Occupy Wall Street vs the Tea Party

[finehoe]

If I may dig up one of my all-time favorite Onion articles:

79 Percent Of Americans Missing The Point EntirelyWASHINGTON, DCâ€"According to a Georgetown University study released Tuesday, 79 percent of Americans are missing the point entirely with regard to such wide-ranging topics as politics, consumerism, taxes, entertainment, fashion, and professional wrestling. . . .
I've been trying to organize my thoughts about the coverage of the Occupy Wall Street protests, not to mention the protests themselves, and I keep coming back to that Onion article,[1] because any way I look at it, just about everyone is missing the point.

The problem, and I suppose this was inevitable, is that Occupy Wall Street is being portrayed as some kind of anti-Tea Party. Left vs. right, blue vs. red, rock vs. country, et ceteraâ€"it's the only way we know how to draw battle lines anymore. But how are the two movements meaningfully different? I sure as hell can't figure it out. There are plenty of minor differences, mostly concerning priorities and demographics, but the similarities are much more substantial. Both are popular uprisings against powerful-but-nebulous entities believed to be responsible for America's economic struggles. Both are defined not by easily-identified leaders, but by the sum total of countless unique viewpoints, and thus are not capable of articulating their goals with any cohesiveness or specificity (nor should they be expected to). And both movements, to borrow the classification scheme created by Bill O'Reilly, are teeming with both pinheads and patriots.

And yet, over the last week or so each side has generated mountains of commentary saying, essentially, this: You know the one-sidedly [negative/positive] portrayal of the Tea Party we've been pushing for two and a half years now? Well Occupy Wall Street is totally the opposite!

Paul Krugman describes OWS as "a popular movement that, unlike the Tea Party, is angry at the right people." Meanwhile, Ann Coulter says the OWS protesters are angry at the wrong people (and also have poor hygiene, because why not?).
Keith Olbermann says OWS is legitimately a grassroots movement that, at least at first, was ignored by the media. Rush Limbaugh says the Tea Party is the "organic" one, while OWS was "manufactured" by the media.
ThinkProgess claims the OWS protests "better embody the values of the original Boston Tea Party." BigGovernment insists the protesters are "more aligned with Marxism; with Democratic Socialism; with Soviet Era Collectivism; with the very dangerous and elitist Progressive Movement" than with anything even remotely "American".
So it goes. It's hard to be honest and fair. It's easy to cobble together some empty rhetoric and lob it in the direction of those most inclined to assume the best about their friends and the worst about their enemies.[2]

Not that I have any special insight into who's least wrong, but I'm a big fan of the sentiments expressed in this Reason article:

Of course, the type of loudmouth gadflies who show up at all large outdoor political events, whether Tea Party gatherings, GOP coffee klatches, or Democratic National Conventions, can be found in Liberty Plaza. But to dismiss an entire movementâ€"one that is gathering momentum in cities all around the countryâ€"based on the inarticulateness of a few teenagers is entirely the wrong response. It's far more useful to try and understand what is going on here, to grok the meaning of these protesters' motivations, before prematurely passing summary judgment.
Exactly. We should pay less attention to the individual lunatics, and more attention to what a movement is really about. Occupy Wall Street, at its core, is a reaction to the increasing power and influence of large corporations. The Tea Party, at its core, is a reaction to the government's constant interference with private enterprise. But wait a minuteâ€"aren't those things connected?

Bailouts, subsidies, tax breaks, special rights and privileges, regulations designed to restrict competitionâ€"to name a few of the many ways the government protects and stimulates corporate interests, and those things are every bit as anti-free market as, not to mention directly related to, the high taxes and excessive bureaucracy that gets Tea Partiers riled up.[3] In other words, aren't these two groupsâ€"Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Partyâ€"raging against different halves of the same machine? Do I have to draw a Venn diagram here?

Oh, alright, I'll draw a Venn diagram:




Yeah, I'm oversimplifying, but only a little. The greatest threat to our economy is neither corporations nor the government. The greatest threat to our economy is both of them working together. There are currently two sizable coalitions of angry citizens that are almost on the same page about that, and they're too busy insulting each other to notice.


