I've noticed a lot of Tea Party members and supporters are now getting upset and indignantly challenging offhanded references to the "Teabagger" term. They seem to have forgotten that critics of the Tea Party movement did not originate this term.

The "Teabagger" label was created by Tea Partiers themselves and bandied about as a term of endearment between supporters and other like minded Tea Party folks. Even commentators and reporters from the pro-Tea Party Fox News Channel repeatedly referred to members as "Teabaggers" as a legitimate term -- since this is what the Tea Partiers called themselves.

see: http://www.youtube.com/v/F26vC_1_8xw&hl=en&fs=1

This self-celebration of the "Teabagger" label even culminated to the point of Tea Partiers proudly dangling instant tea bags by their strings, as some odd idea of fraternal solidarity. Ya Rly.

Now many Tea Partiers no longer like this phrase. Because some bright members discovered word "teabag", when co-opted as a verb, has a sexual slang connotation in US English. With sadness, their term "Teabagger" all of a sudden became pejorative in a most unfortunate way.

But, the English language has a long and rich history of taking relatively benign words and attaching perceived negative connotations. "Gay" used to always mean "happy, or merry" and "faggot" used to always refer to "a stick of wood, as used for a fire".

There are also many examples in history of how a pejorative term was turned into a positive affirmation identifying a brotherhood of like-minded community members. For example, 2000 years ago, the word "Christian" was created by pagan Greeks and Romans and used as a pejorative. 300 years ago, both the terms "democrat" and "republican" were serious insults to any lady or gentleman of polite society.

Well, now is the time for all good Tea Partying conservatives to turn the tables. Take one of the phrases back from the degenerates of society. Fight for your rights to "own the insult," and then use it against them for all that is Right and Just. Do this just as the Christians and the Democratic-Republicans, whom you so admire, themselves did so many years ago.

So, Teabaggers, go forth and shout it from the hills and rooftops:

"Teabaggers! Rise up! Wear the Teabagger label proudly and live in fear no longer! Teabaggers take your country, and your native English language, back from the deviant socialist hordes!"

9/23/2010 11:37:27 AM

in before the ". . . just wait till november. . . " line

9/23/2010 11:42:06 AM

remember, remember
the 5th of november

9/23/2010 3:45:17 PM

Try testicular torsion of teabaggers.

9/23/2010 3:57:03 PM

so, where did you copy and paste this from?

9/23/2010 7:11:16 PM

copy-paste back at ya...

Tea Hee
This column has not had much to say about the "tea party" protest movement, largely because protests are not our cup of tea. Our favored idioms of expression are the argument and the bon mot; slogans and chants make us uncomfortable.

That said, the tea-party phenomenon is an interesting one. The American left has an extensive protest culture, an outgrowth of the highly effective civil rights marches of the 1950s and '60s and the anti-Vietnam protests of the late '60s. Any U.S. military intervention or meeting of an international economic organization is bound to lead to organized protests, as are a variety of other political events and issues. The multiplication of left-wing protests has cheapened their currency, so that nowadays they neither reflect nor inspire serious political change--although news reporters seem to feel obliged to treat them as if they did.

The tea parties, by contrast, are noteworthy, because they are something new. Apart from opponents of abortion, the American right really has no protest culture to speak of. So when large groups of people start gathering in cities around the country to protest the expansion of government, that is news.

Yet although the tea parties seem to have received considerable coverage from local news outlets, the national media were slow even to realize anything was happening. A reader discovered this hilarious exchange from an April 13 online chat with Washington Post reporter Robert Barnes:

Quote :

"Wilmington, NC: Is the Washington Post hosting any tax day "tea parties"? Why, or why not? Robert Barnes: Huh?"

In fairness, the Post Web site includes many later stories on the April 15 protests. It can no longer be said that journalists are ignoring the tea parties. But some of them are treating them in a remarkably derisive way.

Here's the lead paragraph of an April 15 Associated Press dispatch: "Whipped up by conservative commentators and bloggers, tens of thousands of protesters staged 'tea parties' around the country Wednesday to tap into the collective angst stirred up by a bad economy, government spending and bailouts." We defy anyone to find an AP story on a left-wing protest that begins by telling readers who "whipped up" the demonstrators.

