miguel cervantes wrote:
the Beck warning about the “Invisible Committee’ was quite prescient,
Nothing new: Lunatics making the simplest understandings of the world seem like magic to the ignorant: The socialist bogeyman will grab the little patriot children from their beds and gobble them up unless Glenn Beck restores honor and the Tea Party stands up for the good capitalist fairies who will shine up the city on the hill any day now.
In France and Greece we see how a version of "that philosophy" produces amenities that a very large number of people consider more valuable than propping up the international financial system under the same rules and presumptions that, among other things, produced the financial crisis. That doesn't mean that the governments are completely wrong to seek austerity measures or revisions in pension and social security, but who are you to determine that the people being affected don't have a right to resist? If they don't stand up for themselves, then they'll be expected to roll over quietly during the next round and the one after that.
You're ready to go to the mattresses over taxes or regulations that you presume will take money out of the pockets of the rich and well-to-do. They're ready to go the streets to protest having money taken out of the pockets of the poor and middle class.
He’s a fool, that ‘more welfare than jobs’ quip that you had no problem,
Since, like Jim Hoft, you don't seem to understand it, I'll explain it to you. He was expressing a belief that is somewhat widely held worldwide, and that was even widely held in the U.S. at one time, but that now is considered heresy: That the overall tendencies in the advanced industrialized economies make full employment too difficult to achieve - some would say impossible, some would say at too great a sacrifice in wages and social services and amenities. If restoring high growth and bringing back lost jobs proves difficult, then the perspective might start to seem less alien.
I think it's probably true that deep down Brown isn't a true believer in free market capitalist ideology. The time doesn't seem to have come to admit as much. It might have been interesting if Whitman had confronted him forcefully on that question. Instead they're kind of dancing around some good ol' class warfare and progressivism vs. Reaganism.
Ain't it great how he actually answers the questions by ignoring them? At least it worked this time.
I'll note that Brown also has some crappy ads, as does Boxer. Brown is pushing an attack on Whitman that pretends to accuse her of supporting capital gains tax reductions in order to enrich herself and her friends, but I think what he's really trying to do is make her seem like one of "them," not really accusing her of supporting the policy out of greed. So it's duplicitous and political. He's not a saint. What's surprising is that with all of her money, Whitman doesn't have any great ads. Instead, she has one that tries to make him responsible for overly generous retirement packages to state workers that were all negotiated after his tenure, but whose real point is that he's beholden to the unions.
Maybe she's saving something for the stretch.
why the TP cannot be a temporary thing, for this election.
If we had campaign ads for political movements, we could have done a Whitmanegger for the TP and countless previous movements, with statements like the one quoted. That's exactly what, for instance, the Obamites urgently said to each other as they approached their victory.
"Let's all stay in touch and be best friends forever!" = "Have a nice life!"
That is not the lesson,
That's not "the lesson" that you want people to draw.
You're probably right that the Recall and the election of Arnold were precursors to the Tea Party, or Tea Party-like phenomena in important respects, but the same thing could be said about a lot of other phenomena. That doesn't have much to do with the way that Californians may react to this particular ad. It may have something to say about the likely fate of the TP and of most "anti-government" movements that sooner or later are faced with the question of how to govern, and the implications of trying to implement their fantasy agenda. Usually, they end up "compromising" with the "necessary evil" and become for all intents and purposes the thing they hated. In rare instances, they resist compromise and gain power, and the result is madness and destruction that also sooner or later leads to complete inversion of their intentions.