Go ahead and play the race card. It’s the sure mark of a loser.

We aren’t in a post racial society as long as we have to include race on census forms and survey results have to include the races of those surveyed. While surveys and statistics can always be called into question, I appreciate Futurity.org for pointing this out.

I have been saying this from the beginning of this disgusting movement. Racists, bigot, homophobes and xenophobes and fundagelicals are what drive this movement. Also the ignorant who are proud of their ignorance like Sarah Palin.

It is so easy to say these people are racists and other horrible names. Why can’t a person support the office of President without supporting the man who is there? I say that is the United States of America.

Great, call names and label an entire group based on supposition. Garbage in and garbage out; this group is made up of a lot of different people with varying backgrounds (a whole lot of independents in there). I am not a member of the movement but demonize them and ignore them at the ruling party’s expense.

What a load of crap. This survey shows some correlation, not causation. The “meaning” inferred or extracted from this survey is inherently inaccurate, and is a sloppy argument, at best.

The ultimate impropriety is for a government to force programs down the throats of citizens who obviously don’t want them, including programs that openly favor one group over another. Just the Tea Party moniker should indicate wherein lies the source of conservative anger.

Race, my eye. I am vehemently opposed to racism, from either the oppressor or the oppressed. But finding some number of racists within a group absolutely does not mean the group as a whole endorses or espouses racist thought, feeling, or action. I’ve seen racism, Marxism, collectivism, and many other “isms” within the ranks of progressives, but I’m not stupid enough–or victim enough–to impugn their motives or assign like characteristics to all participants.

Bigotry, prejudice, and contempt are abundantly manifest on the left, whose collective xenophobia has reached such a fever pitch that they seek to quash all who resist their progressive agenda. Time for those who play the race card, and all of their ilk, to look in the mirror, and see that the mote is removed from their own eyes, ere they point out the beam in another.

Wow. The guy who directed this study sure is making some enormous logical leaps to get to his conclusions. Judging simply from the statements about the subjects surveyed, it’s clear there may be a strong bias toward finding a racist component that really doesn’t exist.

For example, the article make reference to “those who are racially resentful, who believe the U.S. government has done too much to support blacks.” You may completely disagree with the government’s affirmative actions programs, and not be a racist. In fact, I would say that most people think this way. The term “racially resentful” is emotionally charged and biased. The writer should be ashamed. This level of writing is not in included in the AP style manual.

Another example, ““While it’s clear that the tea party in one sense is about limited government, it’s also clear from the data that people who want limited government don’t want certain services for certain kinds of people. Those services include health care,” Parker says.”

That didn’t appear to be covered in the questioning, and is a supposition that is not supported by the data. Does Parker really think that the tea partiers want government services, including health care, just for themselves?! That’s an egregious leap on his part, and totally incorrect. Last I checked, the tea party movement was opposed to government services in general, and especially health care, which was forced on the public against our will and without our consent.

This assistant professor needs to go back to class.

Too bad you have it all backwards Nate. It is the right wing who are irrational and threatening to overthrow the government and kill police offices and RELOAD. That is also a load of crap that you spew about the ‘people’ being forced by the government. The ELECTED representatives elected by the people democratically voted to enact these programs. The Rush Limbaughs and Glen Becks are the ones foaming at the mouth and causing the fever pitch. That is the trouble with conservatives – they lie and lie and accuse others of their disgusting actions. The Reich wingers lost big time and are now sore losers who act like little children who lost their candy. Get a backbone and grow up.

I’m unaware as if protesters are influencing a movement. Starting with these Tobacco costs/ taxes my state is over 6.00 dollars a pack at its greatest i wish that there was a great influence to bankrupt these tobacco comp. and their tax prices. Rush Limpbong is weak and so are his bare bone supporters.

I am Dominant

It’s been obvious to me all along, because of the signs and slogans seen at tea parties, that at least SOME involved are racially motivated. I’m white, I know a LOT of white people, and I know that many (otherwise fine people) do resent there being a black man as president. Maybe they’re afraid the blacks will rise to full power and enslave them.

Hey, Nate. Do you use an Interstate highway or visit a National Park? Those are programs that the government “forced down (y)our throat” and we pay for them with our taxes. Same for schools, some hospitals, Medicare, Social Security and a host of other programs and services. Bet you’ll grab you Social Security check when the time comes and you’ll be right there to suck up the Medicare benefits when you’re eligible. And did you attend any public schools? Another government program that was “forced” upon you. Hmmm…

I am following this thread and it is still baffling me a bit. There are some well thought out comments that try to stay away from the ridiculous name calling and then there are those that just sound plain hateful. NEBob, you prove Nate’s point in his final paragraph with your response.

