So as could be expected I was deluged with mail this weekend, most of it from outraged Michelle Malkin readers, and nearly all of whom sounded the same basic theme: that I was a bad, bad person for issuing ad hominem attacks and should be discredited for "not having my facts straight" and for being too much of a coward to "debate the real issues."

Which is interesting, except that no one actually found an incorrect fact in anything I wrote, and no one seemed very interesting in debating any issues. Instead, about 99% of the mail I got focused on the name-calling and the "childish" sexual innuendoes. I would say that is my fault, that I should have known that once you start dropping sack onto another columnist's face in public you can pretty much forgo any expectation of being taken seriously -- except that when dealing with teabagger types, you know in advance you're not going to be taken seriously anyway. So the incentive to be restrained in one's response (particularly when the people you're arguing with are running around screaming about the fascist threat with tea bags dangling absurdly from their hat-brims) is not particularly strong.

But the real reason nobody takes the teabaggers seriously is that they have no answers to several enormous holes in the parody of a protest argument they tried to make last week. I got nearly two hundred letters this weekend and not one of them had an answer for any of the following:

1. If you're so horrified by debt and spending, where were your tea parties when George Bush was adding $4 trillion to the federal deficit?

2. If you're so outraged by the bailouts, where were your tea parties when the bailouts were first instituted by Henry Paulson and George Bush last fall?

3. If you're so troubled by pork, where were your tea parties when the number and cost of congressional earmarks rose spectacularly in each year of Republican congressional rule between 1996 and the end of the Republican majority in 2006?

A number of people wrote in to me and complained that the only reason I'm not seeing eye to eye with them is that I have no children and therefore don't care about the debt burden in the future. Oh, please. There's only one reason we're talking about "the children" in this debate at all: because 95% of the people protesting the tax outrage will actually be getting a tax break. Until you can plausibly answer the question of why future government debt burdens didn't bother you during the last eight years or massive deficit spending, that whole "O the children!" bull**** has to be put back on the shelf.

Anyway, I'd really be curious to hear some answers to these questions. Because if the spending argument is moot, if the bailout argument is moot, if the pork argument is moot, and the tax argument is moot, then what you're left with is arguing that it's not waste when we spend billions handing out soccer balls in the Anbar province, but it is waste when we build bridges in Peoria and Tulsa.

The only thing even remotely resembling a logical justification for any of this was the argument, made by several letter-writers, that the fact that the teabaggers are hypocrites doesn't necessarily make them wrong about the Obama budget. If that point is conceded at the top, I think most Americans would be willing to discuss the rest of it, because that's a discussion worth having. The problem is that once you admit that you sat on your hands during a period of unprecedented waste for eight years, it makes it very hard to take when you start calling yourselves victims of fascism and tyranny and threatening to secede in year nine, which just happens to be the first year of a new regime you oppose politically. In other words if you concede the hypocrisy, the hysteria automatically becomes obnoxious and wrong. So I don't think the "My hypocrisy is irrelevant" line holds water, not unless you can answer one more question:

4. Would you be protesting any of this bull**** if this had been George W. Bush's budget?
_______



About author
I'm a political reporter for Rolling Stone magazine, a sports columnist for Men's Journal, and I also write books for a Random House imprint called Spiegel and Grau. My main ambition in life is to someday strangle that chick in the Progressive Insurance commercials who is always waving her hands back and forth and screaming, "Discount!!!" Anyone who has suggestions for how to dump her body without being caught is welcome to write to me. I already have plenty of plastic and a staple-gun.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/21372

question...something I don't get

didn't Obama say something about his budget plan and saying no earmarks?

So as could be expected I was deluged with mail this weekend, most of it from outraged Michelle Malkin readers, and nearly all of whom sounded the same basic theme: that I was a bad, bad person for issuing ad hominem attacks and should be discredited for "not having my facts straight" and for being too much of a coward to "debate the real issues."

Which is interesting, except that no one actually found an incorrect fact in anything I wrote, and no one seemed very interesting in debating any issues. Instead, about 99% of the mail I got focused on the name-calling and the "childish" sexual innuendoes. I would say that is my fault, that I should have known that once you start dropping sack onto another columnist's face in public you can pretty much forgo any expectation of being taken seriously -- except that when dealing with teabagger types, you know in advance you're not going to be taken seriously anyway. So the incentive to be restrained in one's response (particularly when the people you're arguing with are running around screaming about the fascist threat with tea bags dangling absurdly from their hat-brims) is not particularly strong.

