I am not impressed with these thugs. I understand they were there to mess with Congresswoman Giffords, who wisely did not grace this cacophonous group of self appointed narcissistic patriots, with her presence.
The individual with the sign reading; ” 1 Black Pres Leads U.S. Into Slavery,” is right on the edge of a hate crime. Not one of these folks would make it one day in my mans Marine Corps. The subconscious bigotry is leaking out of their pores, and their tactics are nearing laws that address the inciting of a riot. The conversations I overheard were at the 2 digit IQ level. Their blatant, in your face, interruptions and rudeness to the classy movie crowd were nearly intolerable. Kudos to the movie fans who booed them to oblivion.
Curiously the movie starring Jimmy Stewart is chock full of courtesies, and a reverence for the process of government, even when in disagreement. The movie ends with a showing of potency that lends a message to this transitory movement known as Tea Party.
The fact that this extremist movement, along with its partners at Freedom Works, are funded by Swift Boat like 527’s tells you how easily it is to lead the masses. That is the scary part.
Too bad none of them stayed to watch Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. I suppose it did not have enough fuel for their aberrant needs. God Bless America. ONE– Nation under God.
41 thoughts on “My First Tea Party- Sorta”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Sorry I missed this. Normally, I’m a big fan of civil disobedience, but I must admit I like it more when I can support the cause. I do get the impression that at least some part of their anger is fueled by their inability to accept the notion of an African-American President.
The very first group of tea-party people were suppose to NOT make any remarks at all about our President, but only for less government control and involvment and the desire to keep taxes down.
Mike —
Thanks for this post. The Star’s version would lead you to believe Giffords refused to meet with a group of concerned citizens who had no intent to disrupt the event. The racial element is ugly – no mention in Star. Again, thanks for your coverage.
I cannot tell you how disgusted I was by the rude actions of the folks who came to this tea party. The worst was the sign that read “1 Black Prez leads U.S. to slavery”. However, at least these folks were overt about their prejudice against African Americans . Most of the folks drumming up things against our President (did these folk go to school?) aren’t brave enough to admit that it’s his RACE, not his policies that they can’t stand. Freedom of speech is wonderful, but for people like this perhaps we should use the Bush tactics and not let any dissenters near members of congress.
Thank for your review of events. The star report was was hardly objective. Free speech is fine but the venue, a movie, is hardly appropriate. I wish these people would understand the concept of civil discourse. We can all disagree and talk and debate like humans. Yelling loudest doesn’t make anyone right.
As to the venue…from what I understand, Congresswoman Giffords isn’t holding any town halls in Tucson on health care during this summer recess. Given that the American health care system is on the verge of being completely reshaped, I find that odd.
And Mike, I think you’ll find plenty of fine, upstanding veterans in the Tucson Tea Party movement. I’ll bet that some of them did just fine in “your” Marine Corps. (Have you notified Quantico yet, that it’s “your” Corps now? They’ll need to start replacing Chesty Puller’s portraits with yours!)
I don’t approve of that sign you mention in your article—but to imply that all Tea Party members are like that is cheap and shallow.
What does this post have to do with veterans issues? As a Gulf War veteran, I’m curious. I thought veterans issues (Veteran Veritas—Advocacy For Our Veterans) were supposed to be nonpartisan.
After seeing you effortlessly fall back into the “SwiftBoat” soundbite, I don’t think you’re nonpartisan at all.
If you want to be a partisan, please rename your blog.
Melissa, everything after the first paragraph is directed at Mike Brewer, the author of the original post, not you. My bust.
Dear Don,
Veritas means “truth” in Latin. There is nothing in my narrative that suggest anything remotely partisan or anything other than raw truth. Partisan thinkers see things where they are not, so as to feel oneself in opposition. There will be no renaming of this blog. Thanks for chiming in to the dialogue. Mike
Mike, there’s plenty of partisan stuff in your post—and a pretty hefty whiff of arrogance in your reply: “Partisan thinkers see things where they are not, so as to feel oneself in opposition.”
Gimme a break.
I’ve re-read Mr. Brewer’s original post numerous times trying to locate even one remark that could be construed as “plenty of partisan stuff” and cannot find anything.
Nonetheless, I appreciate this discourse. It has helped me to sort out my understanding of the tea party. I must acknowledge, Mr. Smith, that the intent of the tea group may have been pure. The problem is, any group who uses “fear” to further their goals is going to find themselves inundated with people who thrive on anger.
