They MOCK the Tea-Bagging?

The conservative OneNewsNow cannot believe CNN’s Anderson Cooper would dare make a raunchy joke when discussing the tea-bagging parties the other day!

During his AC 360 program, Anderson Cooper made the vulgar remark after CNN senior political analyst David Gergen spoke of the Republican Party being “in disarray.”

Gergen: “Republicans have got a way — they still haven’t found their voice, Anderson. They’re still — this happens to a minority party after it’s lost a couple of bad elections, but they’re searching for their voice.”

Cooper: “It’s hard to talk when you’re tea-bagging.”

“I don’t remember when large numbers of people were going to protest the Iraq War in 2003 that these same personalities — Anderson Cooper or Keith Olbermann or David Shuster — got up and said, ‘Let’s now start making raunchy jokes about the protesters,’” [Tim Graham with the Media Research Center] notes.

Right… much like 2M4M, this could’ve been prevented with a simple Google search. Are they that insulated from the rest of the world? They brought on the mockery: A bad name for a bad idea.

  • http://noadi.blogspot.com Noadi

    I don’t remember Iraq War protests having names so easily mocked. If you don’t like it do a better job picking names. 5 second google search would tell you that teabagging and 2M4M were bad ideas (though the organization that picked 2M4M also have the acronym NOM so they clearly don’t spend enough time online).

  • http://www.bottle-imp.com Danie

    Yeah, “Tea Party” is about as stupid a name as they could possibly have come up with.

  • Miko

    You know, I agree that they’re a bunch of nuts, but it doesn’t follow that we need to insult them. The anti-war analogy is a good one. While we may not have had funny names, we pro-peace types got a lot of grief in other ways. Perhaps we can try having a political discussion without name calling this time?

    (And the name was decided in 1773. They didn’t have too much control over connotations that developed in the intervening years.)

  • Eric Z

    Yeah… they’re upset about Anderson Cooper’s joke? I’m sure many of you have seen the bit on MSNBC about the same bit, but for those of you that haven’t:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8i-OWDjOQfI

    Now THAT’S something to be upset about! (Also, I love it.)

  • Zar

    It’s a good thing they didn’t go with the the name “punch-fisting parties” like they originally planned.

  • http://newref.blogspot.com/ James

    I think they better get used to being made fun of. After 8 years of receiving it, turnabout is fair play. Now it is my turn for the next 8 years to drive by protesters and yell “Get a job, ya bums!”

    One of my local TV stations didn’t go easy on the protesters:

    Woman holding a “Welcome to France” sign: “We’re headed towards a socialst country.”
    Reporter: “What is socialism?”
    Woman: “Well… I not sure.”

    Video: http://www.wcnc.com/news/topstories/stories/wcnc-041509-al-taxdayteaparty.d8d02c88.html

  • Tom

    Miko, the word “teabagging” was unquestionably not invented in 1773. I’m fairly certain tea bags were a 20th century invention. Tea was too expensive to waste on individual servings before that, and would be brewed in a pot.

  • http://gaytheistagenda.lavenderliberal.com/ Buffy

    The whole premise of the “tea baggers” is a joke in and of itself. For eight years GWB spent billions a day on the Iraq war, gave money hand over fist to his corporatist cronies, funneled who knows how much into his “Faith Based Initiative”, etc. Now suddenly three months into a Democratic presidency they’re all up in arms over taxation and government spending? WTH?

    Then they have that ridiculous name (you’re telling me nobody took any of them aside and told them what “tea bagging” is?). Peter LaBarbera certainly knows.

  • Erik

    OneNewsNow is probably not upset about the MSNBC and other cracks about teabagging, because (as far as I know) Anderson Cooper is the only gay one who made a sexual joke about them. And dem gays better not get all uppity and talkin’ ’bout good christians!

