Tea Baggers’ Selective Outrage

sign-handleOne common message I constantly hear from the Tea Bagger Right Wing Extremists (besides all Mexicans suck, all Democrats suck and health care for poor minorities sucks) is demanding “Where is their bailout.” I saw several of those signs being held by tea baggers last Friday at the Truman Dinner. A valid point, as this critic of TARP wonders, why the banks were bailed out and the common American people left to tread water or drown. I too am angered that many of these banks were bailed out while these same banks worked to sink other Americans’ hopes of getting through the Bush Recession in one piece.

Yet lets take a look at the OC representatives who voted for TARP and who voted against TARP AKA The Bailout. You can view the votes HERE. Take a look at who voted AYE from the OC and who voted NAY. Turns out a vote for the bailout came from none other than John Campbell and a vote for the people and against the bailout came from none other than DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSWOMAN LORETTA SANCHEZ. That is right tea baggers, Loretta voted against the bailout while John Campbell voted against.

screaming-beatles-fans1Yet hearing Ms. Barth and other tea baggers talk, one would think it was the opposite. Mention John Campbell’s name around them and they fall all over themselves like a bunch of rabid Beatle’s fans. If these tea baggers were so principled against the bail out like they claim to be, one would think they would go and volunteer endlessly for Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, or even the Republicans who voted against it such as Dana Rohrabacher. Instead there favorite son is a man who bent over for the banks and gave them their bailout. I would like an explanation from Megan Barth, the self proclaimed leader of the tea baggers in Irvine as to this oversight. Why is John Campbell getting a free pass for his vote FOR the bailout, while Loretta Sanchez has not so much gotten one thank you from the tea baggers?slide_1398_20072_large

Personally, I think this proves that the “tea party” movement is filled with nothing more than sore losers from the 2008 election along with some folks who can’t handle people other than white anglo-saxon Christians from having any power in this country. Look at John Campbell’s behavior since 2008, being a cheerleader for the “birther” movement and other actions to appease the tea baggers and the answer becomes obvious. This isn’t a movement by common Americans. As self-proclaimed Christians, the tea baggers should stop false witness bearing (WHICH IS ONE OF THEIR PRECIOUS 10 COMMANDMENTS) and be truthful on what they are truly about, an unpatriotic effort to undermine the will of the people in 2008.

So as you wonder where your bailout is, I will wonder where your consistency is. I will await, Megan, you and your group’s criticism of John Campbell for voting for TARP and praise for DEMOCRAT Loretta Sanchez for taking a stand against it. If you truly are a non-partisan group of the people you can do that with no problem. But considering you write for Red County, a partisan blog by their own admission, I somehow don’t see that happening. I would have no problem with your movement if you guys were not taking part in the un-Christian activity of LYING.

  17 comments for “Tea Baggers’ Selective Outrage

  1. Allan Bartlett
    December 9, 2009 at 1:05 pm

    Excellent post Claudio. Campbell has for the most part been getting a free pass on his TARP vote.

  2. December 9, 2009 at 1:42 pm

    Nice of Meagan to confirm many of the protesters were astroturfers. And Meagan is so upset about how nasty and rude liberals were to her and her group at the Truman dinner. Look at the manners of those protesting and the signs; it’s hard ot complain about someone slinging mud by someone with their own set of dirty hands.

  3. Wade
    December 9, 2009 at 2:10 pm

    I am not happy about the bailouts either, but at least the govt. will get most of its money back, and I do not pretend to be an economist. What disturbs me more is, these tea-bagger types sat silent while their supposedly Christian Bush sent Americans overseas to die in a war based on lies, a war that has cost billions of dollars, and of which many billions have just evaporated. The target of their vague, generalized fears and inability to think for themselves has only shifted from “the terrorists” to Obama, and their patriotism is only on display when their party of choice is in charge of things.

  4. Steve A
    December 9, 2009 at 8:02 pm

    A-freaking-men. Campbell also voted for Cash for Clunkers, something that the tea baggers should also hate. The problem for tea-baggers is that their “movement” is not about issues, it is about the abstract idea that we need to go back to the good old days of Reagan deficits and the artificial consumerist economy that led to the financial crisis in the first place. Their rage and activism is based on rhetoric, not specific public policy. I was looking at some of their pictures from last week in Irvine and there it was again….a sign that read “Hands off my Medicare!” It’s hard to take these guys seriously, especially since Campbell would ideally abolish Medicare all together.