An angry, fearful crowd is a dangerous thing. To maintain its integrity, any movement must distance itself from hate. John McCain did try to diffuse the fear of that sad woman who believed Obama wasn’t a US citizen. On the other hand, he had the Alaska woman to fan the flames.
I wish the Tea Party had formed itself during the Bush/Cheney era. Perhaps they could have prevented rampant government spending, and we wouldn’t now be struggling to save ourselves from drowning in the debt inherited by President Obama.
On second thought, “arrogance” is a bit too strong–I retract that. That sentence does strike me as being a bit pompous, though.
Okay, I’ll try this again:
Mike, on second thought, the word “arrogance” is a bit too strong–I retract that. That sentence does strike me as being a bit pompous, though.
These “Reply” buttons are going to drive me to drink…
Because Veterans work for the people and the Commander In Chief. That is the oath my friend. The term, “my mans Marine Corps,” is a colloquialism that is not well known amongst doggies. The level of vitriolic talk at this event was indeed cheap and shallow. I just held up a mirror.
Now a year and a half later. we see what this zeitgeist has created. Certainly not the honor of the men at Quantico. Your wit is impressive, but a bit vacuous. Just wanted to further the pomposity. I earned it in a war that was a lie.
Mike,
Your review and the comments that have been made see the big picture for what it really is! When it was known that a Black man had a “GREAT” chance to become the leader of this nation, the stigma of bigotry has increased to the point that borders on another “Civil War”! Groups like these, who oppose President Obama, are angry at the fact that their worse nightmare has come to pass and they can’t deal with it!
Semper Fi
If you don’t mind me asking, how does someone retire from the Marine Corps at the rank of PFC? Were you medically retired?
Either way, thank you for your service to our country.
However, by saying that the Tucson Tea Party is motivated by racism—Groups like these, who oppose President Obama, are angry at the fact that their worse nightmare has come to pass and they can’t deal with it!—you cheapen the meaning of the word.
The Tucson Tea Party was created to oppose rampant government spending. I suspect you know that.
That sign is not representative of the views and characters of the vast majority of Tea Party residents. I suspect you know that, too.
One retires from the Marine Corps with the rank of PFC by suffering severe and traumatic wounds he received while doing his job as a combat, grunt, machine gunner when the Infantry Company he served in was ambushed by a unit of NVA in a location of Dong Ha, Quang Tri Provence, some few clicks below the DMZ……….Not sure why there are some who question how the retirement is received? As I see it, there are some who get their benefit the easy way by pulling 20 or more years of duty, then, there are others, like myself, who get the benefit the hard way by almost getting their head blown off within their first year of service……either way, a benefit is a benefit, whats the difference?……..Hope this answers your question? Thank you for your appreciation…
Rampant government spending was happening way before President Obama took office and some of it went to fund the war that most had little trouble accepting when, then President Bush, went after the WMD that were never found. Oh, but, silly me, I guess that dosen’t
count as rampant government spending? As for that sign, I’ll bet it stayed up without any objections of the vast majority, or am I wrong about that?
As one who was born in the “South Bronx, NYC”, a few miles from where “General/Secretary of State Colin Powell” lived, and raised in, what I’ll allude to as the reservation, which is the same “Housing Project” that “Supreme Court Justice Sonia Motomayor” lived in. I know about racism all too well, especially from those who smile in your face and covertly wish they can send all who came from Africa back in a big leaky boat! Not saying all are in that catagory…..those that are not are the ones I have respect for! It’s the blind sheep that follow the Judas goat that I have a problem with!
I’m a US Marine who served in Vietnam and was treated as something less than human when I returned to the “land of the free” by people who judged me then because of the color of my skin, and I see the same inherent attitude that is exhibited now towards the President!
Thank you for your service and sacrifices, PFC Jackson. But, with respect, in your original post you DID equate all the Tea Party protesters with racists. We are all responsible for the words we use.
As for the Iraq War, I’ll not refight it with you here, as we’ll obviously disagree.
If the group who showed up at La Placita on movie night really are Tea Baggers, then, yes, the majority did advertise themselves as racists. The sign in question was the worst one I saw, but there were plenty others. If The Tucson Tea Party prefers to distance itself from bigotry, it has a lot of work to do.
Veterans are people who fought for our freedom, including the Freedom of Speech. The groups gathering to “express their views” on health care seem to be more interested in suppressing free speech than learning anything. Of course it’s a veterans’ issue! It’s sickening to think that our military exists so racists can prevent democracy in action at town hall meetings.