Nate,

SamX really slammed you with that bit of rhetorical pontification! Did he really throw education and infrastructure into the equation? Update for everyone; the CBO (congressional budget office) has stated that if the U.S. continues at its current spending level on major entitlement programs we will reach a 100% ratio of private debt to gross domestic product by 2020. That’s ten years away and do you know what happens then? The country will lose its credit rating and the interest payments alone will cripple the country. There will be no money for any entitlement programs and worse yet we will most likely not have funds for education, infrastructure projects and essential services. So not only will Nate not be picking up his social security check or getting Medicare benefits he will be having a difficult time navigating that federally funded highway to the National Park with his kids or grand kids. By the way, I am not a right winger or a tea party member and what I have stated here is according the National Bureau of Economic Research and the Congressional Budget Office.

The good news is we can stop this from happening to the country by just raising everyone’s taxes significantly. So for those of us who actually do pay personal federal income taxes (53% of Americans) and most businesses, we can expect a huge increase in tax rates. The other 47% of America shouldn’t feel left out though because they will be hit (along with everyone else) with the impending value added tax. Let’s see how we all feel when we pay an extra 10-15% for EVERYTHING we buy.

MICHAEL BARONE: Tea Partiers Embrace Liberty, Not Big Government! http://bit.ly/ahL4zb

More baloney. It has to do with ENTITLEMENTS most of which are used by white people.

The more you use the race card, the more you are discredited.

No Jeff, Nate has no point. He is just an angry sore loser liar.

NewEnglandBob,

You leave me speechless! Touche’

Assistant professor. University of Washington. “The Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race and Sexuality and the UW Department of Political Science paid for the survey. ”

Game over. Scam on.

I sure would like to see some data instead of conclusions. With only 1015 respondents it would seem that a link to the results and a listing of the questions asked could be provided. All we get is a rough outline of the study and some conclusions which seem to be overdrawn to me. How hard is it to put in a hyper-link to the raw findings. Surly they are on computer.

Teabaggers are more likely to be racist than not.

This just in: water is wet!!

I think those of you who think the Teabaggers’ cause is a noble one (let alone educated) need to see the ‘Teabonics’ site:

Teabonics: a grammar and dictionary-free zone

Racism, from the right wing? You don’t say!

NewEnglandBob — Time to wake up from your dream.

So what is the solution NewEnglandBob? Do we keep spending? If we do, as another poster pointed out, the only way to do so is to raise taxes. What do you feel is an appropriate tax rate to support all the entitlements? Should our tax rates be on par with all the European countries our purportedly broken health care system has been compared to for the past year?

And finally, if you’re not a ‘teabagger’ does that mean you’re a ‘teabaggee?’

What he’s trying to do here is make a sweeping accusation across an entire movement based on a biased and loaded survey so that the Left can continue to demonize everyone in and associated with the tea party movement as a bunch of racists and bigots.

I will admit that there is some of that, but it’s just that. Some. Not all, not the majority, and not near the amount that the Left makes it out to be. But some of these questions are loaded to produced the image of blatant racism. Where’s the option to answer “I believe blacks, on the aggregate scale, are every bit as hardworking, intelligent, and trustworthy as whites, asians, hispanics, native americans, and anybody else?” I know people from all backgrounds or are all of those things, and people who are none.

Of course you will see a correlation between support of the tea party movement and a lack thereof for the current health care legislation. The movement is centered around limited government involvement and lower taxes. PPACE is the antithesis of both.

Of course you will find that those who disapprove of President Obama will be more likely to support the tea party, for reasons stated in the last paragraph. And it’s not necessarily that the disapprove of his race, but his policies. Go figure. Are you going to call every non-white who disapproved of the Bush presidency a racist? Of course not. He had horrendous policies.

I just have to say that this article just presented information and conclusions based on that information. If you read it, it doesn’t say that they are racist, but that they are x% more likely to be racist, etc. This is how media works, you put info out, put a slight emphasis on what you want seen, and let the public take from it what they want.

That being said, If you’re a teabagger, you’re not necessarily racist; but if you’re racist, you’re probably a teabagger. That’s what I get out of the article. This would seem like common sense because if you’re racist, then you’d obviously be opposed to anything that crazy black man says.

