»» Columnists

President Obama’s Use of “Teabagger” Term Sparks Media Debate

by Tommy Christopher | 3:35 pm, May 5th, 2010

» 138 comments

ME-TAXMARCH ABC News’ Jake Tapper took heat from “some liberal bloggers” when he contrasted President Obama‘s call for civility in politics with Obama’s use of the term “tea-bagger” in a November interview for Jonathan Alter‘s new book. At issue was Tapper’s failure to point out that the term was originally coined by the Tea Party movement, which he addressed in an update.

WaPo’s Dave Weigel, meanwhile, traces the movement’s attempt to frame the term as a slur. It’s time to correct the record once and for all.

Let me first address the criticism of Tapper’s story. The fact that the Tea Party movement coined the term has little relevance to Jake’s point. In comments to Mediaite yesterday, Dave Weigel summed up the civil way to deal with this:

I like to follow a policy of calling people what they want to be called — or at least don’t object to being called. This is why you don’t see me call people “teabaggers.”

Therefore, the origin of the term isn’t nearly as relevant as whether or not it is now offensive to Tea Partiers (Partyers? Spellcheck hates both), and whether Obama knew this when he said it, or knew of the term’s sexual connotations. You could criticize Tapper for not raising that question, but I think he’s giving the President credit for more intelligence than that.

The origin of the term is relevant in determining the relative size of the Tea Party’s violin. What wasn’t pointed out to Tapper is the fact that the Tea Partiers not only invented the term, they did so in order to inflict a similar double entendre onto the President, the Democrats, and liberals in general. Hence, it’s a violin so small, you need an electron microscope with a zoom lens to see it.

Now, they’re trying to re-cast the term as a slur, on a par with the “n-word,” hurtful to all the Tea Party members who are just ordinary moms, dads, sons, and daughters. The latter point has some resonance, but the former is ridiculous in the extreme.

In emails, protest signs, t-shirts, and online, early Tea Party literature urged protesters to “Tea Bag the White House,” and to “Tea-bag the liberal Dems before they tea-bag you.” The suggestion is that the metaphoric “tea-bags” be shoved in the mouths of the President, Democratic members of Congress, and even ordinary citizens who identify as liberal Democrats. The idea that they just didn’t know the term’s only (at that time) meaning is belied by the fact that they obviously knew it was negative (and non-consensual), since they didn’t want it done to them, and also because it only had one meaning.

It was only after MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and David Shuster, and CNN’s Anderson Cooper, turned the tables on the term that Tea Partiers objected. They were perfectly satisfied to advocate the metaphoric mouth-rape of liberal men, women, and children, but had the nerve to become indignant when the insult boomeranged on them.

Along with the fact that it was born out of Rick Santelli‘s homeowner-scapegoating rant on the floor of the stock exchange, this was one of the reasons I originally found the movement so offensive, and why I beat Maddow and Shuster to the punch in using the term against them. Just as today’s Tea Partiers include ordinary Americans who didn’t ask for this treatment, the original targets of the term included liberal fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters, including most of my own family.

It is for this reason that I think the term has long since outlived its usefulness. First of all, it stopped being clever about 3 minutes into Shuster’s rant, and morphed into a juvenile schoolyard taunt. “Tea-baggers” then became the media’s favored shorthand for the movement for a time, but now that the objection has been widely registered, that’s no longer the case. The early Tea Party adopters of the term are now a minuscule minority, so it now serves only to insult people who had nothing to do with the original offense, and to buttress the group’s persecution complex.

As I’ve said before, it’s also bad politics. Contemptuously dismissing the Tea Partiers has only allowed them to grow, and to prevent Democrats from effectively countering them.

As for President Obama’s use of the term, I can only guess, but based on the fact that, 2 years in a row, the White House declined to reach out to the group, it doesn’t appear that he’s all that concerned about their feelings.

One final note about Tapper’s story. I often get comments along the lines of “Why didn’t you include this? Why did you omit that?” People need to understand that we’re writing blog posts, not Wikipedia entries. We’re allowed to have a somewhat narrow focus, and can’t cram in every piece of background information in the known universe.

" "Tea Bagger, anderson cooper, David Shuster, Jake Tapper, Jonathan Alter, Maddow, President Obama, Rachel Maddow, Rick Santelli, Tea Party, Tea Party Movement, Teabagger, Tommy Christopher

felixw

Note to the Left: When all you have left is name-calling, you have essentially admitted that you have lost the argument. So go ahead and mutter about teabaggers, but don’t kid yourselves on how desperate you look. Generally around the time children get out of kindergarten, though, they try to defend their views with actual reasoned comments. But the American Left is regressing quickly into second childhood.
SteveMG

Now, they’re trying to re-cast the term as a slur, on a par with the “n-word,”

What? Tommy, there is absolutely no basis for you to make such a claim.

On a par with the worst racial epithet that can be used? The proverbial “fighting word” of all “fighting words”?
Sean68

Was the term first used by tea party people themselves? Says who exactly? And what’s the proof of it? In any case, what difference does it make if some 60-year-old woman naively used the term? What matters is the intent. Believe me, unlike a few elderly conservatives, when Anderson Cooper mockingly uses the term, he knows what he’s talking about.
Big_F-ing_Deal

Teabagger WILL be in the dictionary someday….

Teabagger: Ignorant right-wing racist.
hanniballa

Imagine if the president were to be called a nigger. The whole media would be up in arms, and rightfully so. The president should lay off the slurs from here on out.
SteveMG

Teabagger: Ignorant right-wing racist.

See Tommy? This is why the folks in the movement are upset at the use of the term.

Millions of decent hard-working folks worried about a crippling national debt (Greece anyone?) are smeared with such names.

By no way it is on par with the n-word.

President Obama is known to read blogs on the internet. Andrew Sullivan for example. I’m sure he’s familiar with the “double meaning” of the term. In the laundy lists of issues to be concerned with, this is near the bottom.

But it is indicative of the “hard side” of Obama. Supporters will like it; opponents will hate it and folks in the middle like me who like the man and think his intentions are good will wonder why he does things like this.
ex political-media hack

its offical – tommy christopher is the dimmest bulb in the box.

the idea that the tea party folks – who are far from my own labor left beliefs – actually referred to themselves as “nut suckers” is the lamest excuse yet to come from Obot enablers and apologists.

you lie Tommy.

we all know that its use is the pseudo liberals attempt to introduce a childish sexual slur when referring to their political opponents.

i HATE it when gop leaders and even members of the press – snidely – use the word “democrat” when “democratic” is warranted in some kind of childish insult that has gone on for years…

this is the same kind of thing, but worse – because of the offending sexual conotation and much worse because liars like tommy here pretend its OK to use it because a couple of tea-partiers referrred to themselves this way BEFORE they were informed by rachel and olbermann for one entire week all of its fun possibilities as a politicized “dick joke’.

go back to dailykos christopher – your an embarrasment out in public.

and dam abrams, who I think was the best cable host and reporter as yet…cant you do better than guys like this?

if we wanted to visit huff post – we would.
tjl

hanniballa, imagine if I called you ignorant trash (and I just did, because of your apples and oranges argument!). You would be up in arms, and rightfully so. hanniballa should lay off the Mike’s Hard from here on out.

