “intelligence community” wants more money, as does the > military establishment and every other self-interested bureaucracy operating > out of Washington: it’s the natural > inclination<http://mises.org/etexts/mises/bureaucracy.asp>of every government > agency and program to expand, > and to justify its own > existence<http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Leviathan-Critical-Government-Institute/dp/019505900X/antiwarbookstore>in > terms of a looming “crisis.” Yet the US doesn’t face a major adversary, > or, at least, an adversary of a conventional type: can we really compare the > threat of *pirates *to that posed by Soviet nukes aimed at our cities > during the cold war era? Let’s get real. > > Our extravagance is itself the biggest threat to our national security – > not China, but our debt to China. Kristol & Co. are worried about the > Chinese People’s Liberation Army denying us access to the Asian-Pacific > region, but the real > danger<http://washingtonindependent.com/76320/china-threatens-to-dump-u-s-treasury-bonds-over-taiwan-arms-sales>is > their denying us access to their capital, which buys up US debt and keeps > the US government afloat. They own us. Isn’t that the real threat to our > national security, and not some imagined military assault? There’s no reason > to attack us militarily if they can accomplish the same goal without firing > a shot. > > As was widely reported, the former director of national intelligence, > Dennis Blair, > testified<http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/13/nation/na-security-threat13>before > Congress that our looming economic crisis is the number one threat > facing us at the moment: > > *“The nation’s new intelligence chief warned Thursday that the global > economic crisis is the most serious security peril facing the United States, > threatening to topple governments, trigger waves of refugees and undermine > the ability of America’s allies to help in Afghanistan and elsewhere.* > > *“The economic collapse ‘already looms as the most serious one in decades, > if not in centuries,’ said Dennis C. Blair, director of national > intelligence, in his first appearance before Congress as the top > intelligence official in the Obama administration.”* > > In his testimony, Blair made a quite plausible case that economic > instability across the globe will lead inevitably to political turmoil, > which will in turn adversely impact American interests in a major way. The > nature of the crisis is multiplied many times by the global character of the > economic implosion: in the past, regions experiencing economic woes were > able to export their way out of it. These days, however, there is no one to > export to: *everyone* is going broke. > > Oh, but surely the armchair generals over at Heritage and the *Weekly > Standard* know more about it than the Director of National Intelligence – > right? > > The neocons’ trump card, aside from pure partisanship, is their own > self-portrayal as Reaganite “optimists,” a meme that seems oddly > inappropriate at a time when millions of Americans are facing foreclosure, > bankruptcy, and a diet of cat food in their old age: > > *“There are some who think the era of U.S. global leadership is over, and > that decline is what the future inevitably holds for us. Some even believe > that decline offers us a better future, in the model of our relatively > pacifist social-democratic allies. But this is an error. A weaker, cheaper > military will not solve our financial woes. It will, however, make the world > a more dangerous place, and it will impoverish our future.”* > > If we don’t take radical steps to reduce government spending – including > military spending, arguably the biggest single item in the > budget<http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm>– our pretensions to > “global leadership” will surely evaporate as quickly as > did those trillions of dollars during the crash of ’08. What is this “global > leadership,” anyway? It has always been our position of economic > preeminence, the foundations of our military strength, that has ensured our > leadership. Yet that preeminence is being hollowed out by the spendthrift > addictions of both the right and the left, who exempt their own favorite > government programs from honest scrutiny. > > A cheaper military is not necessarily a weaker military: indeed, a leaner > fighting force, one geared to the realistic objectives of the post-cold war > era, is in all ways a stronger, more capable, more useful military > configuration. This is what a real “defense” budget would entail: but the > neocons aren’t interested in defense: they want to play offense. It was, > after all, Kristol’s little subsidized magazine that plumbed for war with > Iraq<http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/550afrhr.asp>, > and is now agitating > tirelessly<http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/kristol-iran>for war with > Iran. Beyond that, it was the > *Standard* that published Max Boot’s infamous article, “ The Case for > American > Empire<http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/000/318qpvmc.asp>,” > which called for establishing US colonies around the world. > > What we have is a *bankrupt *empire – and that’s the sort of empire that > inevitably goes into decline. If we follow the advice of Kristol and his > buddies, we’ll be in receivership in no time. > > It’s great to see the neocons so worried: anything that makes them nervous > is a good thing. Now, come on, you tea partiers, let’s give them something > to worry about! > > http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/10/05/neocons-panic-over-tea-party/ > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
