<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: By the Eternal! Jacksonian Tea People</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.wholesomereading.com/2010/04/17/by-the-eternal-jacksonian-tea-people/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.wholesomereading.com/2010/04/17/by-the-eternal-jacksonian-tea-people/</link>
	<description>Musings on culture and politics by baseball writer Steven Goldman</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 19 May 2012 11:16:38 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: David in Cal</title>
		<link>http://www.wholesomereading.com/2010/04/17/by-the-eternal-jacksonian-tea-people/#comment-1988</link>
		<dc:creator>David in Cal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Apr 2010 01:21:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wholesomereading.com/?p=783#comment-1988</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt; Tea People...have not articulated any viable plan for running the government&lt;/i&gt;

The series of attacks on Tea Partiers has jumped the shark.  First, there were too few of them to bother reporting.  Then they were sexual perverts -- "tea baggers".  Then they were weird kooks.   WShen that failed, they were too middle class. When that didn't work, they were racists.  Now the charges of using the N-word have been shown to be baseless, their opponents are reduced to claiming that they don't have a comprehensive plan for running the government.  

No group has such a plan.  People who support Health Reform wouldn't claim that Health Reform constitutes a comprehensive plan for running the government.  People who opposed the War in Iraq weren't asked to provide a comprehensive plan for running the government.  One doesn't need a comprehensive plan to oppose dramatic expansion of government.

In a prior thread, MG explained what Tea Partiers support: &lt;i&gt;they want less federal spending, less government takeover of industries, adherance to the Constitution, individual freedom and personal responsibility, a balanced budget and a simpler and fairer taxation system.&lt;/i&gt;

I think it's time for Tea Party opponents to stop looking for ways to demonize Tea Partiers and start addressing their issues on their merits.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i> Tea People&#8230;have not articulated any viable plan for running the government</i></p>
<p>The series of attacks on Tea Partiers has jumped the shark.  First, there were too few of them to bother reporting.  Then they were sexual perverts &#8212; &#8220;tea baggers&#8221;.  Then they were weird kooks.   WShen that failed, they were too middle class. When that didn&#8217;t work, they were racists.  Now the charges of using the N-word have been shown to be baseless, their opponents are reduced to claiming that they don&#8217;t have a comprehensive plan for running the government.  </p>
<p>No group has such a plan.  People who support Health Reform wouldn&#8217;t claim that Health Reform constitutes a comprehensive plan for running the government.  People who opposed the War in Iraq weren&#8217;t asked to provide a comprehensive plan for running the government.  One doesn&#8217;t need a comprehensive plan to oppose dramatic expansion of government.</p>
<p>In a prior thread, MG explained what Tea Partiers support: <i>they want less federal spending, less government takeover of industries, adherance to the Constitution, individual freedom and personal responsibility, a balanced budget and a simpler and fairer taxation system.</i></p>
<p>I think it&#8217;s time for Tea Party opponents to stop looking for ways to demonize Tea Partiers and start addressing their issues on their merits.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