SteveMG, I think the point is that this was back in November when tea partiers were referring to themselves a tea baggers. If I call you SteveMG today, and six months down the line you tell me that it is now considered a slur you can’t hold me accountable for calling you SteveMG. And we can’t assume that he knows that the term has a “double meaning.”
timzank

I know he’s really hip and cool and all, but it’s kinda tacky when the leader of the free world makes “co#ksucker jokes.
MichelleF

Steve,
Don’t bother responding to BFD, he’ not worth it. But I do have to admit, after he called me a psycho bi***, and f’ing insane yesterday, I had a GREAT laugh with friends about it. Although I will admit my father is worried for my safety.
SteveMG

SteveMG, I think the point is that this was back in November when tea partiers were referring to themselves a tea baggers

I understand the historical account of the use of the term. But since the average age of the Tea Party Movement/Partyers is somewhere in the late 50s to early 60s, I sincerely doubt they knew the sexual meaning of the term. They were using the term, as I remember it, in the tax protesting/tea protest sense of the term. Not in a sexual way.

In other words, their use of the term was far different than the use of the term by people like Olbermann and Shuster and Maddow who were snickering when they used it on MSNBC.

To the larger question: How did Obama mean to use it? If the original meaning of the term was as an insult to liberals, why would he use a term that was an insult? And an insult directed mostly at him?

It seems to me that Obama is “hipper” than Christopher and the leftwing think he is. He probably knew the pejorative meaning of the word and that’s why he used it talking to a liberal reporter like Jonathan Alter.
MichelleF

Brent Bozell asks a great question:

What If George W. Bush Had Called Gay Rights Activists ‘Faggots?’

HM, I wonder. What do you think, Tommy?
Big_F-ing_Deal

“But I do have to admit, after he called me a psycho bi***, and f’ing insane yesterday, I had a GREAT laugh with friends about it.”

You’re trying too hard. lol
hanniballa

@ tjl It is not called an apples to oranges argument its called an analogy(They teach this stuff in Critical thinking/Logic classes). You seem to think I am arguing under a false analogy, that comparing the use of slurs(pejoratives) is some how unreasonable. They are both slurs, so the analogy holds. Try not to get a headache comprehending all of this. Also, for further reading:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
http://gordonbloyershow.com gordonbloyershow

Let me see, the REAL teabaggers, Barney Frank, Anderson Cooper, Gore Vidal, Eric Massa, Rachael Maddow, Hillary Clinton and Keith Olberman.
Toshiba2

Oh my goodness the irrelevant party members are playing the victim card now, that’s precious!
SteveMG

Even more interesting (and revealing) is that if the President isn’t aware of the sexual (and pejorative) connotations of the term “tea baggers”, why doesn’t he use it publicly?

He’s given a number of speeches where he’s mentioned the movement. Why has he refrained from calling them “tea baggers” during those times?

Hmmm….?

Sorry, he knows.
TfT

The term “teabaggers” was first used on MSNBC, I thought by Rachel and Anna Marie Cox who had a silly little joke about it and then it went all over. The sick media, starting with MSNBC, introduced the crude intention of “teabagging” into the protesters who were/are legitimate.

MSNBC started it, the left continues it, Obama knows what it means and said it most likely with its derogatory intent.

Civility in dems world means conservatives shut up and sit down and dems/liberals slander at will.

Cooper went downhill after he joined the nastiness of MSNBC and he won’t recover from it either. Rachel and Anna Marie had their good little girly laugh over the whole thing when they introduced the sexual and derogatory content into the public domain

Blaming it on the tea party patriots is false but expected.

MSNBC = meltdown
tjl

MichelleF, simple…. if Gay Rights Activists were calling themselves or their movement ‘Faggots’ not for it’s sexual connotation, but because it meant something to them you would have no problem. I think you are missing the point. Nothing I can do to convince you, though. Your partisan meter is through the roof!

Again, SteveMG, I agree that the tea partiers were not calling themselves tea baggers because they thought it would be a hoot to equate themselves with a sexual act. I think where you have to be careful is in assuming that Obama knew the meaning. Sure, maybe he’s “hipper” than most believe him to be, but again, you’re simply making an assumption.
MichelleF

I don’t think I’m missing any point, but thanks tjl.
JamesA1102

When all you have left is name-calling, you have essentially admitted that you have lost the argument.

But Felix, all you do is name call.
tjl

hannaballa you’re adorable! Big day for you, huh? “Nigger” and “tea bagger” certainly are apples and oranges. Go out on the street tonight (or not) and call a black man a nigger. Then go out on the street and call an old white man a “tea bagger.” Then get back to me. Try not to get a headache! Better yet, try not to get hurt.

I seem to think that you are arguing under a ridiculous assumption that tea bagger holds the same water as nigger. I can give you a history lesson if you want as well. (care for a link? Probably not, you won’t read it anyway!)

And call me, I can explain the difference between an analogy and what it means to compare two things (like, I don’t know, apples and oranges) that don’t deserve to be in the same argument.

Reading is fun! Smooches!
tjl

MichelleF, of course you don’t. Simpletons typically don’t.
SteveMG

I think where you have to be careful is in assuming that Obama knew the meaning. Sure, maybe he’s “hipper” than most believe him to be, but again, you’re simply making an assumption.

Sure, I’m willing to give him – my President – the benefit of the doubt. I didn’t vote for him but I’m definitely not in the Obama Derangement Syndrome Crowd (e.g., no, he’s not a Marxist, no, he doesn’t hate America).

However, as I noted above, I find it interesting (and perhaps revealing?) that he hasn’t used the term publicly. If he’s not aware of the pejorative and sexual connotations behind the word, why has he refrained from using it when addressing crowds at rallies?

Might that not be evidence that he’s perhaps aware of the double meaning of the term?
MichelleF

Wow tjl, profound. The “you are stupid” argument that libs throw around doesn’t really work on me.
Big_F-ing_Deal

“Might that not be evidence that he’s perhaps aware of the double meaning of the term?”

Maybe he learned since November how offensive it was to some people, so he never used it again.

That’s my theory.
hanniballa

They’re both slurs, the analogy holds. Every analogy will have differences in property. Such as the reaction a person will get when yelling a slur. Since we are comparing two different things they will not match in every single category or property. The properties compared are both slurs, and you argue that they have different dramatic impact. My argument is that they are both hateful. The analogy stands. You went ahead and dismantled an argument I never made “Property A is worse than B”, and you backed it up without any reasoning besides calling it “apples and organs” pushing a charge of false analogy. And let’s not forget the ad-hominem attacks.
felixw

James, you accuse me of name-calling. But in fact, I am constantly raising real tangible issues — deficits, unemployment, taxes, foreign policy, etc. — in my posts. Pay closer attention before you try to smear me.
Grammie

timzank says:
May 5, 2010 at 5:04 pm

I know he’s really hip and cool and all, but it’s kinda tacky when the leader of the free world makes “co#ksucker jokes.

