web
counter
 

Cannonball Read III: Boiling Mad: Inside Tea Party America by Kate Zernike

By denesteak | Posted Under Book Reviews | Comments (45)



TeaParty.jpg

Late last year, I had the chance to attend a talk by Kate Zernike in which she discussed her book, Boiling Mad, with Frank Rich, the New York Times columnist, and Sam Tenenhaus, the NYT Book Review editor who is also a historian. It was extremely illuminating because Zernike had been following the Tea Party beat for the Times since it started soon after Obama’s election, and she was able to give a very measured and analytical view of the Tea Partiers. This is very different from how one-note the media has been covering them, whether if it’s their portrayal as uber-patriots or as a political punchline.

Also interesting to me was how she was reluctant to say that the rise of the Tea Party can be attributed to racism. When questioned by a black man in the audience about how Obama’s skin color could have something to do with the rise of a predominantly white party who say things like, “Take back our America,” Zernike stuck to her guns and said that though racism is probably an unacknowledged motivator, the catalyst was really the depression and economic crisis.

In Boiling Mad, she remains steadfast in her reporting that the number one reason for the existence of the Tea Party is because of the failing economy, but that does not mean she ignores the elephant in the room. Probably the first thing she tells us is that the Tea Party, as a whole, is not a united party. They may have bonded together under that label because of the economy or their dissatisfaction with the president, but their desires differ so much from county to state.

There are contradictions within the movement, and the Tea Partiers themselves are aware of it. A 62-year-old Tea Party supporter may be at a town hall protesting the growth of government during the bank bailouts, saying that the government has expanded too much and are infringing on an American’s rights—and yet be reaping the benefits of Social Security, and acknowledging that she might one day be on Medicare because of heart trouble in her health history. The younger Tea Partiers tend to be strict constitutionalists, believing that the government should only step in where the Constitution allows it—yet anyone who reads the constitution the way a creationist reads the Bible, will have to reconcile themselves with slavery and oppression of women. The younger supporters’ main beef is on the spending of taxpayers’ money on programs and bailouts for large corporations that they believe should fend for themselves.

More than anything, Boiling Mad served as an insight into individual Americans who feel like their government had failed them. My reactions while reading this ranged from having an almost anthropological interest (at least in how it would affect the US political landscape) to wanting to throw the book across the room. Though my political sympathies tend to lean to the left, I am open-minded to conservative points of views. However, some of the claims made by Tea Party supporters were just flat-out wrong. Every time Zernike chronicled someone saying that health care should come from charity and not from the government because Americans are the best people in the world, I wanted to pull my hair out. (Also another Tea Party-ism: “America has the best health care in the world.” Have they never gotten sick?) And perhaps that might not be flat-out wrong and could be subjective, but I thoroughly disagreed with their philosophy of stamping their feet like petulant children when they cannot get what they want.

Zernike is extremely, painstakingly fair to the Tea Partiers - but even her efforts to remain objective cannot hide the fact that this movement is made up of dissatisfied people who just want what they want, regardless of what others need. When a Tea Partier says (and this is repeated oft throughout), “It’s the We the People movement and my representative does not represent me!” one has to wonder how the representative got voted into office. According to Zernike, there are several zealots who quit their jobs or got laid off and decided devote their time entirely to organizing rallies and protests and “spreading the message”; but one has to wonder how they can be protesting on the failing economy when they are doing nothing to keep it going. They call themselves hardworking Americans yet they seem only to be working hardest at the yelling and screaming.

This book was at times infuriating, at times illuminating, and always engaging. Zernike is dealing with a very difficult topic and she did a great job straddling the line between objectivity and criticism. I was hoping my review of the book would portray the Tea Partiers in as fair a light, especially after reading the book. But since knowing more about them, I’ve actually come away disliking the movement more than I did before.


For more of denesteak’s reviews, check out her blog, A Quick One.

This review is part of Cannonball Read III. For more information, click here.

And here’s the poster denesteak made when she went to the Rally to Restore Sanity. “Thanks to a Pajiban who came up with it!”

spell check.jpg









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



This Week in British TV: Andrew Davies Can Adapt Anything | Seventh One's the Charm: New Game of Thrones Trailer









Comments

I am, at varying times, surrounded by such people, so I tip my hat to you just for reading this.

On the topic of racism, a woman I work with actually did admit to me, fully and openly, how incredibly upset she was that Obama, a black man, was elected. She was actually trembling while talking to me (this was shortly after the election). She said she couldn't wrap her mind around the fact that his family, who is also black, would be moving into the White House. She actually sought out temporary counseling about it, and I was glad. I hope the counselor helped her, because that was some hardcore skin-color-based fear right there.

I've heard and seen enough to convince me that underlying racism is at least partly to blame for much of the hate on the right. For the rest of their hate, they don't even need skin color to motivate them--I lived through the Clinton years and saw that hatred up close and personal, too. Whew. It's something else. We could power electric plants on it.

Posted by: Snuggiepants at February 24, 2011 10:06 AM

Liberal or conservative, I think assuming that racism is a motivating factor in the Tea Party movement (in general) is kinda' ridiculous.

