Tea Party!

[Valmy]

The comparison to the anti-war thing that supposedly swept the Dems into power is actually apt.  It is not like the Democrats are going to change the foreign policy in any real way.  We will continue in both Iraq and Afghanistan...

But I bet we will not hear as much from the anti-war leftists because it really was not that much about the policies as it was simply anti-Bushism.

[Valmy]

Then there's no difference at all as Barack has cut taxes too.

Excellent point!

[Faeelin]

You're assuming we get another big-government conservative like Bush.  I doubt that will happen.

Why not? Huckabee's pretty clear big government combined with a touching social conservatism.

Also, The Clinton years saw an upswing in right-wing fanaticism. What's strange about imagining that now under Obama?

[Faeelin]

The comparison to the anti-war thing that supposedly swept the Dems into power is actually apt.  It is not like the Democrats are going to change the foreign policy in any real way.  We will continue in both Iraq and Afghanistan...

But I bet we will not hear as much from the anti-war leftists because it really was not that much about the policies as it was simply anti-Bushism.

I don't think this is apt, unless you think anti-war protestors wanted to leave behind failed states taken over by radical Islamist groups.

If Obama tried to start another war, the anti-war left would be out there.

[Valmy]

If Obama tried to start another war, the anti-war left would be out there.

We will see...

they certainly did not hit the streets to protest any of the military things Clinton did...not that they were on anywhere the same scale...

[Martinus]

They'd get a better turnout if they called it a "teabagging party".

As a matter of fact, they did.


The unfortunate choice of words has been a running joke for days now.

Other is titling an anti-gay rights website 2M4M (which stands for "2 millions for marriage")

Conservatives: bad at creativity.

[derspiess]

Why not? Huckabee's pretty clear big government combined with a touching social conservatism.

Also, The Clinton years saw an upswing in right-wing fanaticism. What's strange about imagining that now under Obama?

Has Huckabee been elected?  I don't think the GOP will come to power with a Huckabee leading the way.  I think it will have to be someone who runs more on fiscal issues and less on social issues.

[Sheilbh]

You're assuming we get another big-government conservative like Bush.  I doubt that will happen.

When did a Republican last shrink the size of the state?  I mean, they may not be anywhere near as bad but is it really likely that they'll reverse anything?

As to these protests they seem a bit silly due to a completely over-the-top historical analogy.  They also don't seem focussed enough.  Alastair Campbell had a great post on his blog (it's so strange that he's doing this sort of thing) about the G20 protests:

There were certainly thousands of people out on the streets of London, and plenty of causes for which support and anger were being expressed - anti-banks, anti-poverty, anti-globalisation, anti-capitalism, anti-global warming, anti-war general, anti-war specific, anti-the UK government, anti-other governments, anti-all governments.
Put more positively, pro-fairness, pro-social justice, pro-jobs, pro-a radical reordering of the finances and power structures of the world. And of course, whatever the certainty with which Tony [Benn] expresses his view, none of us know for sure what difference the protests make.  That goes both for the peaceful protests and those which involved violence and damage to buildings and so took most of the media coverage throughout the day.
First question - would the  leaders be aware of the scale and nature of the protests? Yes. They will all be aware both via briefings from their own political and security teams and from occasional snatches of TV they might catch between meetings.
Second question - will it have any impact in the short term i.e. for the decisions they are due to take as part of the formal G20 deliberations? Almost certainy not. The leaders are already well aware of the anger felt globally at what has happened in the economy, and know a lot of that anger has crystallised around the banks.
But whilst the leaders have considerable room for manoeuvre in negotiation, beyond the positions scoped out by their sherpas, I am not persuaded by the idea that demos outside the discussions - peaceful or violent - will be among the factors swaying them.
[...]
I can remember once a meeting the other TB (Tony Blair) had with musicians Bono and Bob Geldof at the time of a G7 summit when the British government was trying to persuade other governments to take a greater interest in Africa and in particular the issue of debt relief. Tony - and he did the same around the time of the Jubilee 2000 campaign - was effectively saying the British welcomed pressure, because it strengthened our hands in  negotiations with others. That was a specific cause and a specific campaign that had considerable success.
The problem strategically with the current protests is the lack of clarity about objectives, other than the right to express anger, while the violence allows those who don't want to hear to dismiss any arguments against a pre-fixed point of view. When all is said and done, all but hardcore anarchists understand that countries require governments, that democracy is the best system yet invented and that while no democratic system is perfect, governments duly elected have to be able to make difficult decisions.

That's just an excerpt but I think these protests seem a right-wing version of that.  There doesn't seem to be any coherent goals or objectives.  It seems to just serve as a vent for people who are annoyed about Obama-government generally (though who were significantly less annoyed at it for the last 8 years, unless this is actually just a Pauliac convention).

However, I love protests, I love protesting and I think they're a really wonderful and vital element of democracy that really gets the sense of your own voice and the voice of a group acting in solidarity that's key to how our democracies work (voting, on the other hand, seems almost onanistic).  I wish these guys the best of luck, hope they clarify the message and work out what it is they're protesting, exactly.  And I'm very glad that the right is learning to protest

[Sheilbh]

We will see...

The die-hard anti-war protesters have been protesting.  They're very unhappy about Afghanistan.  It's just that they're a minority.

they certainly did not hit the streets to protest any of the military things Clinton did...not that they were on anywhere the same scale...

That was a multilateral mission with a clear goal, that was mainly fought from the air and that was able to be summed up in one word: 'Kosovo'.  I think the Iraq war was far more complicated.  I mean even now could we say why we went into Iraq.  I can think of at least 4-5 excuses that were used and the one that was used by this government was false and was a lie.

They were very different sorts of war and, I think, the tone was more unpleasant.  People got into hugely heated arguments over Iraq that I don't think they ever did over Kosovo.

For what it's worth many in the Tory party objected to Kosovo on realist grounds (I believe the Republicans did the same) and there were serious anti-NATO protests in Europe.

[Martinus]

It all started with Lincoln. He didn't respect states' rights.

[Valmy]

Has Huckabee been elected?  I don't think the GOP will come to power with a Huckabee leading the way.  I think it will have to be someone who runs more on fiscal issues and less on social issues.

I doubt that.  But I hope you are right.  If the GOP would dump the social agenda I would support them.

[Valmy]

It all started with Lincoln. He didn't respect states' rights.

That is good.  States don't have rights.

[Martinus]

Speaking of Joe Plumber, I understand he is now endorsing a site which allows people to pay 95 cents to vote to abolish IRS. Way to reach out and get the loon dollar. 

[Martinus]

It all started with Lincoln. He didn't respect states' rights.

That is good.  States don't have rights.

Neither do slaves.

[Faeelin]

Has Huckabee been elected?  I don't think the GOP will come to power with a Huckabee leading the way.  I think it will have to be someone who runs more on fiscal issues and less on social issues.

This is a nice idea in theory, but thus far the Republicans don't seem to have anyone like that in the running.

Edit: Yes, it's early, but who in the party today looks like that and is nationally prominent?