At least every four years we, as a nation, talk about the term “presidential”. It is an attribute that many of us consider, to varying degrees, when we begin to sort thru all the hopefuls

I think BHO looks and physically carries himself in a very Presidential way but that is where it frequently ends. His comment to Boehner in the WH meeting that he won; his frequent singling out of personalities in his capacity as President; his campaign against FNC in his capacity as President; his bitter clinging to religion and guns remarks. Now this. I don’t doubt for a moment that he knowingly used the term as an insult and red meat for his base b/c his most ardent supporters feast on such behavior.

I think it shows a lot, and none of it good, about his character. As much as some here lap it up it serves no useful purpose other than for him and his ardent base to gloat. So, we wind up with his base overjoyed and his opponents personally insulted with no respect for him as a person. That large middle will probably break as a loss for him over this type of behavior.

ex political-media hack says:
May 5, 2010 at 4:58 pm

I agree with you completely. When Olbermann et al started the ball rolling with their sophomoric routines I had to google the term b/c I didn’t have any idea at all what it meant. You know, CNN has a fairly balanced audience and didn’t AC360 start to decline after he jumped on the band wagon?
hanniballa

@ Big_F-ing_Deal Im pretty sure that’s what happened. Something tells me he didn’t have time in his schedule to look up scrotum jokes. A handlers probably informed him and he stopped using it. Simple explanation.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Goldie-Locks/1349875493 Goldie Locks

>The term “teabaggers” was first used on MSNBC

Wrong.

http://washingtonindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Picture-28.png

http://teabaggingforjesus.com/
timzank

Are any of you seriously saying Obama is/was unaware of the sexual connotation of “tea-bagging”?

Please.
Toshiba2

Have anybody else noticed when there is real news to be reported, the tea party is irrelevant?
Big_F-ing_Deal

“Are any of you seriously saying Obama is/was unaware of the sexual connotation of “tea-bagging”? ”

Grammie just said she didn’t know what it meant until she looked it up. (When Olbermann et al started the ball rolling with their sophomoric routines I had to google the term b/c I didn’t have any idea at all what it meant. “)

You don’t know that the same thing didn’t happen with Obama.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Bill-Adkins/1585417987 Bill Adkins

” felixw says:
May 5, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Note to the Left: When all you have left is name-calling, you have essentially admitted that you have lost the argument.”

Then you lost at ‘socialist’ and ‘communist’ and ‘dictator’ and ‘king obama.’ Actually, this is a I don’t give a damn issue. But here’s the point: the teabaggers are anti-obama 24/7. Why should Obama care if he offends them, particularly in light of the stupidity of their rhetoric, that they have a few simple slogans and not one solution to America’s problems. If I hurt a teabagger’s feelings, it’s a good day.
timzank

BFD…I’m gonna make an assumption here you might wanna subscribe too as well, just for common sense sake. The leader of the free world, surrounded by hundreds of advisors 24-7, all continuously updating him on all things political, was never advised the connotation of “tea-bagger”? His entire staff is charged with making him sound good at every appearance, they write his speeches, they tell how to properly phrase things, they coach him constantly on how to respond to questions, they rehearse until the wee hours of the morning for upcomiing appearances and the content of speeches, and you, with a straight face, expect ANYONE to believe that in the last 12 months not one staffer/advisor/mentor/spouse/golfing buddy/Jayzee/ hell anyone gave the most powerful man in the world a “heads up” that using that term may be interpreted in a sexual way??? (and that’s all assuming he really didn’t know before, which is laughable on it’s face as well)

Be for real.
badr

Of course he knew before, he married Michelle Obama, hello?
MichelleF

If I hurt a teabagger’s feelings, it’s a good day.

The fact that you are a bigot is pretty well documented on these boards, so you didn’t hurt anyones feelings.
roxsteady

Great post with the exception of this sentence -
“Contemptuously dismissing the Tea Partiers has only allowed them to grow, and to prevent Democrats from effectively countering them.” Really? These are the same people who carry signs and call the President a lot worse. Surely you don’t think he should feel anything but contempt for these people? I don’t really give a damn about the mothers, daughters and whoever else claims to be part of this group. They still the same people who voted Repbulican in 2008 which is really the source of their contempt! Personally, I’m hoping that the President was giving just a little of what he gets from these sore losers!
roxsteady

Sorry, that’s they’re still the same people who voted Republican in 2008 and judging by their drop from 20% of the country to now just 18% they’re actually shrinking not growing!
Grammie

Big_F-ing_Deal says:
May 5, 2010 at 6:03 pm

Are you quite sure that you want to excuse BHO, the hippest coolist center of an information machine leader of the free world,, on the grounds that a little grey haired widow and grandmother had to look it up.

After all, BFD, you have frequently accused me of all manner of ignorance and stupidity here and now you use me to excuse BHO…..

BTW, I agree that this will matter not a whit to lefties and righties. But that large middle sometimes take things such as this in consideration before supporting someone. Despite my best efforts my best girlfriend was undecided between Bush and Kerry in 2004. She voted for Bush b/c Kerry’s wife didn’t exhibit any class except low. Theresa’s crude behavior was the tipping point for her.
http://www.karlspensen.blogspot.com Karl Spensen

Why does the Obamessiah HATE these proud, proud True American Patriots who are NOT racist and NOT ill-informed and make GREAT posters with AWESOME spelling and constitute a proud, proud 2% of our population?!1 If ol’ Jug Ears hates 2% of us, IMAGINE what he thinks of the other 98%!!1 WHY DOES OBAMER HATE AMERICA?!?!?!?!111
Big_F-ing_Deal

“After all, BFD, you have frequently accused me of all manner of ignorance and stupidity here and now you use me to excuse BHO…..”

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
itzmec

to be called a “tea bagger” means to dip one’s nuts into another’s mouth, like a tea bag. so if we conservatives are tea baggers, is it the libs that are being tea bagged?
http://www.facebook.com/people/Tommy-Christopher/1054638341 Tommy Christopher

I took a look through the comments here, and it appears that the folks who object to this post didn’t read it all that carefully. I never claimed the President didn’t know the dual meaning. I said pretty much the opposite.

For the person who asked where the proof was that the Tea Party started the term, please click the links I provided.

For those claiming the early users of the term were ignorant of the term’s meaning, there are 2 paragraphs addressing that.

For the person who said I can’t substantiate the claim that conservatives tried to cast it as the new “n-word,” again, click the link, or google “Is teabagger the new n-word?”
m

> The president should lay off the slurs from here on out.

Stop whining about political correctness.
felixw

Bill Adkins, find a single instance in which I have called Obama a socialist or a communist. Of course, you can’t.