The goal is apparent: Either disrupt opportunities for information to be delivered to citizens, or prevent the meetings from taking place.
What does this mean: “By saying that the Tucson Tea Party is motivated by racism…you cheapen the meaning of the word.” How is it possible to cheapen racism?
By the way, I noticed that Mr. Brewer said “my mans Marine Corps,” not my Marine Corps. I suspect you know the difference.
I find swiftboating un-American. I suspect you don’t.
Thank you for your service to our country. I hope you returned from the Gulf sound and whole.
What I find un-American is recording false anti-war testimony that was used to make life harder for our POWs in Vietnam.
When interviewed, Paul Galanti said the only time he’d had a “Hanoi Hilton” flashback since coming back to America was when he heard John Kerry’s Vietnam-era press conferences replayed during the 2004 campaign.
Personally, I don’t think that anyone who can induce POW prison flashbacks with just the sound of their voice should be President. Do you disagree?
As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I don’t agree with all of the SwiftBoat Veteran’s assertions. But I do agree with them here.
As did Bud Day and Paul Galanti. Are they “un-American” in your view?
I don’t believe it was false testimony.
A tremendous number of veterans don’t have any flashbacks or even memories of combat experiences until something triggers them. 9/11 is a good example. The vet centers and VAs were filled to the brim with vets after seeing those images on TV.
So, I doubt it was the sound of Mr. Kerry’s voice that caused Paul Galanti’s flashbacks. It was the surfacing of suppressed memories upon hearing the words. That’s the way PTSD works.
I don’t think anyone should be in public office who can induce fear of and rage toward others, e.g., that woman in Alaska. Do you disagree?
Did I use the word “un-American?” Where? I want to re-read my comments so I can see them in context.
Still thanking you for your service to our country.
And I especially appreciate your calm, thoughtful comments.
“Did I use the word “un-American?” Yes, you did.
Where? I want to re-read my comments so I can see them in context.”
“I find swiftboating un-American. I suspect you don’t.”
The testimony I’m referring to is Kerry’s testimony in front of the House in the early seventies, when he said that American soldiers in Vietnam performed in a manner similar to that of “jen-jhis khan.
CDR Galanti later remarked that, when his North Vietnamese captors first played that clip of Kerry’s speech for him, he was sure it was a trick. Not only did Galanti refuse to believe that an American veteran would say such a thing…he couldn’t imagine anyone pronouncing “Genghis Khan” that way.
It was that clip of “jen-jhis khan,” the sound of Kerry’s voice and his odd pronunciation of the Mongol leader’s name, replayed during the 2004 campaign, that triggered Galanti’s flashback. It made Galanti remember a very desperate time in his life, when his enemies were using Kerry’s words to make things tougher for all our POWs. It was that bitter memory of Kerry’s post-active-duty antiwar activities that motivated those Vietnam POWs to join the SwiftBoatVets.
As for the term “swiftboating,” it’s been construed to mean deliberately falsifying someone’s military record. I haven’t seen anything that proved the swifties “lied.”
What is probable, is that not all of Kerry’s critics saw all of his wartime activities. The fact that most of his crew supports him speaks well for him. If memory serves, virtually all of Kerry’s critics were on other boats. He may have been a jerk on shore, but war–and life—are full of jerks.
However, I think it’s been conclusively proven that his “Christmas in Cambodia” stories, which he claimed on the Senate floor were “seared” in his mind, were fantasies.
Thanks for the kind words.
Oh! Thank you for finding my “un-American” bit. I truly could not find it – neither my memory nor my eyes are young any more.
Yes, I’d agree that swiftboating has been construed to mean deliberately falsifying someone’s [fill in the blank] record. Could be anything really.
I do think swiftboating can be categorized as un-American because a person is being undermined with falsehoods. (Falsehoods, differences of opinion, differing memory. No one remembers the same event exactly the same as anyone else.) I guess I naively expect more honesty from Americans.
I would not call Bud Day and Paul Galanti un-American, but I would call the actions of the money people behind swiftboating un-American.
Mulling over the events on movie night at La Placita, I think the problem is what my parents called “running with the wrong crowd.” There were people there to watch the movie, there were Tea Partiers who (giving you the benefit of any doubt) were hoping for some discourse about health care or whatever, and there were the “nasty sign-carriers.”
When those kind of people show up, the Tea Party needs to physically distance themselves. When they attempt to mingle, tell them their signs are offensive, and ask them to move on. Otherwise, it appears that the Tea Party is comfortable with those nasty signs.