  • Lost Left Coaster

    Hey Miko, I appreciate your desire for civility, but you got to remember that these people gathered to hurl racist insults about our president and accuse him of being like Hitler. They have no interest in civility. The least we can do is make juvenile sexual jokes about them. There is no engaging them. They’re the fringe of the fringe; a lot of them really believe that our president is some sort of Manchurian candidate that is going to turn the USA into the Soviet Union.

    I’d like to remind OneNewsNow that their favored network, Fox News, allows people to threaten violence and spread lies all the time. One mildly funny sexual joke is nothing compared to the hatred and vitriol that pours forth from Fox News every day.

  • http://triangulations.wordpress.com Sabio

    I am surprised how many atheist sites take political positions. It seems an unnecessary way to divide the community. Sure, if you stated, “Here comes my political opinions — my atheist hat is off”, then I would get it. To me it is as if an atheist site started making fun of cat owners and implied that all intelligent atheists would never own a cat. I would wager there are many libertarian atheists, but it seems not many that write on posts. Am I delusional?

  • Laura

    “I don’t remember when large numbers of people were going to protest the Iraq War in 2003 that these same personalities — Anderson Cooper or Keith Olbermann or David Shuster — got up and said, ‘Let’s now start making raunchy jokes about the protesters,’” [Tim Graham with the Media Research Center] notes.

    I think Tim Graham failed to take into account the subject of the protests. It’s hard to imagine American television reporters making raunchy jokes about war and death, regardless of the name of the protest.

  • http://religiouscomics.net Jeff

    Sabio,

    Technically you are right about atheism. Atheism is only a lack of belief in gods. It is indeed possible to be an atheist and be a limited government anti-tax advocate.

    In today’s climate, though, the more passionate atheists (those that blog or leave comments) are motivated by liberal social causes. Once the country progresses a bit on these fronts, I would suspect that we would see less social commentary and more economic commentary with a different bunch of bloggers.

    As one gay friend of mine put it, he is Democrat because he doesn’t like the idea of being drug behind a pickup-truck presumably by a Republican. For him, the social causes trump economic causes.

    Jeff

  • stogoe

    It would be easier to be an atheist conservative if conservatism wasn’t predicated on completely abandoning rational thought.

    And they brought it upon themselves, really. Protesting tax hikes when 99% of the crowd will actually get tax cuts? They’re puppets, every one, and their strings are pulled by Richard Mellon Scaife and NewsCorp and Dick Armey. FreedomWorks organized the whole campaign, and dutifully the peasants line up to complain about the poor treatment of their lords and masters.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    I am surprised how many atheist sites take political positions. It seems an unnecessary way to divide the community.

    I see your point, and I know a couple of nonbelievers who are of the Libertarian or “fiscal conservative” Republican stripe.

    However, the events of the last 8 years have had a large effect in politicizing me. The Bush/Rove brand of Republicanism actively courted the Evangelical Theocracy vote, and many of their positions were based solely on catering to – or if you prefer, pandering to – the religious. When numerous candidates and leaders of one party support a ridiculously anti-fact position like “Intelligent Design” creationism, it makes my political choices so much easier. There are no nonreligious reasons to support ID. So many other positions I could name here; opposition to gay rights, opposition to stem cell research, and to reproductive rights. These are all positions derived almost exclusively from religious reasons.

    The Bush/Rove era brought Evangelical theocrats into the Republican power base, and it now is not ridiculous to suggest that they are in charge; or at the very least, that if the Evangelicals got kicked out, the remainder of the party would not be big enough to win any elections.

    Bush/Rove also abandoned “Republican” positions of fiscal responsibilty and such, so if you are not a theocrat, it’s not clear what the party would have to offer you. I have to suggest that any thinking person might be embarrassed to be associated with today’s Republican party.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    I would wager there are many libertarian atheists, but it seems not many that write on posts. Am I delusional?

    Certainly there are Libertarian atheists. But most of them are delusional.

    Do you see the current round of teabagging events as some independent groundswell of Libertarianism, or do you view it as top-down Republican astroturfing? Why weren’t these people upset about government spending when George W. Bush was imbalancing our budget and laying waste to our economy?