But even if I had, those labels are not at the same level as the “tea-bagging” label. The question of whether Obama is a socialist is a matter of policies and agendas.

The fact that Bill Adkins and others on the Left can’t tell the difference between a policy and an insult is quite revealing.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephen-Hilton/1334543387 Stephen Hilton

Look you can take this a few different ways.. People who support Obama are going to back him and think he is fearless.. People who do not support him will find this as tacky and beneath the leader of the free world.. And there are the independents who are going to be the deciding factor in 2010, and 2012.. By making comments like these, the president opens himself up to be targeted and pointed out as insensitive to a group of american people. Independents can and will vote on these issues, not on if people on a blog site believe it or not. Most american people do not sit around on sites like this on a daily basis, bickering, and trying to one up each other, name call on sites like this.

You have to take a look at it logically, not from the “no matter what you are wrong and my side is right and I will win” approach.. As of right now, the democrats are in a position to lose 8 seats in the senate, and up to 20 to 30 in the house.. And the same will go for the Republicans, the second the independents and republican voting block sense you are lying and spending a bunch of money like you did under Bush, the people will see this, and vote you out.

Right now, on a personal basis, most of the same people I know that disliked Bush are now complaining about Obama, and the choices he is making. Some democrats, some independents. I’m just saying it would probably be wise for Obama and his administraion not to name call, degrade, or even suggest he knows what is best for everyone (take it or leave it) I have said it before, and I will say it again.. It was not right for anyone to make fun of, call unamerican, or to attempt to SILENCE people who protested Bush, and the same applies to the people that call the Tea party people a bunch of uneducated racists that want to murder people because they look different.

The more you suggest someone is a racist, or a deadly threat without backing it up with actual facts, the less and less meaning it has… Pretty soon it will have no meaning.. The same applies to speaking down to people you disagree with on either side. The more you put someone down and call them names, the more people will look at you, on any side of the spectrum, and see you as nothing but a hateful person, and question if anything you say at all is factual.

I’ve said this before and have yet to do it (Lazy I guess) I am a registered democrat. I am going independent, because frankly I do not support the things they are doing, due to spending, healthcare and the thought of cap and trade. I personally do not believe financially our country can handle much more, and these things may be a tipping point that bankrupt us. The spending hand over fist started with Bush, and it has continued with Obama now. It does not matter if Obama is spending more, or if Bush spent more, they are both out of control with spending. Personally I feel term limits imposed on congress would be a huge help to this issue, as it does not allow people to become lifers, stay in a very corrupt washington, and become misguided as well.
Ted

The tea-baggers of course are very proud of the term so I don’t know what all the fuss is about. And Gordo – you left out Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter, proud tea-baggers all, dumb as a polished turd but proud regardless. Gordo, I think you should be proud to be counted among them….or something.
HanzoSword

Teabaggers are disgusting in that they are mindless sheep who obey their coporate masters, such as freedomworks and americans for prosperity. They are idiots who don’t understand history or even reality.
.

If the teabaggers weren’t so homophobic and bigoted they probably wouldn’t make such a big deal about the term. Liberals were going to come up with an appropriate term for the racist dipshits who wear teabags from their hats and clothing regardless of whether the word “teabagger” already had a definition. In fact I am willing to bet the term teabagger would have been coined in any case.
writer

I can believe Obama was unaware of the tea bagger double meaning. After all, he attended a church for twenty years and had no idea that Rev. Wright was a radical racist.
Grammie

Stephen Hilton says:
May 5, 2010 at 7:23 pm

A for effort and content from me, Stephen.

Too bad your words fell on such deaf ears here b/c those three comments that followed are the very people who need to consider your advice.
Ted

Writer – if it makes you feel any better, I sure that Obama has no idea that you are a radical racist either. You and the good Rev. might get along just fine.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephen-Hilton/1334543387 Stephen Hilton

Sad but true Grammie. Both sides back and forth and nothing to show for it.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephen-Hilton/1334543387 Stephen Hilton

Oh, and the one above you and below you as well.
writer

In other words, Ted, white racism outrages you, but if a black man is a racist, ignore it and pretend he’s not. Got to keep up that political correctness at all costs.
writer

Thanks for the attention, Steve. Flattering.
SWWT

I’m not so sure about the early organizers totally knowing the connotations of “teabagging.” During the Tax Day Tea Protests I attended last year, the term “tea bagging” was definitely used by organizers and other people at the rallies. I mostly giggled and thought it was funny but immature and took the opportunity to awkwardly ask some of the people at the rallies if they knew the connotations of the term. For the most part they thought that it was connected to the original Boston Tea Party. I don’t think any of the older attendees had any idea of the double entendre (though I didn’t talk to everyone obviously). The 20-somethings my age and teens definitely knew and we just thought it was kinda funny but mostly awkward.

Even so, I definitely feel that it’s completely immature to use the term to denigrate any member of the Tea Party movement under any circumstance. It’s just so childish and I can’t believe any grown adult would actually do something like that. Same goes for any other childish name calling. I think it’s just disgraceful and anyone who does that loses all credibility whatsoever. Okay, maybe I’m overreacting a little, but still, it just boggles my mind. Anyway.

I also would like to give Tommy Christopher praise for denouncing the use of the term “teabagger.”
SteveMG

Tommy Christopher:
Re the use of teabagger as analogous to the “n-word” and your link providing evidence of it.

That’s an absurd conclusion you’ve made. Absolutely absurd.

The link you provided on this supposed analogy was to a Talking Points Memo story which cited a single reference by a single writer for National Review. That writer, Jay Nordlinger, raised the analogy of the use of the teabagger term to the use of the “n-word” by black Americans. That is, is the term one that can be acceptably used “within the family” but viewed negatively when used by others?

He rejected that analogy. Again, one writer REJECTED the comparison.

For you to state: “Now, they’re [the Tea Partyers] trying to re-cast the term as a slur, on a par with the “n-word,”
is so appalling a mischaracterization of the story you linked to that I’m frankly astonished that you made it.

The writer rejected the attempt to compare the term to a racial epithet.

Sheesh.
JamesA1102

Pay closer attention before you try to smear me.

No smear, just calling it as I see it.
Ted

Writer – you are one of those tea-baggers that can not be debated – ever. But it is interesting to know that there are actually people out there who think like you do.
writer

People who think like I do think that racists can come in all colors, not just white, and it doesn’t make a person a racist just for recognizing that fact. I realize the far left sees it differently. Ah, variety is the spice of life, isn’t it?
timzank

writer says:
May 5, 2010 at 7:37 pm
I can believe Obama was unaware of the tea bagger double meaning. After all, he attended a church for twenty years and had no idea that Rev. Wright was a radical racist.

Much as i’d like to agree of course, I think it a much safer bet that Barry’s just a really good liar.
NORBIT

Where’s the debate?

Obama’s rhetoric is rife with calculated misrepresentations and derision specifically designed to disparage anyone not acquiescing to his Progressive point of view – after all, he’s been Pampered by the ideologically -fixated Left his entire life!

