Tea party too often marginalized
Editor, The Times:
Joni Balter’s column gives us the liberal evaluation of the tea party, which is “an amorphous group known mostly for its collective anger” [“Voters with short attention spans could lure Rossi to the ballot,” Opinion, Feb. 25].
Then, Balter cherry picks a perceived negative comment from distant Asotin County. There, a tea-party participant called for Sen. Patty Murray to be hung — hung out to dry, a term used by common folks meaning defeated. But a self-serving elitist would have a vision of violence. Too bad The Times didn’t get acquainted with the common, local tea-party folks last year. They are mostly nice people just disgusted with the establishment.
Further, the column suggests the anger would turn away the independents from a Republican candidate. Strangely, the tea party is made up largely of the average independent. Sen. Scott Brown used the independents’ conservatism to get elected in Massachusetts and Brown’s strategy will be emulated throughout the Republican Party — including a new respect for a revitalized conservatism.
As usual, the arrogant liberals marginalize opposing philosophies and resort to unfounded name calling.
— Don Wilbur, University Place
Movement hypocritical when assessing spending
Thank you for the article on the tea partyers [“No rainout for tea partyers,” NWSunday, Feb. 28]. I found it an interesting, if puzzling, reading. I am puzzled because these folks have become so shrill over government spending.
My question is: If they are so concerned about the deficit, where were they for the eight years of the George W. Bush administration when Bush enacted an estimated $1.8 trillion in tax cuts for the rich? Even wealthy people such as Bill Gates Sr. and Bill Clinton campaigned against this, saying they didn’t need the money from the tax breaks and that it should stay in the coffers of the U.S. Treasury.
Where were the tea partyers when President Bush launched his unnecessary war with Iraq, which is now estimated to ultimately cost us $2 trillion?
At least the money President Obama spent on the stimulus plan prevented the country from going into another Depression. And the money spent on health-care reform will help ordinary Americans in a big way.
It would seem that, for the tea partyers, if a Republican president spends money like a drunken sailor, that’s OK. But if a Democratic president attempts it, they go nuclear.
What exactly is in that tea they’re drinking?
— Dave Richards, Bainbridge Island
I hate government … for different reasons
Tea partyers claim to hate government. I do too — at least some parts.
I hate it when insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists succeed in buying Congress to block health-care reform. I hate it when the fear-mongering neocons succeeds in starting tragic wars, costing U.S. taxpayers a trillion dollars and counting.
I hate it when right-wingers pass an unneeded Patriot Act to take away my civil liberties. I hate it when Republicans succeed in cutting taxes for the wealthy, eliminating $2 trillion in needed revenue and putting more burden on me. I hate it when conservatives keep needed regulation out of our financial markets, then force taxpayers to bail out banks and companies “too big to fail.”
Locally, I hate it when our state sales tax keeps going up instead of just installing a much more equitable state income tax.
So, I guess I agree with tea partyers: There’s a lot to be upset about with government today.
— Dave Gamrath, Seattle
Attack on Beck wrought with irony
It is disappointing that David Sirota desperately tries to equate the violent pogroms against Jews and blacks to the legitimate criticism of a political belief system [“Glenn Beck’s movement: It CAN happen here,” Opinion, Mar. 1].
Sirota misconstrues the message in the speech given by Glenn Beck. The “progressive movement” is a belief system not based on race or creed. It is correct, courageous and patriotic to argue for the demise of a belief system one finds harmful to society.
Sirota hysterically tries to induce readers to believe that Beck suggests acts of violence and hatred. In fact, Beck challenged listeners to assume responsibility for their own actions and to strive for greatness for themselves and fellow citizens.
Sirota derides conservatives as “once principled,” then derides Beck as having a “porcine complexion” and being “drenched in sweat.” Sirota furthers the irony by accusing Beck of using “coded and menacing language.” Why did the left change their label of “liberal” back to the coded “progressive”?
I will look for future columns by Sirota in the comics section.
— Chris Gormley, Everett
Reactionary pandering to the ultra-left
David Sirota’s knife-fighting skills are evident in “Glenn Beck’s movement: It CAN happen here.” Too bad that he uses the wrong tense: It HAS happened here and this is the problem.
The creep of progressivism is the problem, not the solution. Too many writers like Sirota toss “progressive” around as if the readers know and accept the notion that “progress toward equality” is liberals’ banner for redistribution of all wealth and all accomplishment. It is apparent he recognizes a willful ignoramus by looking in the mirror on his elevated Denver perch — the capital of The Empty Quarter.
Beck’s delivery style is definitely grating, but Sirota’s attempt to equate that with some of history’s most vile national leaders shows just how desperate the radical leftists have become. Sirota should do better, but it is evident he can’t.
— Richard Starr, Sammamish