Level-headed Americans need to speak up, express their disdain for the haters, and avoiding the appearance of “running with the wrong crowd.”
Mr. Brewer: “Carry on men?” No thanks. I’m a woman and glad for it.
I really don’t see anything partisan about opposing racism. Doesn’t everyone oppose racism?
I have to agree with Winneo – there is an obvious effort underway to prevent the dissemination of information. If a pol holds a meeting, they have no chance of being heard over the shouting and chants, and they put themselves in physical danger. If they don’t hold a meeting, people like Don “wonder why.”
I wonder why so many people fear information.
I wonder why so many people fear information.
Lydia—that’s it! You’ve figured us out! We fear…information!
I don’t believe you are one of those, Don. It is fear of information though that drives the mobs to shout down all discussions in town halls across the country recently. Among the instructions given to those people…shouting out and disrupting to prevent discussion is the Number One Goal.
You say these tactics are not used by the teaparty people? I believe you. The proof is in your group’s action or inaction. Inaction was the operative (non-operative?) at the movie event.
I attended the first ‘tea party’ – we were protesting the overreach of government. Fiscal issues. I also attended the July 4th ‘tea party’ at which the focus was on honoring the values for which this country stands. While there were clearly partisan posters at each event, I saw none ‘playing the race card.’ For that reason I suspect it’s a bit of a stretch to paint the all of the attendees of this most recent event with the broad brush of racism. That said, I do find the underlying intimation contained in the sign noted in Mike’s article troubling, at best. I would prefer to see political points made on the basis of the merits of a case, without resorting to phrases that contain double entendre intimations which border on race baiting. Let’s just make our points and let the best argument prevail on its merits.
As to the behavior of the crowd, I was not there and so my comment is of a more general nature; that is, regardless of the venue or issue, men such as Mike fought to defend our right to express our views. The Constitution protects the right of even unpopular views to have their voice in the marketplace of ideas. I have observed events at which speakers on the ‘right’ have been shouted down – and I have experienced events at which speakers from the ‘left’ have suffered similar treatment. Both are wrong. If one is comfortable in his/her own skin, that person should find no need to filter out contrary opinions. Group behavior is a curious thing, though. One would hope that in a less volatile setting, most of the folks of whom Mike writes would be of a mind to engage civil discourse. Thanks, Mike, and all veterans for having defended that right for us.
It was certainly a PR mistake to display that particular sign. At the same time it was very revealing. The Tea Party folks may not express it as such, but their real fear is the fear of change and that change includes, among other things, an end to white supremacy in this country. These are the same folks opposing affirmative action and spending on social services as well as even the smallest measure to provide equal access to health care for all Americans.
While it is no longer acceptable for them to express bigotry in public, the design of their efforts is to maintain and promote the kind of economically and racially stratified society that has characterized America for over two hundred years.
As the wife of a Marine, it is of significance to note that the terminology of ” my mans Marine Corps” is strictly idiomatic and a phrase that is often used in the Corps in reference to their most strict of all training. To think that Brewer is somehow equating himself with Chesty is a bit humorous. But Chesty may have said to Brewer, ” Semper Fi”!
Furthermore, to suggest that Brewers reference to the Swift Boat lobbyists, somehow makes him partisan, is equally humorous. He is stating a fact of record, not a partisan view. The additional fact of record, since I do not have to be so balanced as Brewer, is that 7 of those Swift Boaters had to retract their stories, when the Veterans Administration suggested that they may have to turn in their own medals and ribbons, and vacate their own benefits should their testimony be true. We never heard from them again, as they were only paid to play once. That is not partisan Sir, that is corroborated fact.
Ms. Benson, over 200 of John Kerry’s wartime colleagues joined the Swift Boat vets—were they all partisans? Honored Vietnam POWs, such as Paul Galanti and Bud Day, also joined the movement, after it was in full swing.
As for what happened on Kerry’s boat, I’ll give the benefit of the doubt to the sailors who served ON his boat—who, IIRC, mostly supported him. But, for the POWs like Galanti, who had to listen in disbelief as their North Vietnamese captors broadcast Kerry’s public statements to them, in hopes of breaking their morale—I’ll go with Galanti and Day.
I hope you’re not suggesting that to speak out against a war is unpatriotic or that those speaking out are giving “aid and comfort”.
No, I’m not—and I’m pretty sure you know that.
You’re not trying to mischaracterize what I’m saying, for misinformation’s sake–are you?