1. The best part is the quote at the end:

"If I want to miss the point, that's my own business," said Ernie Schayr, a Wheeling, WV, auto mechanic. "If I want to complain about having to pay taxes while at the same time demanding extra police protection for my neighborhood, that's my right as an American. Most people in other countries don't ever get the chance to miss the point, and that's tragic. The East Timorese are so busy fleeing for their lives, they never have the chance to go to the supermarket during the busiest time of the week and complain to the cashier about how long the lines are and ask them why they don't do something about it."

2. Here's a refreshing case of common sense and reason transcending partisanship: An open letter and warning from a former tea party movement adherent to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Naturally, the author is anonymous (as far as I can tell). By Reverend Vas Littlecrow Wojtanowicz.

3. By all means, leave a comment if you think I'm wrong, but it's a myth that big corporations are anti-government, right? They don't want to have to compete in a free market, they want to "compete" in an artificially restricted market.

http://howconservativesdrovemeaway.blogspot.com/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-vs-tea-party.html

[Ajax]

Where's the "Love" button on this thing? 

[JeffreyS]

I am so putting that diagram on Facebook.

[Sigma]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/advice_for_the_occupiers_from_a_tea_partier.html

Advice for the Occupiers from a Tea Partier
By Kender MacGowan

Hello, fellow protesters -- I'd like to offer some advice, in the spirit of camaraderie for your ongoing demonstrations.  You've been doing things in protests we Tea Partiers never did and you're having experiences I am unfamiliar with.  I think perhaps I can offer some advice to stop these events from occurring.  I see you've been having some trouble with the cops telling you to break it up and go home and then, when you don't, they shoot tear gas into the crowd and swarm in and bust skulls. 

We never had that at the Tea Party protests even though at some Tea Party events, some folks showed up packing heat, which you would think is more than reason enough for cops to come in and shut it down.  They never did, though, and there are probably several things we did that you haven't been successful at implementing.  What follows are some things we did that assured a tear gas- and baton-free event, and I offer them up simply as friendly advice.

1) Get permits. I know it's a bit of a pain and subtracts from your feeling of impromptu, grassroots, screw-the-system activism, but seriously, we have certain rules in place to help keep order and protect people from uncontrollable situations that get out of hand.  Plus it gives those "pigs" (do you hippies still call cops "pigs"?) one less reason to roust you.

2) Police yourselves.  I realize that part of your message is screw the system and you believe that folks should be able to do whatever, whenever and wherever they feel like it, but the fact of the matter is that illegal drugs are illegal drugs, and the feeling of power you may derive from having an "eff 'em -- just let them try to arrest me" attitude doesn't help your cause.  People out here are calling you dirty hippies.  You should work to get the general public on your side, not just the disaffected stoners, unemployed baristas, and out-of-work philosophy majors.

3) Have actual grievances with proposed solutions.  "Destroy capitalism" may sound fine in the abstract and look great sharpied across your girlfriend's torso, but it's really not a grievance.  Honestly, I have seen little beyond the standard communist sloganeering and heard little beyond a lot of talk about "unifying" (what you're unifying against and who is supposed to unify has also slipped my grasp), and frankly, after a month and more of protesting, I would think some of you could have come together and put in place a few talking points at least.  While you're at it, be consistent!  Calling for the Koch brothers to not support politicians and causes while not calling for Soros to do the same only shows your true agenda.

4) Find someone who is articulate and reasonably dressed to be your spokesperson.  Having someone with wild hair that looks filthy, wearing a shirt with Che Guevara on it, and holding a sign that says "eat the rich" is probably not the best way to go to engender sympathy in the community at large.  You may not think about it, but most of the people who watch the news and see you ranting about inequality probably just got home from a long day at work in the corporate world you're wanting to destroy, so getting those folks on your side would go a long way in helping you.

5) Hygiene!  Learn it.  Employ it.  Looking like a modern version of Haight Ashbury circa 1967 may give you credibility at the coffee shop where you hang out and rail against the world, but it just makes you look like a dirty hippie on TV and in newspaper photos.  Perhaps if you got a haircut and wore a suit and looked more like those you want to destroy, some people may be fooled into thinking you have a point.  (But again, you must first have an actual grievance and a proposed solution before that's really going to happen.  See point #3.)

6) Quit playing the drums. I know it's satisfying to bang your bongos, but seriously, it's monotonous and rather childish, which also happens to be the same description most thinking people give to your ideas as a whole.