The worst offenders have been on CNN. NewsBusters.org describes an exchange on the April 14 episode of "Anderson Cooper 360":

Quote :

"After CNN's senior political analyst David Gergen remarked that Republicans were "searching for their voice" after two electoral losses, Cooper quipped, "It's hard to talk when you're tea-bagging.""

This Web site is published by a family newspaper, so suffice it to say that "tea-bagging" is gay slang for a sexual act that would indeed inhibit articulation. If you want a more precise definition, go to UrbanDictionary.com--or to this NewsBusters item, which describes a puerile rant by MSNBC's David Shuster--best known for being temporarily banished from the screen last year after making a vulgar joke at Chelsea Clinton's expense--sitting in for Keith Olbermann on April 13. Sample:

Quote :

"For most Americans, Wednesday, April 15 will be Tax Day. But in our fourth story tonight: It's going to be teabagging day for the right-wing and they're going nuts for it. Thousands of them whipped out the festivities early this past weekend, and while the parties are officially toothless, the teabaggers are full-throated about their goals."

The NewsBusters item has lots more along these lines from MSNBC.

Yet another NewsBusters item describes the scene when CNN correspondent Susan Roesgen covered a tea party in Chicago:

Quote :

"Roesgen asked a man holding his toddler, "Why are you here today?" The man started to respond saying, "Because I hear a president say that he believed in what Lincoln stood for. Lincoln's primary thing was he believed people had the right to liberty and they had the right . . ." But Roesgen cut him off him [sic], saying, "But sir, what does that have to do with taxes? What does this have to do with your taxes?" She continued asking questions over his as he asked her to "let me finish my point." One crowd member was heard to yell "shut up" to the [sic] Roesgen. When the man finished his statement about people having the "right to the fruits of their own labor" and "government should not take it," Roesgen began arguing with him again and other protesters began to get upset. Roesgen backed away claiming that "you get the general tenor of this," tea party. "Anti-government, anti-CNN since this is highly promoted by the right-wing conservative network Fox and since I can't really hear much more and I think this is not really family viewing. Toss it back to you Kyra," Roesgen concluded."

A YouTube video posted by FoundingBloggers.com shows the CNN segment. When Roesgen interrupts the man, she also argues forcefully on behalf of President Obama's fiscal policies. "Do you realize," she asks him, in a tone more hectoring than inquisitive, "that you're eligible for a $400 tax credit?" Then, in the same tone, "Wait! Did you know that the state of Lincoln"--presumably she means Illinois--"gets $50 billion out of the stimulus? That's $50 billion for this state, sir."

FoundingBloggers taped an argument that ensued after the CNN report ended, in which a woman confronts Roesgen and accuses her of unfairly characterizing the protest and of singling out crazies in the crowd. It must be acknowledged that the unidentified female protester is herself antagonistic toward Roesgen. But Roesgen, unlike her, has a duty to maintain an air of professional detachment.

We'd be surprised to find a reporter for CNN--or, for that matter, one from Fox News Channel, frequently tagged as a right-wing outfit--behaving in such an antagonistic fashion toward left-wing protesters. Even Evan Maloney, in his 2003 "Protesting the Protesters" video, took a totally respectful tone in interviewing anti-Iraq demonstrators, though his intention obviously was to show that they were foolish.

MSNBC has carved out a niche for itself as a left-wing advocacy network. Although this puts NBC journalists in an awkward position, it seems pointless to fault Keith Olbermann's co-host for acting like Olbermann. And, to be sure, this columnist has been known to have a laugh at the expense of left-wing protesters, as in this April 2000 report from Washington. Sauce for the gander and all that. But we are in the business of opinion writing. Cooper and Roesgen are supposed to be newsmen, not opposite-sex fowl.


=========
James Taranto, Best of the Web
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB124041107420443821.html#TEA

9/23/2010 7:46:17 PM

^ so that's what you gathered in the 5 weeks you were gone?

9/23/2010 7:50:01 PM

Quote :

"Apart from opponents of abortion, the American right really has no protest culture to speak of."

the old-school Patriot movement and the anti-immigrant protests of the 1990s must not be spoken of, even as their heirs, the Teabaggers, continue their legacy

9/23/2010 8:28:08 PM

Quote :

"so, where did you copy and paste this from?"

eh, it's mine, i was going to post it on another political debate forum, but then i got suspended from the site (for excessive taunting of teabaggers) before i could.

so there i was with a ship all ready to sail, but no dock to launch it from.