  5. StevefromSacto
    December 10, 2009 at 10:03 am

    What’s really laughable is the guy who has two picket signs. One says “No government-run health care!” The other says: “Hands off my Medicare!” Priceless.

  6. junior
    December 10, 2009 at 12:53 pm

    “Tea Partyers” would be the correct term Claudio. Your headline is demeaning – that is not like you Claudio.

    • Claudio
      December 10, 2009 at 1:13 pm

      But holding photos depicting Obama and Pelosi as ruthless mass murderers is NOT demeaning. That’s right, the tea baggers can do that sort of thing because they are Christian and we Liberals are Godless gay loving baby killers.

      By the way, they used the term “tea baggers” first until they learned the true meaning of “tea bagging.” Whoops!

      • junior
        December 10, 2009 at 1:51 pm

        “they used the term “tea baggers” first until they learned the true meaning of “tea bagging.”

        I do not believe that. This group named themselves after the Boston Tea PARTY.

        So your response is – if they can be demeaning, vulgar and repulsive, so can I. Nice Claudio!

        • Claudio Gallegos
          December 10, 2009 at 2:07 pm

          I don’t see you criticizing their tactics. I see it is two sets of behavior. One who agrees with your world view, who can act however they want and one who disagrees with your world view, who must behave the way YOU expect them to.

          Junior, you have been no angel yourself, why do we have to? My belief, conservatives have no room to lecture us until they can prove they truly are as PERFECT as they like to claim they are.

          • Dan Chmielewski
            December 10, 2009 at 2:24 pm

            The Boston Tea Party was about taxation without representation. it was a protest against huge corporate tax cuts for the British East India Company, which threatened small Colonial businesses. The modern team party movement is a protest against federal tax cuts most Americans received and deficit neutral healthcare reform (source: CBO). The modern day Team Party Patriots have no sense of history.

            • junior
              December 10, 2009 at 3:46 pm

              “The Boston Tea Party was about taxation without representation.”

              Dan – I think that the Democratic party is going to hear from the taxpayers in Nov. of 2010.

  7. junior
    December 10, 2009 at 3:40 pm

    “Junior, you have been no angel yourself, ..”

    Excuse me – Michael, … the archangel – not angelic? – surely you jest my friend!

    Ok, the Tea Party-ers sometimes behave poorly – happy?

  8. December 11, 2009 at 1:13 pm

    There is a new breed of evangelicals who claim to represent they are of christian principles however our country was founded on these principles yet they are 100% different. The Tea Baggers are not true republicans they are just the main stream GOP trying to save their party. Here is a lesson for the Tea Baggers.

    Basic Principles of Christian Just War

    (1) The cause and intention of a war must be just. The war must have limited objections and objectives that are just in the eyes of God. This includes protecting the innocent who are threatened or restoring order in the society. Wars of conquest or wars to “spread democracy” are thus unjust.

    (2) In a just war there must be a right to intervene with violence.

    (3) There must be a declaration of war by lawful authorities.

    (4) In a just war, war is the last resort. Even if a nation has a just cause and a right to intervene, it must not engage in warfare unless it is the last resort. An appeal must first be made to right before recourse is made to might.

    (5) A war is just only if it is entered into with a probability of success. Not all just causes can be successfully prosecuted. It is unjust to ask for vain sacrifice.

    (6) A just war is one where the cost that is to be incurred is not thought to be a greater evil than that which is to be remedied.

    (7) The means of a just war must be both discriminative and proportional. Total war is unbiblical. A just war is one which carefully distinguishes civilians from combatants. Wars should not be needlessly destructive. The violence used must only be sufficient to restore the peace that has been destroyed by the aggressor nation.