7) Stop camping out. Bunches of people are saying, "Why don't these folks occupy a shower and a job?" (hearkening back to #5), and when you camp out for weeks, they don't think you're committed to a cause -- they think you're a lazy bum who doesn't have the 2 dollars a day it costs to camp in a campground.  You never saw the Tea Party camping out.  Granted, we Tea Parties weren't in the same boat as you Occupy kids; in other words, we had more at home waiting on us than an empty basement and a freezer full of Hot Pockets.  We had, you know, responsibilities and homes and families to care for, jobs to go to, and, generally, you know...a life.

Listen to the cops.  When they say leave, leave.  Cops have a tendency to tell you only things you really need to know, and "disperse" is generally followed by tear gas canisters -- and, if you don't get the message at that point, batons swinging through the smoke.  Face it: you kids don't have the knowledge or the guts to actually fight someone; in fact, part of your whole schtick is "war is not the answer" and "violence doesn't solve problems," but the truth is that it does, and the cops know it.

If you want to fight the system -- the very system, by the way, that has given you the freedom to sit around in a tent in the middle of major American cities for weeks on end and not die of starvation or exposure -- try to do it the old-fashioned way. 

Hire a lobbyist.

[Garden guy]

Hilarous that a group that could care less about the regular person is giving advise. Tpeople as republicans are about me...not we. Their ideas are...screw everyone else..i got mine...screw you. 

[Shine]

It’s interesting that both groups biggest grips are with the political parties that generally represent their membership.  OWSers are angry about repeals of Glass Steagle â€" signed into law by liberal icon Bill Clinton.  Tea Partiers are mad about big Federal entitlements and spending â€" conservative GW Bush set the records on those.   One side will not convert any significant votes from the other, nor will they get compliance from the rival side of the political spectrum.  Intramural reform will get the most traction for both.  Seek change from the inside out â€" or change will become further from you.

[FayeforCure]

It’s interesting that both groups biggest grips are with the political parties that generally represent their membership.  OWSers are angry about repeals of Glass Steagle â€" signed into law by liberal icon Bill Clinton.  Tea Partiers are mad about big Federal entitlements and spending â€" conservative GW Bush set the records on those.   One side will not convert any significant votes from the other, nor will they get compliance from the rival side of the political spectrum.  Intramural reform will get the most traction for both.  Seek change from the inside out â€" or change will become further from you.

Interesting observation!

Shine, I agree with you that Intramural reform is indeed what is needed, however as long as we haven't identified the real culprit of our destabilizing problems, we will not be able to accurately determine a systemic solution.

So far the camp claiming the "big Federal entitlements and spending" is winning, just as the 1% likes it...........since it bestowes "austerity" measures on the 99 percenters.

Of course ending both wars would have had the most significant impact on reducing our Federal spending, but as usual the right-winders prefer to extract even more from the sick, the poor and the elderly, rather than tackle the REAL and structural economic  problems we face.

Here is a handy chart that depicts how the tea-partiers have been helping the 1% maintain their iron grip on our economy, despite starting off with legitimate gripes regarding the bank bail-outs while leaving mainstreet behind.



More on this discussion in the secret "members only" forum here:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,13536.0.html

[Shine]

It would be interesting to find out the political affiliation of the “top 1%” â€" Guys like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, George Soros, etc are probably not hanging out at Rick Perry’s hunt club.  No segment of the population is monolithic.  People of wealth have influence, and that is not new.  The idea that people of wealth are part and parcel of the cause of the economic problems we have seen in the past 15 years is very likely to be accurate.  But, to say "they want it this way" cannot not be logical.  Much of the accumulation in wealth is in investments, stocks etc, that have performed poorly in the past decade.  Add to it a consuming population, the 99% that you call it, who has reduced spending power to create corporate profits, add  to rich people getting richer.   There is the issue of executive compensation, out of control  and unprecedented, and at the expense of the stock holder.  Take this out of the equation and you don’t see the non-typical gain in wealth frequently reported in the media.  That is because equities and the economy has not performed to create that wealth. But the question of "who is Wall Street" â€" well that would be about ½ of US households holding stock investments.

1% is a “Boogie Man” â€" no names, just a number.  More myth than reality.  BTW, I don’t see the current liberally dominated beltway officials doing much to reinstitute Glass/Steagall style reforms and other needed reforms on Wall Street.  OWS is anger.  Activism is a different matter.  Where is your draft bill to reform Wall Street?  Just Say’n.