But that aint’ Happenin’ No Mo!!!!!!!

Remember In November!
NORBIT

32 Black Republicans running for national Office!

The progressive left – and their lackeys in the media (Time, AP, msnbc, NBC, NY Times, you know the corrupt media!) can no longer subjugate black Americans to their ‘place’ on the liberal plantation!

Conservative Black Americans are rejecting the Race-Card Intimidation Deceit & Speaking Out!

1/3 of black Americans in the country are Evangelicals! – I’ll bet that sends a shiver through the Godless left, LOL! – and they’re gonna be heard more and more.

Thank you FOX!
http://www.sailrabbits.com Magister

I’m sure back in November, Rahm, the President and others in the White House used the shorthand “teabagger” to refer to the protesters, as did pretty much every one outside of Fox News. Personally, I didn’t mean it as a slam toward an old lady’s sensibilities or whatever it is that you folks think it slams… it was just an easy to say, easy to understand descriptive term for a group that started by mailing tea bags to politicians. (A painter paints, a gardener gardens and a teabagger tea bags)

Now back in the primaries, I actually wrote a couple of times about how Candidate Obama will have to learn to measure words, if he’d like to be President and obviously he’s gotten the memo about his public speeches, but perhaps back in November, he just didn’t show such restraint in an off-the-cuff conversation. He just used the same shorthand that he and Rahm used around the office and obviously from his phrasing, he didn’t mean it as a slam, he meant it as simplier way to say “protesters associated with the unorganized, wholly independent group who call themselves “Tea Party”, though no such “party” has been registered with an election commission, has no governing association, no universal by-laws or beliefs and pretty much anyone can start a group”.
—

Slightly related, but also somewhat offtopic…

As I was glancing through some of my political writings from the primary season, I couldn’t quickly find any on-point admonishments about Obama needing to learn the importance of words, but I did run across a short blogpost that pointed toward an entry from the CNN Political Ticker;

On a five hour flight, the candidate joined aides and reporters in a rousing game of “Taboo”. One of the campaign staffers gave the clue “a place where gay people shop”; Sen Obama guessed “”Abercrombie & Fitch”, but unfortunately, “gap” was the word.
felixw

James A, show me a single instance in which I’ve called President Obama a socialist or communist. And if you can’t, then stop the smears.
stoogedudes

I just want to say this to Felixw…

“teabagger” is an insult, yes. You argue that conservatives being called “teabaggers” is an insult, whereas Obama being called socialist, marxist, communist, fascist, statist, Hitler-esque are policy discussions. I don’t know if you called Obama any of these things, but I’d say most conservatives have and if not most, too many have. Calling someone a teabagger is an insult because when using the word in the context of dipping body parts into someones mouth, clearly these people don’t do this, therefore it is insulting. Making rash and serious accusations against somebody that is not true is insulting. So calling conservatives tea-baggers is really like calling Obama those things I listed above. Because none of it is true.

I refuse to call conservatives tea baggers because it is juvenile and it does show lack of anything substantive to say in an argument. But calling Obama and his supporters these things, especially when you can’t be a Fascist and a Marxist at the same time…it’s just as ridiculous. People hear a word they know is bad and they associate it with Obama because they think HE’s bad…and there you go.
Ted

Norbit – No shit!! 32 black repub.running for office?!! You must be joking…32!…that must be what, nearly half of all African Americans in this country!??

I’m shivering Norbit…shivering. 32…oh MY GOD!!

PS – did you really mean to say “…subjugate black Americans to their place on the liberal plantation?”
NORBIT

Teddy Bear,

The implication is that black Americans are not going to let people like you, Al Sharpton, the NY Times, and the rest of the Progressive ilk in this country Tell Them How To Think anymore – because of their skin color!

That is called Racism – and it’s been spewing from the left long enough!
Take a look at what just happened to the Left-Wing Teachers Union & Charter Schools in NY!

That swooshing sound your hearing is the tide changing!
MichelleF

HanzoSword says:
May 5, 2010 at 7:32 pm
Teabaggers are disgusting in that they are mindless sheep who obey their coporate masters, such as freedomworks and americans for prosperity. They are idiots who don’t understand history or even reality.

That is so laughable. It’s the left in this country who are trying to rewrite history. It’s you who are following Obama off the cliff. But alas, I guess we will see in 2010 and 2012?
MichelleF

Well I’m not sure how race got onto this thread, wait, yes I do, everything is racist. I keep forgetting that. Actually Ted, I’m curious also if you think blacks can be racist. Maybe King and Cobra could answer as well.
Ted

Norbit – Actually I think that swooshing sound can be traced to the jello pudding sloshing around in your head. Nice commentary…I still can’t stop laughing. Thanks!!

MichelleF – what in the hell do you know about history? You have no clue about left, right or anything in between – you are a Glenn Beck parrot. You are amusing but thats about it.

Incidentally, have either of you two tea-baggers bought your survival seeds…$29.95 and a free bowl of soup while they last.
MichelleF

Really Ted, can you provide any proof or is this just another drive-by accusation?
MichelleF

And Ted, I can’t help but notice you refuse to answer the race question, so I guess we have our answer.
Ted

MichelleF “drive by accusation” – you really don’t think for yourself do you?

Are you an Insider? An Extreme Insider?
How many of Becks books have you purchased? Recommended to your friends?
How many books have you purchased that he recommends?
How many hours per day do you spend listening to Beck? Limbaugh?
Have you read the 5000 Year Leap by Skousen?
Have you purchased Beck merchandise? How much?
Have you purchased survival seeds? What about gold?
Are you planning on taking a course at Glenn Beck College and Dry Cleaning Drive-thru.

Glenn, by they way, appreciates the fact that you and many other are suckers. Cha-ching!!
NORBIT

Ted, shouldn’t you be watching Olbermann have another hissy-fit, and go crying to Zucker over something Donny Deutsch might have said about him?

…and I prefer Italian Ice!
Ted

Norbit – okay, so you’ve got a head full of Italian ice – are you bragging?
http://www.smackontheweb.org SmackontheWeb

Wrong answer Felix. “Hey teabagger, the sun comes up in the east and goes down in the west”. Now just because teabagger was used in that statement, the fact that sun does indeed come up in the east and goes down in the west is in no way negated by the fact teabagger was used. So this “you have no argument” crap you are spewing is meaningless.
MichelleF

Ted says:
May 5, 2010 at 9:18 pm
MichelleF “drive by accusation” – you really don’t think for yourself do you?

Are you an Insider? An Extreme Insider?
How many of Becks books have you purchased? Recommended to your friends?
How many books have you purchased that he recommends?
How many hours per day do you spend listening to Beck? Limbaugh?
Have you read the 5000 Year Leap by Skousen?
Have you purchased Beck merchandise? How much?
Have you purchased survival seeds? What about gold?
Are you planning on taking a course at Glenn Beck College and Dry Cleaning Drive-thru.

