can it, ross!

ross douthat, you imbecile.

when someone who is creating a sample has an obvious bias, as in A FUCKING INTERN FROM THE CATO INSTITUTE, you have to take their findings with a grain of salt. now, you also say that 5% of 250 tea party signs referenced president obama's race or religion. that is 12 1/2 signs. how does 1/2 a sign reference race or religion? you ass. and also, the fact that 5% of the signs referenced obama's race or religion and 1% (oh, 2 1/2 signs?) questioned his birth certificate's validity is all well and good, but you have to take into account the fact that THE PERSON ASSEMBLING THE DATA HAD A CLEAR AGENDA and the fact that NOT EVERYBODY WRITES EVERYTHING THEY BELIEVE ON A SIGN. for example, i don't have a sign suggesting that you are a pasty catholic wingnut, but i believe that you are in fact a pasty catholic wingnut. 

now let's take a look at your broader points. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO ARGUE, WHAT IS THIS ARTICLE ABOUT? you go through some of the complaints that people make about tea partiers, that they represent a fringe movement that will be the undoing of the republican party, that they're an "astroturf" movement bankrolled by the creepster koch bros., that they're a rehashing of old ideas, and that they're views contradict themselves. for each of these concerns, you say no, this issue does not define the tea party. they might have some dingbats, but there are some candidates that the tea party supports who are not dingbats. the rich weirdo koch brothers with their empire of low-cost, foreign made goods are not responsible for creating the tea party movement, but they are subsidizing it and stand to reap its benefits. oh and sure a radical conservative breed of thinking takes root whenever a democrat is in office, but there has never before been a mainstream message attached to this radical thinking. (nevermind the fact that the mainstream tea party message is just exactly the mainstream republican message and not a new paradigm of conservative thought). and lastly, you say that it remains to be seen whether tea partiers are hypocrites who support entitlements while preaching smaller government.

i'm not in law school yet ross, so excuse me if i am missing something here BUT YOU BASICALLY ACCEPTED ALL THE PREMISES BUT DENIED THE CONCLUSIONS. where are your alternate conclusions? what the hell are you trying to say? the tea party isn't racist/islamophobic , because only 5% of its signs are racist/islamophobic? they aren't a bunch of loud, confused white guys who have NO UNDERSTANDING OF HOW OUR GOVERNMENT OPERATES? that the fucking nutjob kochs along with their opportunistic deregulation/privatization-craving upper class cronies aren't responsible for the rise of the tea party? THE TEA PARTY AGENDA IS BEING COOKED UP IN THE SEMINAL VESICLES OF FOX NEWS AND EJACULATED OUT INTO THE ETHER 24/7 AND YOU HAVE THE AUDACITY TO CLAIM THAT THE TEA PARTY IS A GRASSROOTS MOVEMENT. you sad, doughy knob. what other grassroots movements take their cues from television executives and barons of industry? what other grassroots movements enjoy free airtime?

ross, own up to it. these pest riddled tea leaves were picked by an exploited child overseas, roasted in the bowels of fox news, packaged in the whitest of white tea bags and sold to us unsuspecting, angry, out-of-work americans at a premium. shit...