[JeffreyS]

I do not support most of the things said by the TEA Party but I do not believe your list Faye represents the vast majority of the Tea Party supporters.

[JeffreyS]

Shine is your contention that Stocks have preformed poorly?  Remember 6500 just a two and a half years ago? The market has almost doubled under Obama.

Reduced spending power has come from both parties belief in trickle down economics.  They have supported free trade and therefor the small amount of trickle down that has occurred went to China and India.

Economics is simple just return to pre Regan Hamiltonian policies of tariffs, banking regulations  and organized labor. The rich and everyone else prospered like never before on this planet under Hamilton's system.

[FayeforCure]

It would be interesting to find out the political affiliation of the “top 1%” â€" Guys like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, George Soros, etc are probably not hanging out at Rick Perry’s hunt club.  No segment of the population is monolithic.  People of wealth have influence, and that is not new.  The idea that people of wealth are part and parcel of the cause of the economic problems we have seen in the past 15 years is very likely to be accurate.  But, to say "they want it this way" cannot not be logical.  Much of the accumulation in wealth is in investments, stocks etc, that have performed poorly in the past decade.  Add to it a consuming population, the 99% that you call it, who has reduced spending power to create corporate profits, add  to rich people getting richer.   There is the issue of executive compensation, out of control  and unprecedented, and at the expense of the stock holder.  Take this out of the equation and you don’t see the non-typical gain in wealth frequently reported in the media.  That is because equities and the economy has not performed to create that wealth. But the question of "who is Wall Street" â€" well that would be about ½ of US households holding stock investments.

1% is a “Boogie Man” â€" no names, just a number.  More myth than reality.  BTW, I don’t see the current liberally dominated beltway officials doing much to reinstitute Glass/Steagall style reforms and other needed reforms on Wall Street.  OWS is anger.  Activism is a different matter.  Where is your draft bill to reform Wall Street?  Just Say’n.

The top 1% of the population owns 42% of the wealth and receives 21% of income.

The top 1% is both Republican and Democratic.........the Republicans are upfront about their "protect the uber-rich" attitude compared to the Dems who occasionally mouth populist ideas but enable the Republicans nevertheless.

Our friend, President Obama, has been one of those too. And as far as my draft bill to reform Wall Street, a simple return to the Glass-Steagall act (as all progressives in 2008 advocated in their campaigns, including myself) is a really good start:

Wall Street is Still Out of Control: Why Obama Should Call for Glass-Steagall and a Breakup of Big Banks



Business & Economy | Robert Reich | October 28, 2011 4:45 pm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Summers, Rubin and Gramm celebrate President Clinton signing of bill repealing Glass Steagall

Next week President Obama travels to Wall Street where he’ll demand â€" in light of the Street’s continuing antics since the bailout, as well as its role in watering-down the Volcker rule â€" that the Glass-Steagall Act be resurrected and big banks be broken up.

I’m kidding. But it would be a smart move â€" politically and economically.

Politically smart because Mitt Romney is almost sure to be the Republican nominee, and Romney is the poster child for the pump-and-dump mentality that’s infected the financial industry and continues to jeopardize the American economy.

Romney was CEO of Bain & Company â€" a private-equity fund that bought up companies, fired employees to save money and boost performance, and then resold the firms at a nice markups.

Romney also epitomizes the pump-and-dump culture of America’s super rich. To take one example, he recently purchased a $3 million mansion in La Jolla, California (in addition to his other homes) that he’s razing in order build a brand new one.

What better way for Obama to distinguish himself from Romney than to condemn Wall Street’s antics since the bailout, and call for real reform?

Economically it would be smart for Obama to go after the Street right now because the Street’s lobbying muscle has reduced the Dodd-Frank financial reform law to a pale reflection of its former self. Dodd-Frank is rife with so many loopholes and exemptions that the largest Wall Street banks â€" larger by far than they were before the bailout â€" are back to many of their old tricks.

It’s impossible to know, for example, the exposure of the Street to European banks in danger of going under. To stay afloat, Europe’s banks will be forced to sell mountains of assets â€" among them, derivatives originating on the Street â€" and may have to reneg on or delay some repayments on loans from Wall Street banks.

The Street says it’s not worried because these assets are insured. But remember AIG? The fact Morgan Stanley and other big U.S. banks are taking a beating in the market suggests investors don’t believe the Street. This itself proves financial reform hasn’t gone far enough.