Glenn, by they way, appreciates the fact that you and many other are suckers. Cha-ching!!

I absolutely do Ted, and your answers are:

NO and No
none, but did borrow one from my father
a kids book for my son, if that counts, oh and the vince flynn books
I listen to 1 hour and Glenn and Rush while I work
I’ve read part of it and I highly recomment the chapter titled Equal Rights, not Equal things
None
Not seeds, but our church has ALWAYS strongly advocated food storage. WAY before beck came along.

Anything else?
NORBIT

When evolution moves the masses from heteronomy to autonomy (for the Democrats here, that would be, group identity to individual), Liberals – along with their incestuous offspring, the Progressives – will inevitably go the way of Air America, Global Warming, and other great experiments in deception!
Newsjunky

Ummm… but they ARE teabaggers. What’s the big whoop?
MichelleF

I really don’t think you libs realize how childish you sound.
Ted

MichelleF – Your comment in itself reveals how childish you are.

Now, as far as Skousen goes, he was a certifiable lunatic and a racist, but don’t take my word for it. Look into it for yourself; this is Glenn Becks hero and tells you all you need to know about him.

I doubt you’ll do it, you and others like you are in the habit of being spoon fed bullshit, but if you are so inclined I wish you luck, you’re going to need it.
NORBIT

Michelle – Scroll back on the comments you’re receiving.

You’re not going to convince your detractors here to embrace a different point-of-view.

They have an ideological fixation akin to that of Taliban adherents; they are unable to assimilate facts and information that does not conform to their petrified view of the world, thus precluding the ability to reason.

No malice intended, just an observation.
Jelperman

Looks like the Teabaggers just got a self-inflicted tea-bagging! HAHAHAHAHAAAAA!
MichelleF

I know Norbit. But I compulsively keep trying. It’s not that I’m even trying to change their minds anymore (I know that’s impossible), I just love that I seem to drive them absolutely insane. It’s fun for me. it’s like my bumper sticker says, “confuse a liberal, use logic and facts”. Once you start talking facts, you’ve lost them completely.
The_Reasonable_Lib

Thank you for pointing out what I’ve been saying all along; you called yourselves tea-baggers, not us!!! Then when we use your own term we are evil? Yet liberals are the hypocritical ones? All I ever seem to see from most conservatives here with the exception of anonymous finch is the reiteration of bs talking points and Glenn Beck monologues. You urge us to provide support for our assertions, but don’t provide any for your own which we are arguing against. This is part of the reason why you are becoming a dying breed. You refuse to move into the new era. And no, there’s nothing socialistic, totalitarian or communistic about that so don’t try to read anything into it. What I mean by the new era is open-mindedness, open forum, compromise. Not saying that homosexuals are the evil, last I checked the bible took a much harder stance on abortion. Not telling people of color that they’re dependent on the government or in some extremes that their skin represents a curse. Actual information on the issues rather than bullsh*t and finger-pointing. No liberals did this first, no conservatives did this first. Voting in leaders who actually care. Cory Booker, the mayor of Newark, New Jersey, on December 31st recieved a tweet from a constituent who was unable to leave her job, asking him to send somebody to help shovel her 65 year old father’s driveway. Booker asked where he lived and showed up to the man’s house to do it himself. Newark is a city of over 250,000. That is what I mean by a leader who cares.
The_Reasonable_Lib

NORBIT says:
May 5, 2010 at 10:08 pm
And yet you and Michele do not? Michele who constantly raves about how liberals start everything? You who say liberals will go the way of global warming?
Another thing I don’t get; in the bible it says that during the end times you won’t be able to tell one season from another, global warming goes hand in hand with that. You would think that most Christians would jump on the global warming bandwagon.
Glenn.Bovine.Merrill

Just call them TEABAGGERS and they jump.

Out of the closet.
MichelleF

RL,
As Christians, we are taught to take care of our planet and that’s what I do. I’m sorry if I don’t subscribe to the same, let’s help al gore become a billionaire hysteria that you all do. This earth has gone through cycles since GOD created it. 40 years ago it was the ice age. To think that you are so powerful that you can destroy something that God created is the height of arrogance, in my humble opine.
Big_F-ing_Deal

“This earth has gone through cycles since GOD created it 40 years ago”

I took out the ‘period’ for Christian accuracy.
http://www.sailrabbits.com Magister

@Big_F-ing_Deal: …and apparently mountaintop removal is “redecorating”.
The_Reasonable_Lib

MichelleF says:
May 5, 2010 at 10:46 pm
But we can. That’s the point of many things in the bible. We had no knowledge of good and evil and destroyed a sinless existence. We destroyed God’s law code. The bible is littered with instances where we destroyed God’s creation. We destroyed the bible itself, just ask King James. And it simply says that you won’t be able to tell the seasons, not the cause of it, not the justification. I am a Christian as well.
Jelperman

How many Teabaggers does it take to screw in a light bulb?

How would I know? They’re too busy getting tea-bagged! HAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAA!
JamesA1102

show me a single instance in which I’ve called President Obama a socialist or communist. And if you can’t, then stop the smears.

Wasn’t refering to President Obama. But it is interesting that you are trying to change the subject.
JamesA1102

I really don’t think you libs realize how childish you sound.

I really don’t think you realize how childish, and angry, you sound.
MichelleF

RL, yes we can, but it’s not going to happen by driving a car. I mean according to you nuts, the gas from cows will do the whole planet in.
MichelleF

I’m not angry at all, James. I don’t think you know how much time I spend laughing while writing on this site.
The_Reasonable_Lib

MichelleF says:
May 5, 2010 at 11:14 pm
So I’m a nut now? Good to know, I’ll have myself committed immediately. And no, those are only the extremes, but I do acknowledge that carbon dioxide is dangerous in large amounts, which is the premise behind the argument. And yes, emissions do damage the environment. Didn’t you say we have to take care of the environment? That starts by not putting large amounts of toxins into it.
The_Reasonable_Lib

MichelleF says:
May 5, 2010 at 11:15 pm
We laugh as well, Michelle, we laugh as well. We laugh, we cry, we write things.
Big_F-ing_Deal

“I don’t think you know how much time I spend laughing while writing on this site.”

Is that when you think you are winning at the internet?
Tommy Christopher

Nordlinger rejected the “in the family” thing as a solution, but not the comparison.
MichelleF

RL,
So to use your logic, no one should drive cars (except al gore), ride planes (except al gore). We should just go back to before the industiral revolution? Where should we draw that line?
The_Reasonable_Lib

MichelleF says:
May 5, 2010 at 11:34 pm
No, you’re twisting my logic, here’s the problem I have with you and many conservatives; no gray area. There are plenty of alternatives. Fuel efficient cars. Cars that run by alternative means. Hybrid cars. High speed rail. But no, to you it is either one or the other, and there’s no logic in that.
MichelleF

Hey If you want to drive a more fuel efficient car, I think that’s great. But I don’t see it as the gov’ts job to tell me I can’t drive a certain car, or have my house at the temp. I want. Or tell me which light bulb I HAVE to buy. Do you agree that if libs had their way, that is where we would be?
Averreauxii

Ignorant teabaggers! You guys coined the term for your “party” and followers. Hell Dick Morris used that very same term on Wednesday’s (last night) O’reilly factor episode. Cry me a river.
Jelperman

Why did the Teabagger cross the road?