I must be misunderstanding this then: “But, for the POWs like Galanti, who had to listen in disbelief as their North Vietnamese captors broadcast Kerry’s public statements to them, in hopes of breaking their morale—I’ll go with Galanti and Day”.
My reading is that you are saying Kerry should not have made those statements because they were then used by the North Vietnamese.
In the interest of finding some common ground on this thread, I’ll hereby state that I find the sign pictured above repulsive.
Just as I found all the pictures of George Bush as Hitler repulsive.
Personally, I didn’t hold all Iraq War antiwar protesters responsible for signs like that. When some Bush opponents hinted that 9/11 was a joint Bush-Mossad plot, I didn’t imply that all antiwar activists were anti-Semites. Because the vast, vast, vast majority clearly weren’t.
Just as the Tea Party isn’t a movement of racists. To imply that it is is unfair. It certainly isn’t veritas.
No, it’s not a movement primarily built around racism. It is a movement whose goals include promoting a vision of American society that is institutionally racist, however.
How many of the “Tea Party” folks do you think would show up in protest over Sheriff Joe’s behavior? And how many opposing “run-away” government spending are ready to trim law enforcement or military spending? How many are ready to get religion out of public life? It’s not really the stated few individual issues that bring these folks together and makes them so angry. It’s the shared vision of a certain American society that they presently see in danger; a society that is divided along lines of haves and have nots, divided along lines of race and class, based on the christian religion to the exclusion of others and based on white supremacy.
Leftfield, feel free to disregard my outlook on things. After all, it’s only fair—I’m dismissing yours.
Well, I guess that is partially my point, Don. If I read you correctly, it is also just about our one point of agreement. That is to say that, between a far right POV and a far left POV, there is not much room for consensus on a larger scale. The world I see as desirable has little in common with the world you see as desirable.
My main point though, is that the Tea Party people are not just limited in their concerns to government spending or centralization of power in the federal government. They are pushing the entire spectrum of far right philosophy. They consider government “overreach” bad when it taxes them to pay for social services, but absolutely necessary when it comes to taxing them to pay to maintain the world’s largest defense budget.
I will admit though, Don, the far right is much better at emotional appeals and fear-based motivation than the left. This is really not so much a criticism as an admission. This type of propaganda is really much more effective than the propaganda that comes from the American left.
Leftfield, feel free to ignore my outlook on things. After all, it’s only fair—I’m ignoring yours.
Man…technology can be a frustrating thing.
Looks like everyone’s tea has plenty of caffeine! Carry on men.
In reviewing these comments for the sake of learning something from the flow, and for the desire to maintain the intention of advocacy, I have stumbled upon the word I have been searching for…. which is consensus.
Consensus; “collective or concord; general agreement or accord”
I was fortunate to be selected a few years ago for the Town hall gathering at Ventana Canyon Resort, sponsored by the Southern Arizona Leadership Council. I was equally honored to be asked to offer the opening prayer. When I returned to my table, I was even a bit more flattered, when one of the guests suggested that they were pleased that the selection committee had chosen so many ‘centrists’ as myself. I did know it showed. The direction I am going here, is one of pragmatism. It seems to me that we have to have a bit of consensus before we can ever get to the actions of advocacy.
The universe of blogging, talk radio, identity politics, ideological ranting is much more a conceit than a consensus. And moreover seems to move us further away from all propriety and consensus. Both George Will and the late William Buckley would come under the heading of propriety and protocol. Both of them always appeal to the higher self and both adhere to the classical forms of rhetoric. Those forms of Rhetoric and debate would serve us well should they be more frequent in the blogosphere. The repeated instances of non-sequiturs and content laden responses followed by defensive ripostes or simple muteness is benefiting no one in this grand nation. In fact one might wonder who is served by promulgating the status of a nation divided and the Red and Blue State middle school mindset. Not the people.
“I know what you are but what am I” is the phrase that comes to mind. Or the a line out of the movie “Pulp Fiction.” ” So do you listen or do you wait to talk?”
I too spent some time in Marine Corps Intelligence with the Provost Office, and I know full well the mechanisms of “Psy-Ops.” Yet, could we ever imagine in our wildest dreams that this is being done to us!
Maybe we can get our Editor to post Plato’s Rules of Rhetoric, which in turn all of our commenters would adhere to, and Gannett would then consider the Tucson Citizen to be one its prize possessions, and give our Editor a raise!
I w
I enyoj your blog.