=)

AJ: You’re exactly right. Thank you.

The study does not claim to profile the typical teabag member. It simply shows data that confirm the fact that racism leads some people to join the movement. This, consequently, adds to the movement’s momentum.

Many of the members have legitimate concerns about the size of government and the tax rate. This is not at issue in the article.

If there are still any racists left in the US, other than leftists like Rev. Wright and Rev. Sharpton, I haven’t heard about them.

The Tea Party movement is about restoring the lost Constitution, as spelt out in Judge Napolitano’s book “The Constitution in Exile”. I defy anybody to find one word of racism in it.

Listen all you sandbaggers, tax the corporation who don’t pay taxes. Most of the largest corporations pay no taxes at all. The oil companies charge huge amounts for oil and pay little in taxes. Most big banking and financial firms pay no taxes. How is that fair?

There is certainly no reason to listen to teabaggers about all this. Racists, bigot, homophobes, xenophobes an misogynists can never be trusted.

John David Galt, your statements are pure nonsense. I laugh at your comment.

I have now unsubscribed from this post. I no longer care to read about it.

John David Galt: Have you ever been to places like Mississippi? Lower income areas of Texas? These and several other places have blatant and constant racism. It’s possible that you grew up in those places, and never noticed the racism, so that when you were exposed to the rest of the country, you saw black people complaining about racism and you automatically assume that they’re being reverse racist.

There is such thing as reverse racism, and racism by minorities, but to say that there is no racism in white America is plain ignorance.

So because one does not generalize that all (or even most) people of a certain race are honest, hardworking and trustworthy, that makes them racist? I know many African-Americans who are all of the above, and many who are none of the above. I would have to answer “don’t know” or “depends” because I don’t lump people together by their race. I would answer the same about whites, Asians, latinos, etc.

This article only reports those willing to make broad positive generalizations, thus easily making those who don’t generalize or don’t care about race look like racists, which is idiotic.

Most of the other “findings” were “duh” statements that have nothing to do with race.

No, Nick, the article points out people who are generalizing, but on the negative side. The people who don’t generalize are not considered racists. Tests for racism are usually aimed to point out generalizing attitudes about a specific race or group of people.

It’s easy to point out those that are not racist because it doesn’t make a difference the race of a person, they’re treated all the same, like you and I claim to be.

And technically, positive generalizations of a certain race is racist as well (i.e. the stereotype that all asians are smart or that all black people are good atheletes).

In conclusion: broad generalizations based on race (whether positive or negative) is racist because you’re judging a person based on their race. That is easy to test for. You would not test as racist if you don’t have those generalizations.

AJ and Josh, you are both talking out of your hats. You have no idea what the data ‘shows,’ you have only the author’s interpretation and conclusions. When I see words like ‘may’ and ‘suggest’ in survey conclusions my baloney detector begins flashing. May to what degree? Suggest in what way and how much? These kinds of unquantified terms indicate opinion, not proof.

Show me the full report, the survey questions and the data collected and let me draw my own conclusions. Somehow, I think mine might differ from Mr. Parker’s and this article’s author.

Parker says, ‘“While it’s clear that the tea party in one sense is about limited government, it’s also clear from the data that people who want limited government don’t want certain services for certain kinds of people.’

First, there is no such thing as the ‘tea party’ other than that appearing as the bogeymen in Democrats’ nightmares. There is a ‘tea party’ movement which boasts members from both major political parties as well as independents. The fact that it has attracted so many independents — the swing voters who pretty much determine the outcome of elections — has terrified Democrats and cheered Republicans.

Second, these are the kind of statements which when taken out of context can be twisted to mean pretty much anything. Of course ‘people who want limited government don’t want certain services for certain kinds of people’ — duh! People who want limited government don’t believe the government should provide health care (a certain service) to people who can pay for it themselves but choose not to (a certain kind of people). People who want limited government don’t believe the government should provide unlimited welfare support (a certain service) to people who are capable of providing for themselves but choose not to (a certain kind of people).

All the hand wringing over so-called ‘racial attitudes’ in the Tea Party movement is so much politics and opportunism. The purported racist ‘events’ that occurred on the eve of the congressional vote for Obamacare have yet to be corroborated. Given the high-profile nature of the situation, the level of press attention and the prevelence of media recording equipment among the general public, I find it remarkable that no video or audio recordings of the incident exist. Not one.