  • Polly

    They’re dupes plain and simple.

    I don’t understand what makes the middle class feel like they have upper-crust economic interests, or for that matter anything else in common with the rich. Income-wise they are FAR closer to the poverty line (~20K/year) than they will EVER be to the wealthy. Same goes with NET-worth.
    As far as distribution of economic resources and POWER, there really are only 2 classes – masters and servants.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    Why weren’t these people upset about government spending when George W. Bush was imbalancing our budget and laying waste to our economy?

    Not to mention what the Bush regime did to civil rights and liberties, with torture, unwarranted surveillance, etc. If they weren’t protesting that, but only start now when the Democrats and Obama take power, then I question their Libertarian cred.

  • Curtis

    $1.2 trillion deficit in 2019*. How many of you are aware of that figure?

    I think George Bush was the worst president in my life time. One of the many, many reasons, I hate him was the fact he took the Clinton surpluses and turned them into $400 billion deficits. Cutting taxes and raising spending is stupid economics and is stealing from future generations.

    But Bush was a piker compared to Obama. My daughter’s share of the federal debt will be $70,000 before she gets to vote. ($21 trillion divided by 300 million people.) At 5% interest, she will be paying $3500 per year for our irresponsibility. It is despicable.

    We (and Obama) need to prioritize. If we want to spend money on green energy and health card, we need to cut spending somewhere. Obama’s plan is to cut taxes ($300 billion in 2019) and spend on everything that might possibly be good. I do not object to anything specific but we need to choose what is important. We elect people to make hard decisions not to bow to our every whim. We need to stop acting like spoiled children and take responsibilty for our future.

    * – According to the Congressional Budget Office that is the result of Obama budget. Table 1.1.
    http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/03-20-PresidentBudget.pdf

  • Zar

    I’m guessing that atheists tend not to align with the right (doesn’t necessarily make them left-wing; our country’s politics have gone so far to the right that true moderates like Phil Plait are characterised as liberals) because conservatism these days is really tied up in religious fundamentalism and anti-science. Loads of prominent Republicans are pro-creationism and very anti-atheism.

    That being said, there’s definitely an atheist libertarian contingent (Ayn Rand fans especially). Check out some of the political posts on pharyngula and you’ll find some libertarians.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    But Bush was a piker compared to Obama.

    If Bush ruined the economy, then Obama gets elected and has to fix it, who gets the blame?

    We (and Obama) need to prioritize. If we want to spend money on green energy and health card, we need to cut spending somewhere.

    The whole point of Keynesian stimulus is to spend. If you don’t believe in Keynesian stimulation, just say so.

  • Curtis

    Reginald,

    I am not talking about the stimulus package, I am talking 10 years out. The deficits shrink until 2012 ($650 billion) and then skyrocket to $1.2 trillion dollars. As a parent, I am not happy with the 2012 number but the 2019 number is unacceptable and unsustainable.

    As far as the stimulus package, I am one of the few people who admit that no one knows the answer. It may work. It may fail. Anyone who claims to know the answer is a fool. Economics is simply too chaotic to be predicted.

  • Reginald Selkirk
  • llewelly

    Reginald Selkirk:

    If Bush ruined the economy, then Obama gets elected and has to fix it, who gets the blame?

    Uh, you must not be an American. If you were, you’d know Democrats always get the blame for any budget problems. You’ll find that in Article I of the US Constitution.

  • http://gusonthought.blogspot.com Gustavo Keener

    I think it is a thing of utter irony, when a group that feels like it has been marginalized and down-trodden, takes it upon themselves to do something so silly that they further marginalize themselves. Two cheers for the far right and their message of “we don’t mind being lampooned”.

  • Vincent

    I’m not convinced they came up with the term “teabagging” for their protests.
    Weren’t they calling them Tea Parties?
    Then somewhere in the press or the web the teabagging connection was made and the joke was far more popular than the truth.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X