To go get tea-bagged on the other side! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!
lucyreddy

I am very glad to have this topic here .I would say Obama has nothing but contempt for anyone who opposes him in any way. He isn’t winning any fans with his sorry attitude, and so much the better.
r4 ds gold
sarainitaly

Here is a good article on the evolution of the use of teabagger.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2009/04/14/teabagging_guide

It’s quite strange that every article I have found to support the claim that Tea Partiers started using the term teabaggers point to the photo of the sign “Tea Bag the Liberal Dems before they tea bag you” – which is being held by a kid.

I have also seen people point to a photo of an older woman holding a sign that says “Teabagging for Jesus” – which is a fake. The original sign was photoshopped out, and replaced with Teabagging for Jesus.
JamesA1102

I don’t think you know how much time I spend laughing while writing on this site.

What a coincidence. I laugh when I read what you wrote.
MichelleF

JamesA1102 says:
May 6, 2010 at 8:38 am
I don’t think you know how much time I spend laughing while writing on this site.

What a coincidence. I laugh when I read what you wrote.

And yet you never respond on the substance, only with insults. Hm, something to ponder.
The_Reasonable_Lib

MichelleF says:
May 5, 2010 at 11:45 pm
NO! That’s the problem here. You always try to say that liberals want to invade your living room when that couldn’t be further from the truth. We want to hold businesses accountable, not restrict the choice of people. Bill maher is one of the biggest libertrians alive, but takes liberal economic stances. You have no idea what you’re talking about and you’re being “unreasonable” with your black or white logic.
writer

It’s one of those ‘gray areas’ that conservatives don’t allow for.
writer

Like saying that man causes global warming, and then the debate is shut down. We didn’t think ‘science’ worked like that. Another ‘gray area’.
SteveMG

Tommy:
Nordlinger rejected the “in the family” thing as a solution, but not the comparison

Nordlinger in the piece you linke (absurdly) proposed this:
..this brings up the question of whether “teabagger” could be kind of a conservative N-word: to be used in the family, but radioactive outside the family.

“Wheter…. could be a kind of conservative N-world…” is hardly re-casting the word into that racial epithet. “Whether” and “could be” and “a kind of” are all limiters.

It’s a poor analogy – however he qualified it. Not quite as poor as your “metaphorical mouth-raping of liberal men, women and children.” Please.

I’ll repeat: one column by an obscure writer on the right hardly consists of the movement trying to re-cast the “teabagger” term into the n-word.
The_Reasonable_Lib

writer says:
May 6, 2010 at 10:11 am
Another conservative tactic; never address the actual issue. Make light of the situation in fake satire to try to make yourself appear above it. Wow, you fail yet again. Why is it not possible that man has caused global warming? Man pollutes the environment daily. Prime example the current oil spill situation. Why do you think it is that companies are not allowed to dump wastes in rivers? Because if you put something in another substance that is harmful to you, odds are it is harmful to the environment as well. If you put something that isn’t there naturally in there, it harms. It’s just like introducing a volatile species to a new environment.
The_Reasonable_Lib

Also for those who would like an example of hypocrisy among conservatives, please go to my debate with imnotblue on the Glenn Beck Joe Klein page.
writer

RL, I didn’t say man didn’t cause global warming. Maybe he did. But science always allows study, without claiming the case is definitely closed. Why such bitterness?
MichelleF

We want to hold businesses accountable, not restrict the choice of people.

Are you serious!! Libs want to tell you what to drive, eat, say. I can’t believe you would even say that!
MichelleF

writer says:
May 6, 2010 at 10:43 am
RL, I didn’t say man didn’t cause global warming. Maybe he did. But science always allows study, without claiming the case is definitely closed. Why such bitterness?

If man caused global warming, why was there warning BEFORE cars were around?
The_Reasonable_Lib

MichelleF says:
May 6, 2010 at 11:40 am
BULLSH*T!!! This false image you try to paint of liberals couldn’t be further from the truth. How many liberals do you actually even know first off? Second, there is no doubt in my mind that all this crap you believe has been spoonfed to you by your family and fox news. I can believe I would say that because I am a liberal. And yes, I do want a cleaner environment for my children, which you should as well.
The_Reasonable_Lib

MichelleF says:
May 6, 2010 at 11:41 am
And there you go once again exemplifying your lack of knowledge on the subject. You think we’re saying that cars are the only thing causing global warming? How can you argue against something that you know nothing about? That’s completely illogical. You yourself said this planet goes through cycles. Well according to that we’re due for an ice age, overdue as a matter of fact, but rather than that we’re actually getting hotter.
MichelleF

Really, it’s BS? What about the gov’t limiting the amount of salt that can be used in NYC restaurants, or them trying to bad happy meal toys, unless mcdonalds makes hm’s more healthy. Now I know you said lied about that one, but I’ve provided proof that it is indeed true and have yet to get your rebuttal on where I’m going wrong exactly.

SACRAMENTO AND WEST HOLLYWOOD — California is putting big-screen television sets on a diet.

Starting in 13 months, new TV sets will have to meet energy-efficiency standards that slash the amount of electricity they consume. The regulations also will lower owners’ monthly electric bills.

Now this may be a good idea, but it’s NOT the gov’t job to tell me what tv to buy.

California’s SUV Ban
The Golden State has outlawed big SUVs on many of its roads but doesn’t seem to know it.

Libs would LOVE to ban guns. They tell us we HAVE to buy health insurance or be fined.

VIA THE NEW YORK TIMES: California wants to control home thermostats
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/world/americas/11iht-calif.1.9147508.html

You do what libs always do, say conservatives don’t want peace, don’t want a clean environment, don’t want immigrants here. Bullcrap, we DO want peace, just not the way you do, we DO want a clean environment, but not by stipping us of personal liberities, and we DO want immigration, JUST NOT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION!

Take your claims of BS somewhere else.
MichelleF

And there you go once again exemplifying your lack of knowledge on the subject. You think we’re saying that cars are the only thing causing global warming?