Further, I’ve attended a number of health care reform protests, including one when President Obama visited near where I live prior to the congressional vote. There were crowds present representing both viewpoints. The only racial comments I heard (coming from both sides, BTW) were quickly booed and shouted into silence.

No one can know for certain how a person truly feels in his/her heart of hearts except that person. It is, however, a common failing to attribute the blackest of motives to those you disagree with politically — it certainly makes it easier to demonize and hate. People who don’t believe the government should provide health care are greedy and selfish; their professed concern for a nearly $13 trillion national debt is just a smokescreen for their racism. People who don’t believe the government should bailout and/or purchase private businesses are simply ignorant of the fiscal realities; their concern that government meddling might destroy the normal supply/demand, success/bankruptcy cues that make a market predictable means they hate unions or want the economy to fail. Etc., etc., etc.

No one from the other side can have an opinion worth listening to if their motives are sufficiently sullied. The problem is whenever one tries to sully somone else’s motives one’s own become compromised in the effort. In other words, calling someone a jerk (or a racist) because they disagree with you only make YOU look petty and self-righteous. Don’t believe me? Watch or listen to your favorite politician or talkshow host deride someone on the opposite side of the political aisle (the person, not the person’s opinion or position on an issue) and tell me they don’t come across as a bit childish.

Annyone having lingering questions about why our supposedly bi-partisan government has ceased to function need look no further than the bile- and hate-filled comments here. They are a microcosm of our national politics…

AJ,

Read the article again:

“Among whites who approved, 35 percent said they believe blacks to be hardworking, 45 percent said they believe them intelligent and 41 percent said they believe them trustworthy.”

It didn’t say what percentage say they are “NOT” hardworking, intelligent or trustworthy. It also didn’t say how many did not answer or answered “don’t know”/”depends”. But from the less-than-majority percentage willing to generalize about a whole race, the conclusion is drawn by the article that the others are racist. How utterly idiotic.

You make a valid point Nick. I concede to it.

But we don’t know what the question asked, or how they interpreted it. If it were me interpreting the data, I would make the outcome binary based on several options. The options that weren’t racist, would be not racist, and the others would be racist. My guess is that the article writer probably extrapolated his own interpretation based on whatever he/she was looking at.

Riiight: Yes, I am talking out of my hat a bit, because whenever I look at someone’s conclusion, I always assume that they’re working on a slant. Based on that slant, I try to extrapolate a more meaningful idea of what the data really represents. Of course, I can’t make an extremely meaningful conclusion without the data…and surveys in general I’m always pretty wary of because it’s too easy to skew. I only really read this because someone linked it for me, and I noticed that what they were really saying was already common sense. The slant of the author probably added some extra context to make some kind of point or another.

And back to what I said earlier, all this article is really saying is that racist people are much more likely to join the tea party movement, not that tea party supporters are more racist. Everything else is puff.

AJ,

There is nothing whatsoever in this article (or the University of Washington article this is based on, which interestingly has NO comprehensive poll results) proving “that racist people are much more likely to join the tea party movement.”

a.) We don’ t know how the questions were worded and what possible answers are available.
b.) We don’t know how many Tea Party respondents said African-Americans AREN’T intellegent, hardworking and trustworthy.
c.) We have nothing in the way of comparing those responses (either positive or negative) to the responses of the average non-Tea Party person.
d.) We have nothing comparing even African-American’s views of their own race percentage-wise to the Tea Party respondents.
e.) We have no data about how the Tea Party respondents felt about whites and if “the government had done too much to support whites”. How many African-Americans would respond yes to the latter question. Does that make them racist?
f.) The article seems to equate with juxtaposition that not supporting Barack Obama is racist. That’s total B.S.

If the survey came right out and asked “Do you believe a black president can be legitimate?”, “Do you hate Obama because he’s black?”, “Do you support returning to slavery?” and “Do you believe blacks are an inferior race?” and 45% more answered affirmatively than non-Tea Party whites, I’d agree that that’s a very disturbing trend – enough to destroy the Tea Party movement in one easy swoop. But the survey and the summary of it merely seem to be projecting the author’s bias instead of seeking fair and accurate information.

But then again, why would a true racist benefit from a movement that is opposed to excessive government? Slavery was enabled and enforced (Fugitive Slave Act) by big government, and Jim Crow laws were laws, not the voluntary actions of a free market. Most Southern white businesses opposed segregation – why would they want to lose half their customer base? There probably are a few racist latchers-on in the Tea Party movement trying to hijack the “states rights” message but until I see proof (hard data, not extrapolations) I will continue to assume overt racists are a very small percentage.