But the real reason nobody takes the teabaggers seriously is that they have no answers to several enormous holes in the parody of a protest argument they tried to make last week. I got nearly two hundred letters this weekend and not one of them had an answer for any of the following:

1. If you're so horrified by debt and spending, where were your tea parties when George Bush was adding $4 trillion to the federal deficit?

2. If you're so outraged by the bailouts, where were your tea parties when the bailouts were first instituted by Henry Paulson and George Bush last fall?

3. If you're so troubled by pork, where were your tea parties when the number and cost of congressional earmarks rose spectacularly in each year of Republican congressional rule between 1996 and the end of the Republican majority in 2006?

A number of people wrote in to me and complained that the only reason I'm not seeing eye to eye with them is that I have no children and therefore don't care about the debt burden in the future. Oh, please. There's only one reason we're talking about "the children" in this debate at all: because 95% of the people protesting the tax outrage will actually be getting a tax break. Until you can plausibly answer the question of why future government debt burdens didn't bother you during the last eight years or massive deficit spending, that whole "O the children!" bull**** has to be put back on the shelf.

Anyway, I'd really be curious to hear some answers to these questions. Because if the spending argument is moot, if the bailout argument is moot, if the pork argument is moot, and the tax argument is moot, then what you're left with is arguing that it's not waste when we spend billions handing out soccer balls in the Anbar province, but it is waste when we build bridges in Peoria and Tulsa.

The only thing even remotely resembling a logical justification for any of this was the argument, made by several letter-writers, that the fact that the teabaggers are hypocrites doesn't necessarily make them wrong about the Obama budget. If that point is conceded at the top, I think most Americans would be willing to discuss the rest of it, because that's a discussion worth having. The problem is that once you admit that you sat on your hands during a period of unprecedented waste for eight years, it makes it very hard to take when you start calling yourselves victims of fascism and tyranny and threatening to secede in year nine, which just happens to be the first year of a new regime you oppose politically. In other words if you concede the hypocrisy, the hysteria automatically becomes obnoxious and wrong. So I don't think the "My hypocrisy is irrelevant" line holds water, not unless you can answer one more question:

4. Would you be protesting any of this bull**** if this had been George W. Bush's budget?
_______



About author
I'm a political reporter for Rolling Stone magazine, a sports columnist for Men's Journal, and I also write books for a Random House imprint called Spiegel and Grau. My main ambition in life is to someday strangle that chick in the Progressive Insurance commercials who is always waving her hands back and forth and screaming, "Discount!!!" Anyone who has suggestions for how to dump her body without being caught is welcome to write to me. I already have plenty of plastic and a staple-gun.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/21372

question...something I don't get

didn't Obama say something about his budget plan and saying no earmarks?

It was McCain's mantra but both said they would stop them... well at one point Obama said he would stop the "bad" ones and got hit pretty hard for the suggestion that there were good ones . But really... did anyone actually believe either of them would do anything about it?

POPPYCOCK

mccain is non-issue on that since he wasn't elected

Wanna know what's funny Madison? A lot of what they complained about happened under Bush's budget to include the first bailouts.

I still personally pin more blame on congress than i do the presidents. Congress doesn't seem to change, ever.

But to answer your question about why this is happening now, i think there are many answers to this.

I think for the most part people saw and acknowledge what happeend under Bush. Hell, most of my family, although republicans, were very critical of him. I will admit i defended military action under him because i was personally involved, but i eyes have since opened.

People know, and are tired of the tricks of his administration, and the shadey dealings of congress encouraging war, and overspending our money, while offering no real solutions to problems that are addressed. The patter is happening. People are seeing this administration, although preaching "change", just pcking up the torch and running in the same direction (with a few MINOR differences).

However there are always exceptions to this. There are many that are doing this because they are against democrats, not just this administration.

Nevertheless, some are tired of legislation that limits our liberties and spends us into the poorhouse, but some are just hiding behind this pretense.