"Where Are the Tea Party Protests About Wall Street?"

[TomCADem]

Nice call by Cenk. The Tea Partiers sitting out protests against Wall Street, or worse, demonstrating in support of Wall Street as was the case in Tennessee, would be the equivalent of Mothers Against Drunk Driving demonstrating in favor of lowering the drinking age.

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/42764

We’re down to the wire here on financial reform. I can’t think of a better time to put pressure on Wall Street and Washington to make sure there is adequate regulation to ensure that we never have another bailout. The AFL-CIO is about to have a protest at Wall Street on April 29th. Great, that makes sense. I’m sure the right-wing groups who are also upset about the bailouts will join them.

If you remember, the Tea Parties were originally formed to protest the bailouts. They were so mad at the Wall Street bankers who destroyed the economy and then took our hard earned money for their efforts.

So, they will take this opportunity, of course, to launch their own protest of Wall Street. They will protest the TARP money, the easy credit, the lack of regulation, the wild risk taking and the excessive bonuses paid with taxpayer money. They’re really going to take the fight to them.

Just kidding. They’re not going to do anything. They’re going to sit out this fight on financial reform and put absolutely no pressure on Wall Street at all. Because they are tools easily manipulated by right-wing organizations funded by corporate America.

I really feel sorry for them. They’re dupes. They think they are so fiercely independent when in fact they are the most easily manipulated people in the country. All that anger toward the power establishment and what happened? They were used by that same establishment to fight against health care reform and to try to protect the health insurance companies. Suckers.

[liberal N proud]

1. Does FOX cover Wall-Street fraud?

[TheOther95Percent]

2. *Crickets*

Too bad. Methinks the misspelled signs would be a hoot.

[Igel]

3. I'm not sure I agree with the premise.

"If you remember, the Tea Parties were originally formed to protest the bailouts. They were so mad at the Wall Street bankers who destroyed the economy and then took our hard earned money for their efforts."

To protest the bailouts, yes. But the bailouts had three parts: a sum of money, a source, and a destination.

The OP makes it all about the destination. But it was the sum of money and the source that figured more prominently. Even for those mad, as most were, at the destination, it was still the sum of money and the destination. Not the destination by itself.

It's very easy to accuse the other side of hypocrisy when they don't even try to live up to your professed ideals for them. It's just not a very satisfying accusation to make, at least not if you're into more than the accusational equivalent of Cheetos.

[AzNick]

4. I have been hammering this question myself

And I advise everyone does the same.