[free thread]

9/24/2010 4:51:48 PM

I'm proud to be a teabagger.


http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2010/04/14/im-proud-to-be-a-tea-bagger/

9/25/2010 4:28:26 AM

I guess this shows the political diversity of TWW

based on your posts in another thread I pegged you as a Teabagger despite your earlier humorous riposte of them

9/25/2010 4:32:29 AM

youre just mad because i refuse to wear a dress to your party.

9/25/2010 4:59:37 AM

lol no

if you can't pass you'll just make a fool of yourself

9/25/2010 11:41:13 AM

won't be the first time

9/25/2010 3:35:47 PM

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer

are you guys familiar with the involvement of the Koch family in the Tea Party's so-called grass roots campaigning?

9/27/2010 12:10:55 AM

yeah, it's a Koch-and-bull affair

9/27/2010 12:11:29 AM

i love how so-called "lifelong libertarians" will so readily hand social controls to moralizing fundamentalists

9/27/2010 11:02:09 AM

Libertarians, too, are capable of prioritizing. Some election cycles libertarians vote democrat, because of fears of the patriot act, etc. But, most election cycles they go republican because of economic fears.

But even this is just 20% or so. The vast majority of libertarians don't vote out of fear that "voting just encourages them." This election will be no different.

9/27/2010 11:17:51 AM

you must get an SMS text alert anytime someone types the word 'libertarian' here.

9/27/2010 11:27:38 AM

Quote :

"The vast majority of libertarians don't vote"

LOL, wait, did you really say this? do you people really hate freedom so much?

or is this your way to rationalize to yourself why out of so many brilliant candidates, the Libertarian Party averages about 1% of the vote?

9/27/2010 1:47:17 PM

No, just check the voting numbers. In the last midterm election, only 33% of voting-age Americans voted. I would feel safe saying that the majority of Democrats aren't going to vote this election. Nevermind a political movement whose candidates do not even appear on maybe 70% of ballots.

[Edited on September 27, 2010 at 5:20 PM. Reason : .,.]

9/27/2010 5:19:27 PM

Quote :

"What’s noteworthy is that the movement’s anti-authoritarian tone has establishment statists so upset. They seem really worried that this thing could get out of control. Any legitimate criticism they may make of the Tea Party movement is undermined by their abhorrence with anti- authoritarianism per se. They are anti-anti-authoritarian."

http://www.counterpunch.org/richman09292010.html

9/30/2010 10:56:57 AM

Quote :

"are you guys familiar with the involvement of the Koch family in the Tea Party's so-called grass roots campaigning?"

Goodness, someone with wealth and power is supporting a political movement which is beneficial to them. This has NEVER been done in the history of the United States!


Are you then arguing that the entire legacy of the Kennedys, President Obama and President Clinton's were farces just because there was a combination of popular support and wealthy financing backing them?

[Edited on September 30, 2010 at 11:11 AM. Reason : Jesus.]

9/30/2010 11:09:41 AM

What I love is someone said "I learned all I need to know about Muslims on 9/11" at the Beck Rally. At that time The Onion ran a joke article about someone saying the same exact line. They obviously were mocking that sort of thinking.

9/30/2010 4:23:00 PM

I didn't read it yet but I imagine Taibbi's takedown of the Tea Party is good in his biased sort of style.

9/30/2010 5:00:45 PM

^http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/210904#

Quote :

""I'm anti-spending and anti-government," crows David, as scooter-bound Janice looks on. "The welfare state is out of control." "OK," I say. "And what do you do for a living?" "Me?" he says proudly. "Oh, I'm a property appraiser. Have been my whole life." I frown. "Are either of you on Medicare?" Silence: Then Janice, a nice enough woman, it seems, slowly raises her hand, offering a faint smile, as if to say, You got me! "Let me get this straight," I say to David. "You've been picking up a check from the government for decades, as a tax assessor, and your wife is on Medicare. How can you complain about the welfare state?" "Well," he says, "there's a lot of people on welfare who don't deserve it. Too many people are living off the government." "But," I protest, "you live off the government. And have been your whole life!""

