The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : I Sniffed Marc Cooper's Column

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

I Sniffed Marc Cooper's Column

By Quin Hillyer on 4.15.09 @ 10:52AM

I sniffed Marc Cooper's column today in the LA Times and found it can be described in the immortal words of Cheech and Chong: "Hmm... smells like dog $h!t.... Hmm.... TASTES like dog $h!t."

Why the sniffing analogy? Because here is how this stuck-up prig starts his insulting column: "The Web is buzzing with information about how to throw an anti-Obama Taxpayer Tea Party, something organizers hope will be held today from Santa Monica to South Carolina. But no need to burn up your bandwidth reading complicated instructions. Here's a simpler recipe: Go to a hobby store. Buy a scale model of a U.N. One-World-Government Black Helicopter and a tube of glue. Toss the model kit. Sniff the entire tube of glue. You're all set for the party."

Well, sniff this, Marc: We have no glue, and you have no clue. Cooper says the tea parties amount to "collective insanity" because federal revenues right now are historically low, so obviously taxes aren't too high. He accurately notes, however, that organizers say "the Tea Party movement began in reaction to President Obama's corporate bailouts and ensuing yawning budget deficits." But this supercilious peckinsniff still can't put two and two together. The point is that the "yawning budget deficits" will absolutely force HUGE tax hikes later on -- yes, for us and for our children and grandchildren -- and so the bailouts and "stimulus" orgies actually do amount to an immense tax hike without any Obamite admission thereof.

Cooper also just lies by writing this: "These same conservatives, however, were mum when George W. Bush erased our budget surplus and put us deep in the red." Uh, hello, Mr. Cooper, when did you evr come out of your ivory tower for the past six years to actually deign to listen to conservatives? If you had, you would have seen that "these same conservatives" were anything but mum about George Bush's spending. Most conservatives fought Bush and complained bitterly about his spending. No, we didn't go as far as to throw tea party protests -- but that's because even Bush's exorbitant spending didn't even come close to the obscene levels of today's Obamite-fascist economics. Finally, the tea parties protest not specifically against Obama so much as they protest against the entire Washington spending-and-corporatist establishment. If Cooper can't understand that, then his brain clearly is all sniffed out.

View all comments (9) | Leave a comment

Becky| 4.15.09 @ 11:44AM

While the tax hikes haven't happened yet, they are being seriously discussed in connection to the new federal budget, which hasn't passed yet either. If I get jharp's point, that makes the president's call for house parties unbelievable too. I suspect for some, the new way of politics, with networking replacing traditional party campaigning, has led some of the tea party participants to get involved.

From what I am led to understand there are only a few ways to pay for the President's plans: raise taxes, print more money (basically tax hikes on everyone), and borrow (the Chinese are getting wobbly). A fourth will be to cut spending, a real cut, not a decrease in the increase, something that seems highly doubtful.

It doesn't seem that we should need people in the streets, but as we have become more democratic verse republican (structures, not parties), this is what we see.

Michigan raised taxes a few years ago, on the belief it would solve budget problems. Guess what? Revenue is lower, leading to more increases in fees, permits, etc. Maybe some of us can see the handwriting on the wall.

Al| 4.15.09 @ 12:00PM

What is so disturbing about the overall reaction to the protests, by the MSM and the Lefty bloggers and posters, is the wiff of fascist intolerance. How dare anyone protest now that the Left runs the government? These guys label all who disagree with them as "right wing extremists" or worse, and still actually believe in their hearts that they support "diversity." What happened to all that stuff about dissent and patriotism? One more thing: Angry Leftists Nanny-Staters: please at least come up with logical criticisms. You weren't paying attention to the conservative outcry against spending, earmarks, etc for the past four years? You don't understand that today's trillion dollar deficits are tomorrow's tax hikes and economic hardships? You don't grasp your own hypocricy in your silence about deficits now that your side runs things? You look very foolish.

rad| 4.15.09 @ 12:11PM

To Quin Hillyer
You use of the term "teabagging" gives you away and is offensive at best. We are conservatives protesting the tax and spend policies of Washington, not teabaggers. We are attending tea parties, not teabagging. Your reasoning about our protests is also wrong. We are protesting the current spending spree by Congress and the White House, not some illusory future tax hike, although as an economist, I can attest to the fact that our future will be full of additional taxes to pay for this obscene spending or it will be paid for by the monitorization of our debt, specifically inflation. Either choice is worthy of protest today.

rad| 4.15.09 @ 12:14PM

Sorry. The above post is directed to jharp, not Quin Hillyer. Just another Monday.

eaglewingz08| 4.15.09 @ 12:50PM

You didn't get 'teabagging' from conservative sites as their references to tea PARTIES, but if you got the term there, it was stating the descriptions of liberal libeling reporters were giving to the grass roots movement. Jharp shows the classic liberal frame of reference, if some danger is not immediate then we should take no action against it. The threat from AQ wasn't immediate so liberals took no action against it. The threat from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae wasn't immediate, so liberals battled against any sensible regulations to prevent the catastrophe now upon us. Jharp states that taxes aren't being raised today, but that just shows his need of a cluebat. The deficit is already One Trillion Dollars, and will go up to TWO Trillion dollars by the end of this fiscal years due to Mr. Obama's reckless and inflationary budget. If Mr. Obama gets every one of his budgets during the next four to eight years, he will add five trillion dollars (doubling the national debt) just in his first term in office, and would add another FIVE trillion dollars in debt if he were elected to a second term. He's already quadrupled the budget deficit that Mr. Bush had when he left office. And Obama is going to have to tax the middle class steeply (his budget increases each household's share of these deficits to around $60,000) because if you taxed the top 10 percent of taxpayers, 100 percent of their income (these taxpayers currently account for nearly three quarters of government income tax collections-wonder what jharp would say about 10percent being compelled to pay 75 percent of all taxes by the other ninety percent?) that still would not be enough to meet Obama's budget deficits AND his annual budgets which would be at least 4 trillion a year or more for eight years=32 TRILLION DOLLARS. Now who is going to finance such reckless and massive spending? The Chinese are pulling back on purchasing treasuries, and other economies don't have the ready capital to do that.
So what happens when Mr. Obama breaks the bank (if he isn't stopped in his socialist tracks)?

TaxedMan| 4.15.09 @ 1:33PM

Based on what I've seen, those that use the term "teabagger" to describe TEA Party attendees seem to the enjoy the prospect of taking it up the ass from the government.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. You're entitled to your opinion, even if it demonstrates zero understanding of what these TEA Parties are actually about.