You didn’t answer my question. If man caused it, why was the earth warm before cars and technology? I NEVER said it was just cars. Take your “i’m smarter than everyone else, liberal attitude” somewhere else.!
The_Reasonable_Lib

MichelleF says:
May 6, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Once again, you’ve only listed what they’re forcing the businesses to do. Nothing of big brother barging into your house to tell you what you can and can’t do. You said so yourself that these lower monthly bills. The only thing even remotely close to that is the thermostat thing. By the way, the government also makes you buy car insurance. Shall we boycott that too? When there’s a drought they control how much water you use, when there’s an electrical shortage, they will exercise emergency power. Or did you not notice that part? This type of thing has been done in this country for years. The gas shortage in the 70s. I’d also venture to say those suv bans are on streets where there’s a high volume of pollution. Once again you’re misconstruing the facts, and yes, it is bs!!!!!!
Really? Because the most prominent conservative right now; sarah palin has said Obama should start a war. That’s not very peaceful. Your idea of peace is forming a single world government under America. She’s also made some rather unflattering comments about BP and foreigners. Not very immigration-y or drill baby drill-y, eh? And most liberals are anti-illegal immigration too, but we recognize that if there aren’t businesses willing to hire these people less of them will come here looking for work. This is what you’re not getting.
The_Reasonable_Lib

MichelleF says:
May 6, 2010 at 12:39 pm
But I did if you would read properly. We acknowledge that this planet has gone through heating and cooling cycles in a pattern, but that pattern is currently off. Prior to the industrial revolution we were going through a cooling cycle consistent with the pattern, but at said point it began to change. This has drastically changed in the past 10 years as access to technology has changed and usage of environmentally unfriendly substances has increased. That is the central argument here.

And no, I’m not saying that I’m smarter than you, I’m saying that your argument is baseless, not founded in reality and pure speculation and opposition rather then substance. I don’t think I’m smarter than you, only that you make yourself seem unintelligent which I’m sure isn’t the case. Right now you’re beginning to look like Michelle Bachmann though, just saying.
MichelleF

Not everyone agrees with the left, even though opposition voices have been pretty much completely shut out, til recently.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 54% of voters still believe global warming is a serious problem, but that’s down eight points from a year ago. The new numbers includes 29% who consider it very serious, a number, too, that has been inching down in recent months.

But 43% now say global warming is not serious, including 21% who say it is not at all serious. The number who say global warming is not serious at all is at its highest level measured in regular tracking in over a year. The overall number of voters who question the seriousness of global warming crossed into the 40s for the first time in January.

Forty-eight percent (48%) of voters say global warming is caused by long-term planetary trends, while only 33% blame human activity. These results are identical to those found last month.

Belief that human activity is the primary cause of global warming has declined significantly. In April 2008, the numbers were nearly the mirror image of the current findings. At that time, 47% blamed human activity, while only 34% named long-term planetary trends as the reason for climate change.

The decline in voter concern comes despite the failed UN effort in December to produce an international treaty aimed at limiting the human activity that Obama and others consider the primary cause of global warming. At that time, most Americans (52%) said there continues to be significant disagreement within the scientific community over global warming.

Fifty-nine percent (59%) also said it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming.

The plurality of voters (47%) says there is a conflict between economic growth and environmental protection, a number that has held fairly consistent over the past several months. Just 30% do not see this conflict, while 23% are not sure.Voters support offshore oil drilling more than ever, and most don’t agree with the president’s decision to limit where that drilling can be done.

Voters support offshore oil drilling more than ever, and most don’t agree with the president’s decision to limit where that drilling can be done.

You need to acknowledge that while the left says is settled science, most people don’t agree with that.
MichelleF

BTW, that’s all i’m going to say on the issue. We have a difference of opinion on the subject and I’ve voiced mine.
Grammie

The_Reasonable_Lib says:
May 6, 2010 at 1:48 pm

RL, you are aware that these cycles are calculated in tens of thousands of years with some cycles occurring within larger cycles.

You are aware that within our current warming cycle (which is cyclically ready to end) we are just out of the Little Ice Age that saw widespread famine, disease and political upheavals.

You are aware that that Little Ice Age followed an unusual warm period known as the Medieval Warm Period.

You are aware that based on these large cycles we are in a window of time that is likely to begin a new Ice Age.

With all that in mind you support an unprecedented upheaval in the world’s economic, political and cultural systems based on a few decades, at most, of sustained warming that already appear to be reversing themselves?
The_Reasonable_Lib

Grammie says:
May 6, 2010 at 3:40 pm
The little ice age does not count first because it is not a true ice age. Second because it came about primarily as a result of heightened volcanic activity. As I’ve said before, we are overdue for the larger cycle. You do realize that the little ice age occurred from about the 16th to 19th century, ceasing around the time of the industrial revolution. Contrary to what you may say or believe, things aren’t reversing. If you’re pointing to the recent snow storms, those only serve to promote global warming. Global warming is an inaccurate term, that is why it is called climate change. One of the principles of this is that it greatly exasperates the extreme weather. And yes, I do support cleaner air and tighter restrictions on businesses wishing to do whatever they want.
Grammie

RL, the Little Ice Age is relevant to this discussion b/c AGW people are using such a short, no tiny, segment of time to base their thesis on in a system that operates on the 100,000 year clock. Also, The Medieval Warming was substantial and certainly can’t be related to CO2 or any anthropological basis.

Cycles within cycles which is, IMO, what we went thru in part of the 20th century. I have to check later but I don’t think your volcanic explanation holds up, especially not for three centuries. I’ve got to get ready for Little League so I’ll check on that later.

My number one reason, just one of many, for thinking that AGW is a load of crap is that the computer models used to forecast this disastrous (which is another subject whether warming is worse for life than cooling) is completely inaccurate in predicting the future when used as a test to grade it. The models upon which all this is predicated don’t work. And no, I don’t think it’s chicanery. I don’t think we know as much as a pimple on a gnat’s ass about the basis of what causes such a massive system to work, GLOBAL CLIMATE.

People love to criticize religious folk. To my mind believers in Algore have just as much faith as anyone who believes in God. Man has not learned nearly enough to make these types of predictions and believing that we have, IMO, requires an enormous leap of faith and almost a sense of man as God b/c we should know enough to know that this is beyond our knowledge and technology at this time.
MichelleF

we are overdue for the larger cycle. You do realize that the little ice age occurred from about the 16th to 19th century, ceasing around the time of the industrial revolution.

1975 Newsweek: The Coming Ice Age

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/newsweeks-1975-article-about-the-coming-ice-age

Croat scientist warns Austria ice age could start in five years

http://www.austriantimes.at/news/General_News/2010-02-

The Fiction of Climate Science – Forbes

http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/climate-science-gore-intelligent-technology-sutton.html

January 09 –
CNN Segment Warns of the Coming Ice Age
JamesA1102

And yet you never respond on the substance

Well when you post something of substance, I’ll respond to it.
kieronnpollard

in general. Thus, the violin so small, the zoom to see the electron microscope.
memory stick
AmericanCowboy

Obama is such a scumbag
AmericanCowboy

America Beware!!!!
Obama and the evil Democrats are scamming Americans again
“Cap and Trade” is now called “American Power Act”
Any Republican that supports this awful Bill will be voted out with the foolish Democrats in Nov 2010
This bill will do nothing but raise our energy costs, kill jobs and make Al Gore rich. Carbon Credits are a scam.