10/1/2010 10:58:01 AM

Quote :

""Well," he says, "there's a lot of people on welfare who don't deserve it. Too many people are living off the government.""

Translation: inner city blacks live in crappy low-cost boxes thrown up by the government and I DON'T LIKE IT WAHHHHHHH

10/1/2010 11:11:25 AM

y'know, I doubt they could even articulate it to that level of detail, even if they wanted to be honest with themselves.

I think repeating alarmist slogans is pretty much the full gamut of the average teabagger's knowledge base.

10/1/2010 1:39:07 PM

^^^You can be anti-welfare and still get welfare. I'm against the government subsidizing student loans, but I took out a subsidized student loan. Now, I can justify it by saying I never consented to paying taxes, and it's yet another way of getting my money back, but really it's self interest. People think they've found some great "gotcha!" when they find someone benefitting from the government they're against, but all they've done is discovered moral hazard.

[Edited on October 1, 2010 at 1:52 PM. Reason : ]

10/1/2010 1:51:06 PM

Quote :

"I'm against the government subsidizing student loans, but I took out a subsidized student loan."

libertarian_college_kid.txt

[Edited on October 1, 2010 at 2:03 PM. Reason : lol]

10/1/2010 2:03:35 PM

Good one, buddy. Haven't been in college for a couple years now. Stereotyping is so much easier than thinking, sometimes.

10/1/2010 3:29:24 PM

I'm totally against homosexuality. I just like an occasional circle jerk.



WIDE STANCE KITTEH

[Edited on October 1, 2010 at 3:34 PM. Reason : ]

10/1/2010 3:30:43 PM

Quote :

"^^^You can be anti-welfare and still get welfare."

This might make sense if these people were willing to give up their own welfare to get rid of the welfare state. Clearly, that's not the case:

Quote :

""Well," he says, "there's a lot of people on welfare who don't deserve it. Too many people are living off the government.""

10/1/2010 4:00:18 PM

Yeah, I don't how to take that. Are they saying they do deserve it? Perhaps they feel they've worked and been of value to society, so they're deserving, while others have only leeched off the system. No one is going to willfully give up the benefits they've been handed for free. It would make no sense to. There's never a scenario where if you do take a stand out of principle, the system will be reformed. It's not like masses of people are going to start saying "pass" on government cheese. I'd rather take what I can, while I can.

10/1/2010 4:09:52 PM

It just illustrates that you and people like you are not idealistic about their "anti-welfare" stance at all. It appears hypocritical and undermines your stance. Yes one can be "anti-welfare" and receive voluntary welfare, but one then looks like a douche.

10/1/2010 4:13:21 PM

Quote :

"You can be anti-welfare and still get welfare"

True.
Also, you can be anti-government subsidizing student loans, but get one.

Personal hypocrisy doesn't cause opposition to something to disappear...

The attitude (one I personally don't have,) could be, "Well, as long as they're giving out free money, which they shouldn't, I'll take some of it, and donate it to the Cato Institute."

Not totally different from, "Well, as long pot prohibition exists, creating a black market where people can make illegal profits, which it shouldn't, I'll make some of those profits, and donate them to NORML."

Either way, if the prohibition or welfare is ended, you can no longer exploit them, but exploiting them while you can? Hypocritical sure, but it doesn't take away from the position.

[Edited on October 1, 2010 at 4:15 PM. Reason : ]

10/1/2010 4:14:13 PM

^^^Nobody is suggesting they voluntarily give it up while it's being offered (although that's what you would do if you really gave a shit about the issue).

The thing is they're only fighting against the types of welfare they're not getting at the moment. For example, that woman is on Medicare so that couple isn't against Medicare. And collectively, they're tapping all kinds of government programs, so nothing is going to get reformed.

10/1/2010 4:33:45 PM

That is not hypocritical. Hypocritical would be someone that is against welfare for GE, but lobbies to gain welfare for their own company. Or someone that is against welfare for the poor, then throws a fit when their own welfare program is cut off.

By your definition, anyone that pays taxes is being hypocritical, because there must be something the government is doing with your money that you don't approve of. By your definition, we are all morally bankrupt unless we commit suicide or just happen to agree 100% with whatever congress does.

People have no choice but to live within the rules of this society. What they want the rules to be should have no basis upon how they act within the rules that are. In my opinion, all that is required to avoid hypocrisy, is for the individual on welfare to proclaim "good riddance" on the day their welfare is repealed.