If you want more evidence, consider the fancy footwork by Bank of America in recent days. Hit by a credit downgrade last month, BofA just moved its riskiest derivatives from its Merrill Lynch unit to a retail subsidiary flush with insured deposits. That unit has a higher credit rating because the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (that is, you and me and other taxpayers) are backing the deposits. Result: BofA improves its bottom line at the expense of American taxpayers.

Wasn’t this supposed to be illegal? Keeping risky assets away from insured deposits had been a key principle of U.S. regulation for decades before the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

The so-called “Volcker rule” was supposed to remedy that. But under pressure of Wall Street’s lobbyists, the rule â€" as officially proposed last week â€" has morphed into almost 300 pages of regulatory mumbo-jumbo, riddled with exemptions and loopholes.

It would have been far simpler simply to ban proprietary trading from the jump. Why should banks ever be permitted to use peoples’ bank deposits â€" insured by the federal government â€" to place risky bets on the banks’ own behalf? Bring back Glass-Steagall.

http://www.ukprogressive.co.uk/wall-street-is-still-out-of-control-why-obama-should-call-for-glass-steagall-and-a-breakup-of-big-banks/article15343.html

[BridgeTroll]

The top 1% is both Republican and Democratic.........the Republicans are upfront about their "protect the rich" attitude compared to the Dems who occasionally mouth populist ideas but enable the Republicans nevertheless.

Are you telling us that democrat leadership are hypocrites??!!

[JeffreyS]

1% is a “Boogie Man” â€" no names, just a number.  More myth than reality.  BTW, I don’t see the current liberally dominated beltway officials doing much to reinstitute Glass/Steagall style reforms and other needed reforms on Wall Street.  OWS is anger.  Activism is a different matter.  Where is your draft bill to reform Wall Street?  Just Say’n.
R

This is an expression of anger that popped up.  A simple message of remember us the people who live here. Now you are seeing the chapters starting to organize and focus.  I am sure they are so sorry they didn't check off all the squares on some form you believe should be filled out in order to express disappointment in this country.  Sometimes day one is not the same as year two. Give me a break with all the put downs that the grassroots movement doesn't have the corporate polish of the corporately sponsored Tea Party.

The top 1% is both Republican and Democratic.........the Republicans are upfront about their "protect the rich" attitude compared to the Dems who occasionally mouth populist ideas but enable the Republicans nevertheless.

Are you telling us that democrat leadership are hypocrites??!!

Yes

[FayeforCure]

The top 1% is both Republican and Democratic.........the Republicans are upfront about their "protect the rich" attitude compared to the Dems who occasionally mouth populist ideas but enable the Republicans nevertheless.

Are you telling us that democrat leadership are hypocrites??!!

All politicians that are bought and paid for by corporations and answer only to those who can afford legions of paid lobbyists are hypocrites by definition.

We need to return to government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Public financing of campaigns will do that:

http://www.getmoneyout.com/

1/4 million Americans have already signed up for this idea!

[FayeforCure]

1% is a “Boogie Man” â€" no names, just a number.  More myth than reality.  BTW, I don’t see the current liberally dominated beltway officials doing much to reinstitute Glass/Steagall style reforms and other needed reforms on Wall Street.  OWS is anger.  Activism is a different matter.  Where is your draft bill to reform Wall Street?  Just Say’n.
R

This is an expression of anger that popped up.  A simple message of remember us the people who live here. Now you are seeing the chapters starting to organize and focus.  I am sure they are so sorry they didn't check off all the squares on some form you believe should be filled out in order to express disappointment in this country.  Sometimes day one is not the same as year two. Give me a break with all the put downs that the grassroots movement doesn't have the corporate polish of the corporately sponsored Tea Party.

Well said JeffreyS!

There is no question that the 1% exists and exerts its influence. Here is a prime example:

In January 2010, after Scott Brown's upset victory in the special Massachusetts Senate election, a panicky President Obama managed to sound like a populist for a couple of days. He called for a tax on banking profits and drafted Paul Volcker to appear at a quickie press conference so that the administration could call for something dubbed "The Volcker Rule."