In fact, the more that I look at it, this poll was conducted in an incredibly shoddy manner.

“the survey reached 494 whites, 380 blacks, 77 Latinos and 64 members of other races”

That is no where close to the proportional racial breakdown of the actual population. (75% white, 12% black). Whites made up 49% of the respondents and blacks 37%. African-Americans make up over 3 x their proportion in society for this survey’s results. Then they try to make meaningful comparisons between the racial views of those who support the admittedly predominantly white Tea Party and to the remainder of the sample that is far disproportionate demographically to society with people who would understandably be biased in the opposite direction. If you remove the white (and probably those of other races) Tea Party supporters, African-Americans would likely make up a majority of the remaining respondents. Is the argument is that whites are more likely to be racist against African-Americans than African Americans are? Seems likely, unfortunately. The converse is probably true as well.

Again, I’m only extrapolating from the very limited data provided but this looks like it was set up specifically to make Tea Partiers look more racist than they really are. I want some results, but until then I call B.S. on this.

Tor those on the left and those on the right in such arguments:
Please remember that merely calling names about this or that or those who respond or the nature of the study and so is NOT the same as decent argumentation for or against this or any other proposition. In sum:
address the issue and not your anger.

Today on Rush Limbaugh’s show, health care reform was attacked (surprise) because the plan calls for student loans for aspiring physicians and in exchange, the newly-minted doctors will have to fulfill a commitment to work in areas of health care where more services are needed. The charge: this is a Cuban-like system. Then, just last week, Glenn Beck and Mark Levin said our health care system was going to be ruined because expanded coverage will cause a severe shortage of doctors. So either way, Obama’s wrong. If he trains more doctors, that’s socialism, plus his plan won’t work because we won’t have enough doctors.

This is typical of the distortions and scare tactics used day after day by these guys, along with the name calling and crude characterizations – for example, referring to the Obama administration as the Obama regime (childish drivel) or declaring this presidency the most radical in American history. What’s pathetic about all this is that the Tea Party people are the real victims – of the Karl Roves, Dick Cheneys, Newt Gingrichs and the like, who aren’t going to do anything more to benefit them than give them flags to wave so they can at least feel good about something while they’re getting totally screwed by the same people who have been screwing them for decades.

My advice to Tea Party members: go visit governmentisgood.com or fivethirtyeight.com. Or go to a neutral site and read what’s actually in the health care bill. I know that sounds scary, but give it a shot, even if it’s going to be a little painful at first to hear something different. Hey, I just spent three months listening to Limbaugh-Beck-Hannity-Levin and I’ll admit it was painful, but quite revealing just the same. For one thing, I got to see exactly how they pull the wool over their audiences’ eyes. But if you only watch FNC or only listen to talk radio, how could you really know for yourself what liberals believe, what’s in the bill or whether Limbaugh and Fox do in fact have it right?

This would appear to be a rather skewed study where the proof produced from the hypothesis is based upon supposition. The validity is questionable.

In fact the degree of skew is so unequivocal as to raise questions regarding the true intent of the researcher.

ResPublica,

Great advice, people don’t listen to what one side is telling you because I happen to totally disagree with them but if you want the truth go to the sites that give my version of it. A better idea would be to stop listening to the pundits on either side and read the legislation for yourself. Google it and read it, it is quite enlightening if you care to take the time. FYI http://www.governmentisgood.com is entitled Government is Good “An Unapologetic Defense of a Vital Institution” A web project of Douglas J. Amy, Professor of Politics at Mount Holyoke College. How unbiased.

check out Sarah Palin’s religion – Third Wave. They believe Eve had Cain by way of Satan. Cain is where all the educated people come from. What a surprise!!!

I am white female, lifetime democrat, but fed up with greedy millionaires, greedy politicians and greedy welfare recipients.

Excellent job U of W — you managed to support a point you designed a survey to prove. I believe that Federal government social welfare programs are inefficient and ultimately hurt their target demography more than help. Had I been interviewed by this survey that would have made me racist. Limited government means limited government. Trying to tie big government to not being racist is atrocious scientific ethics, and these folks should be appalled for suggesting it.

I beleive this study….what do TP’ers want? A white president.

I do not think that Americans are “less positive and more critical of government”, but they are less passive and voicing their opinion about the government more! Now the racism issue is funny… Come on people there is no racism or any sort of prejudice at all in this country…