  9. December 12, 2009 at 11:10 am

    Hi Claudio, wish I could have talked to you as you proclaim that you have heard me speak. But you are right about one thing…I do fawn over the Beatles! I have never met you, talked to you, bumped into you, made your acquaintance, shook your hand, tipped my hat, honked my horn, nothing. Interesting how you post photos not taken from the Irvine Protest of Madame Pelosi. God knows that there are plenty you can find. Surprising that you didn’t have a better pictorial representation. I don’t fawn over Campbell. I don’t fawn over Sanchez. I would consider them both to be hypocritical at times. Kinda like you when you called RedCounty a partisan website. What do you call the Liberaloc? I also find it interesting that all of you libs are mind readers. Can you tell me how you do it? You know what I think and what everyone thinks that you don’t know or have never met! Such clairvoyance! Perhaps you can all get together and start a reality show. They are quite popular these days. I don’t agree with Allan Bartlett. I wouldn’t call this an excellent post. I would call this a confusing, rambling, indecent post (there is also a typo). But who am I to express my opinion! My god! Let’s get that fairness doctrine in place right away so all of us Right Wingers and those that don’t subscribe to your blathering mantra can shut up and get out of the way! Dissent is no longer patriotic for you all now that Bush is gone, right? Perhaps if you check out my post at RedCounty.com, you will see that even the
    “mexicans” that you claim we hate, showed up to show their displeasure with Madame “Bruja.” http://www.redcounty.com/liberals-socialists-and-misogynistsoh-my/34599

    Thanks! Next time, don’t be afraid to come up, shake my hand, and ask me a few questions. You might be surprised at what you finally learn.

    • Claudio Gallegos
      December 14, 2009 at 8:50 am

      Wow Ms. Barth, you are quite the angry bitter smart acre aren’t you. Instead of answering my points, you engage in one long paragraph of insults, ad hominem attacks filled with straw men as you go around any of my points and resort to a incoherant rant. Is insulting your only skill in life. If you had any intellectual mindset in that Dinosaur sized brain of yours, you would be able to actually engage in a spirited dialogue. Why is it I can disagree with Allan Bartlett and Matt Cunningham on most issues, yet we can have an exchange that is not filled with insults on each other’s intelligence.

      I guess most of you tea baggers are not capable of such a discussion. Too bad. I would be happy to debate with you if you would not resort to such attacks and would keep it on the issues. INstead you go and find irrelevant points and stick to those because you have no defense for your pathetic world view, nor do you have a defense for your free pass of John Campbell for his vote on TARP. Your general “they both suck” is a typical right wing out when you have no defense for the actions of the Republican. YOu cannot even bring yourself to compliment Loretta Sanchez for her vote against TARP. Sad.

      Well I have to actually get to work(yes some of us do that rather than blog all day or plan the next tea party riot) so have a nice day and may Allah bless you. ;) Tah tah

    • December 14, 2009 at 10:49 am

      Megan – I read your post as well, and I found it interesting you seemed so offended by rude liberals at the Truman dinner you seemed to ignore the manner of over the top signs your supporters used. What are they protesting exactly? That most of them got a federal tax cut this year? Or that healthcare reform is deficit neutral (source: CBO). I did use a photo of the Pelosi protest in Irvine in my post on Steven Choi.

      Your example of the Fairness Doctine here really demonstrates your lack of knowledge on this; and one who might rail against perceived liberal media bias should probably embrace the Fairness Doctrine’s return, but that would mean that it would apply to radio programs hosted by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

      As far as typos go Megan, we all make them. You failed to capitalize the G in the word “God” in your reply to Claudio; Kinda is not a word. Fairness Doctrine is always capitalized.
      Matt makes typos; Moxley does too. So do I. I can continue to copy edit your post and your comment, but Im sure you get my point.

      For what its worth, there were considerably more Democrats there to gladly welcome the Speaker (and the event was sold out 8 days before the dinner); with a bigger venue, we could have sold that out as well.

  10. Fact Check
    December 13, 2009 at 8:10 am

    Nice of Claudio’s narrow minded approach to enlighten us as to the collective mind set of thousands of individuals across the country exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech. “nothing more than sore losers from the 2008 election along with some folks who can’t handle people other than white anglo-saxon Christians from having any power in this country”. Just say it Claudio. One half of the nation is racist. Brilliant intellectual analysis.

Comments are closed.