Volcker, an impeccably conservative former Fed Chair skeptical about the abuses of financial de-regulation, was one of the few elder statesmen in 2010 with any credibility. Though Volcker was an early supporter of Obama and adviser to the campaign, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and economic adviser Larry Summers managed to marginalize Volcker because the old man turned out to be leery of their schemes to prop up the big banks without cleaning them out. Even worse, Volcker was nostalgic about the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, which had staved off big trouble for more than half a century by requiring that federally insured commercial banks stay out of the inherently speculative investment banking business.

Financial lobbies had finally succeeded in getting Glass-Steagall repealed in 1999, with Summers and Geithner cheering. Now the president, in big political trouble, was sending for Volcker the way one breaks glass in an emergency. But the so-called Volcker Rule, a phrase the White House made up, turned out to be Glass-Steagall lite.

Unlike the 1933 statute, Obama's so-called Volcker rule did not separate commercial banks from investment banks -- a nice clear bright line that was easy to police and hard to evade.

Rather, the administration's proposed Volcker Rule limited how much "proprietary trading" big consolidated banks could do. Trading, however, is only one of the many kinds of mischief bankers get into when the mix commercial banking and investment banking. The version of the rule that was included in the Dodd-Frank Act left details to the regulators.

Now the regulators have produced a 298-page set of proposed rules, and nobody is happy. The regulators have invited comment on no fewer than 350 questions. Bankers say the whole thing is too bureaucratic and will cut into their profitable lines of business. Consumer groups warn that the thing has too many loopholes. Wiseguys on Wall Street say it is child's play to disguise a proprietary trade for the bank's own account as a customer trade.

All, of course, are correct. It would have been far better policy to return to the simple bright line of the Glass-Steagall Act.

If you want to be a commercial bank, with federal deposit insurance, access to Federal Reserve advances, and a Good Housekeeping seal from regulators, great. You will have to follow closely policed rules. Alternatively, if you want to trade and speculate with your own money, go to it. But don't grow so big that you can bring down the whole system, stay out of the commercial lending business, and don't expect the government to bail out your bad bets.

That system worked very nicely. It was almost impossible to evade, and it didn't require 298-page regulations, with legions of regulators to police the creative evasions and gray areas.

The entire banking system has become far too complex -- too complex for economic efficiency and too complex to regulate.

The Obama administration proposed an ambiguous "Volcker Rule" rather than a clean return to Glass-Steagall because the so called rule would be easy to evade and would not interfere in any fundamental way with Wall Street's current business model.

It was Henry David Thoreau who observed, "Our life is frittered away by detail... simplify, simplify. Forget the Volcker rule.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/volcker-rule_b_1014606.html

(Just like HAMP was set up to fail)

This is the way Obama is Centrist.......ie corporate-minded, whereas the American Public is actually considered progressive (even the independents and Republicans if they would just realize this). In the Venn diagram, this is captured by the OWS bubble, and the piece overlapping with the tea-party:

The public agrees with OWS on health care: 65% of protesters believe government should guarantee health care for all. In the last major poll on the subject, 64% of voters said the same thing.

The public agrees with OWS on taxes: 77% of OWS participants want to raise taxes on the wealthy; according to the Marist polling organization, 68% of all voters - including 68% of independents - agree with them.

The public agrees with OWS on a secure retirement: 65% of protesters think the government should guarantee a secure retirement. 70% of all voters - including 73% of independents - agree with them.

Schoen may have tried to hide or skew his information, but he's given us enough to know that the demonstrators are smack dab in the mainstream of American public opinion. Their tax views are supported by an overwhelming majority of the public. Their views receive the overwhelming support of independents and are often supported by a majority of Republicans too.

And what about that Tea Party that Schoen's been pushing as the "new center" in American politics? Does the public agree with them, too? Er, not so much. The latest CNN poll shows that 53% of Americans disapprove of the Tea Party movement and only 28% approve. Those are the lowest numbers since the pollsters began tracking Tea Party popularity last year.

Oops. Looks like Schoen and Rasmussen will need to write a new book.

(One other thing: That CNN poll also shows that Hillary Clinton is still the country's most popular public figure. Just think what she might have accomplished if she hadn't used the firm of Penn, Schoen & Berland to run her last campaign.)

The Real Center

No wonder the faux-centrist/"Third Way" (Democratic) crowd hates OWS. The protests put the lie to phony notion that the "center" agrees with the corporate-funded policies they espouse. And they illustrate the fact that the real "center" holds opinions that are usually stigmatized as "progressive" inside the Beltway .

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/centrist-hit-job-accident_b_1016925.html