That, of course, leaves out other libertarian theories over "draining the beast". Every dollar we milk out of the government, is one less dollar it has to wreck the planet. I am against tax deductions, I think they are immoral, but I hope everyone takes advantage of every damn tax deduction on the books, even going so far as to spend $1000 on a tax attorney to obtain a $1000 tax deduction.

10/1/2010 4:52:07 PM

I mean, theoretically you can choose to not pay taxes, but functionally I think it's fair to call them compulsory.

I also think it's fair to call it hypocrisy when being against a non-compulsory system while gaining benefit from said non-compulsory system.

A better analogy would be being against McDonald's while gaining profits from McDonald's. Taxes aren't a fair comparison.

Quote :

"People have no choice but to live within the rules of this society."

Voluntary welfare is voluntary. Not "voluntary-up-to-the-moment-that-it's-taken-away-from-you." You opt-in and can opt-out at any moment you choose. Not opting-out is a deliberate choice.

Quote :

"That, of course, leaves out other libertarian theories over "draining the beast". Every dollar we milk out of the government, is one less dollar it has to wreck the planet."

Which is one more dollar they budget to tax us. "Draining the beast" sounds like bullshit.

[Edited on October 1, 2010 at 5:01 PM. Reason : .]

10/1/2010 4:56:10 PM

Quote :

"Or someone that is against welfare for the poor, then throws a fit when their own welfare program is cut off."

umm, thats exactly what those people (in the article) are doing

10/1/2010 4:57:36 PM

Quote :

"It just illustrates that you and people like you are not idealistic about their "anti-welfare" stance at all. It appears hypocritical and undermines your stance. Yes one can be "anti-welfare" and receive voluntary welfare, but one then looks like a douche."

What do you mean by idealistic here? Nothing I have said is hypocritical. I haven't said that accepting welfare (even when you don't really need it) is wrong. Every person on this planet has a moral obligation to survive and improve their own standing in life. I can't blame anyone for doing that.

Quote :

"Either way, if the prohibition or welfare is ended, you can no longer exploit them, but exploiting them while you can? Hypocritical sure, but it doesn't take away from the position."

Again, it's not hypocritical unless you've said "people shouldn't seek out/get welfare."

Quote :

"Nobody is suggesting they voluntarily give it up while it's being offered (although that's what you would do if you really gave a shit about the issue)."

Why? Does one person "taking a stand," while everyone else continues to reap the benefits of the system, really change anything? If you cared about the issue, you would try to educate people so they'd stop voting for idiots.

Quote :

"Which is one more dollar they budget to tax us. "Draining the beast" sounds like bullshit."

If we had a legitimate federal budget, yes, that would be the case. Of course, we don't. Our tax revenue per year can barely cover the deficit, much less total expenditures. The government figured out a long time ago that they can dole out benefits without having to raise taxes. It's easy, just sell bonds. If no one wants to buy bonds, sell em to the central bank. The politicians stay in office, the people think they're getting something for nothing, and we can happily continue along the same road to perdition that so many failed states have been down before.

10/1/2010 7:50:26 PM

Quote :

"Again, it's not hypocritical unless you've said "people shouldn't seek out/get welfare.""

Good point. It would be hypocritical for me to look down on people getting welfare and then turn around and get welfare myself. However, arguing that the government should stop offering welfare, it would not be hypocritical to apply for it.

Quote :

"umm, thats exactly what those people (in the article) are doing"

Then they are hypocrites.

Quote :

"Which is one more dollar they budget to tax us. "Draining the beast" sounds like bullshit."

Angering the populace and leading to "change" in the political system. By driving up the cost of offering welfare, we might make people think twice before accepting such programs.

10/1/2010 9:21:21 PM

Teabaggers actually despise the Constitution and our nation's founding principles...

Quote :

"The same right-wingers who happily accepted George W. Bush’s shift toward a police state – his claims of limitless executive power, warrantless wiretaps, repudiation of habeas corpus, redefining cruel and unusual punishment, suppression of dissent, creation of massive databases on citizens, arbitrary no-fly lists, and endless overseas wars – have now reinvented themselves as brave protectors of American liberty. ... And what to do with Section Eight of Article One, which gives Congress the power to levy taxes, borrow money, regulate commerce among the states, and “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”? If one were to buy into the Tea Party’s interpretation of the founding document, you’d have to denounce such concepts as “socialism” and/or “intrusions” on states’ rights. Part of the Tea Party’s mythology is that federal taxes are an unconstitutional imposition invented by modern-day “lib-rhuls,” that the national debt is another new thing, and that regulation of commerce is outside federal authority. Surely, there can be honest debates about what’s the best way to “promote the general Welfare,” or the wisest balance between taxation and debt, or the proper role of states in enforcing laws when there is a federal interest (as with Arizona’s anti-immigrant “present your papers” law). But the pretense of the Tea Party is that the U.S. Constitution is definitive on these points and that the Founders favored today’s right-wing interpretation of the federal government’s powers, i.e. that taxes, debt and regulation of commerce are somehow unconstitutional. ... But the larger truth that the Tea Partiers don’t want to acknowledge is that the Constitution represented a major power grab by the federal government, when compared to the loosely drawn Articles of Confederation, which lacked federal taxing authority and other national powers. The Founders also recognized that changing circumstances would require modification of the Constitution which is why they provided for amendments. Indeed, the primary limitations on federal authority were included in the first ten amendments, called the Bill of Rights. Subsequent amendments included the eradication of slavery and extending the vote to blacks, and later to women. ... Tea Partiers...have been less interested in the document’s protection of civil liberties, especially when the targets of abuse are Muslims, Hispanics, blacks and anti-war dissenters. Many on the Right have found plenty of justifications to trample on the rights of these minorities, even when the actions violate clear-cut mandates in the Constitution, such as the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of “probable cause” before the government can engage in search and seizure and the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on inflicting “cruel and unusual punishment.” Especially when the Right’s hero George W. Bush was violating those rights last decade, there were word games to explain the unexplainable. ... Many on the American Right also insist that the Founders created a “Christian nation,” even though the word “Christian” is nowhere to be found in the Constitution and the Founders pointedly set no religious exclusions for those serving in the U.S. government. ... Curiously, too, while supposedly revering the Constitution and its original intent, the Tea Partiers and their Republican allies simultaneously are proposing a radical revision of the founding document, an amendment that would allow a super-majority of states to overturn laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the president. This neo-nullificationism smacks of South Carolina’s resistance to President Andrew Jackson’s federalism in the 1830s, a clash that set the stage for the Confederacy’s secession and the Civil War in the 1860s."

...news at 11: http://www.alternet.org/news/149377/we're_headed_for_a_major_battle_with_the_tea_party_crowd_over_the_constitution_itself?page=entire

1/3/2011 7:41:34 AM

Quote :

"an amendment that would allow a super-majority of states to overturn laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the president."

Nevermind that quoting from Alternet is roughly the same as quoting from World Net Daily, perhaps if the article author had ever read his copy of the constitution he would note that such a section already exists, namely Article V.

[Edited on January 3, 2011 at 7:50 AM. Reason : asdf]

1/3/2011 7:50:44 AM

The article that AlterNet quoted from later in that article says that the proposed amendment reduces that supermajority from 3/4 to 2/3: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/opinion/27mon2.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

Also the main difference between AlterNet and WND is that AlterNet has some connection to reality; it's not as strictly fact-based as the mainstream media, concerning itself more with opinion, but it is still well within the reality-based community.

1/3/2011 7:57:42 AM

The Tea Party is nothing but a GOP rebranding campaign, using the same faux-grassroots angle that the Obama campaign did, mixed with an aping of lefitst protest culture of the 90's and 00's. The funding for organization comes from the same deep pockets that have been funding right wing PAC's and lobbyist groups for years, and by publicizing the same right-wing populist angst that's existed for decades it creates the illusion of a genuine uprising. It's a joke but then again so is most of American political discourse so they're just as effective as the next group.

1/5/2011 1:52:12 PM

that's some straight-up foolishness

1/5/2011 2:31:33 PM

Alternative narrative: A national assemblage of grassroots activists wheeled their Rascal scooters up to the computer, logged into their AOL accounts, and organized a series of protests that caught the eye of Fox News for their tenacity and unique, original message of lower taxes and smaller government.

1/11/2011 1:52:36 PM