The "taking back OUR America" is about ideology, not race.

Obama's not really even black. He's as much "white" as he is "black".

Posted by: bachelor at February 24, 2011 10:11 AM

Um, bachelor, I don't think you understand how deeply racism runs in this country. As I was looking for images for this post, I cannot tell you the number of Tea Party signs that clearly referred to Obama's race in a negative way. And "taking back OUR America" can be interpretted in a lot of ways, including smacking of racism.

So yeah, I think President Obama's race is a factor.

Posted by: tamatha at February 24, 2011 10:20 AM

bachelor,

It was stated that it's probably a motivating factor for some, not all. Assuming that racism ISN'T a factor with some of these people is equally as ridiculous.

The fact that Obama isn't 100% black? Do you really think that matters to racists?

"Oh, I only hate full blacks. If there's at least some white in the boy then he's alright."

Posted by: Paultera at February 24, 2011 10:29 AM

America has the worst health care system of all Western countries and the racism is very well alive.

I wouldn't want to get ill in the US.

Posted by: Dani at February 24, 2011 10:31 AM

As a post-script to Zernicke's book in 2011, it would be interesting to see if she still holds the same perspective that the failing economy is the reason for their continued existence. It seems that whatever grassroots movement this was when it started out, it's now very much controlled by the money and agenda of the Koch brothers a a few other leading lights of the ultra-conservative movement. By way of example, this past week, several hundred Tea-Partiers were bussed into Madison, WI from out of state to support Governor Walker (a man elected with the help of Koch millions) in his union-busting campaign. This week they will be running anti-union ads paid for by the Kochs. Their claims to be independent thinkers who mobilize spontaneously are completely bogus.

Posted by: PaddyDog at February 24, 2011 10:33 AM

bachelor,

Ahh the good ol "wells he's half white" quip If he was Barack Obama the guy getting tasered on cops for stealing a tv or some other negative stereotype him being half white would be out the window.

Posted by: Reign at February 24, 2011 10:35 AM

Before we get too deep into the racism rabbit hole, a few thoughts:

I often wondered when seeing the Tea Party protesters how comfortable they would be if they saw the people whose benefits they wanted destroyed. It's easy to say "no healthcare reform" when all that is is words aimed at distant politicians. But what of the people who can't go to hospitals because they can't afford it? What of the mom who has to stay up all night with her child because she can't take him in cause that's just not possible? Or the senior citizens (many marching as Tea Party members) who have to work as grocery clerks because their savings and retirement funds were sucked dry?

For a political movement that wraps itself up in the flag and in their faith, neither is really on display much of the time.

Posted by: Fredo at February 24, 2011 10:36 AM

I'm sure it's a motivating factor for many, but I think it's extremely unfair to label the whole movement as being motivated by race (which many in the news media tend to do, i.e. calling them "the racist teabaggers")

If Tea Party people DO hate Obama because of their own racism, yeah, that's wrong for sure.

But it's also wrong for people to write off a movement by saying "Your doing this because you're racist." It seems like that makes it impossible for anybody to protest against Obama, whereas many of the same people would probably protest against his policies regardless of his race.

I speak only from my experience with conservative/libertarian types, and the ones that I know are motivated primarily by the economic ramifications of Obama's presidency rather than the color of his skin.

Posted by: bachelor at February 24, 2011 10:37 AM

The left hates it when blacks wander off the liberal plantation. Check out this example of a gay black Tea Party member being asked "Do you have any children — that you claim?"...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YiPsNYvntKE

Black guy = father of bastard children that he may or may not claim.

How PROGRESSIVE of you!

Posted by: Common Sense at February 24, 2011 10:49 AM

@bachelor: I think it might be the timing of it all. And maybe there isn't any intended racism from most of the party, but when you have a group that we didn't hear much of under Bush's financial and economic mishandlings, that suddenly gets angry and loud when the nation's first black President isn't fixing the economy, it does look like race may be a factor.

Maybe they were outraged with Bush and how unemployment and the defecit gre worse under his term, and didn't have a unified voice at the time. It's possible. It's also hard to attribute to coincidence that they would simply find that voice and spotlight almost immediately after the election.

Posted by: Markus at February 24, 2011 10:49 AM

Yeah, but no one here, including the author of the book or author of the post claimed they were all racists.

Posted by: Paultera at February 24, 2011 10:50 AM

I feel compelled to post proof that there are racists in the Democratic primary. Yet, you never heard about it!

Here's a clip at an anti-Koch brothers rally, where liberal protesters call for the lynching of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3ctO7fdrcc&feature=player_embedded

And here's some racist commentary coming from Alternet, who calls Republican candidate Herman Cain a 'black garbage pail kid' and a 'monkey in the window.'

http://bigjournalism.com/dloesch/2011/02/15/alternets-racist-tirade-against-herman-cain-black-garbage-pail-kid-monkey-core-condemns/

Posted by: Allens at February 24, 2011 10:51 AM

The only ones that talk race are LIBERALS. I can not figure out if liberals are just stupid or are ignorant or just in denial that the 2 REAL MAIN reasons for the Tea Party are 1) opening our eyes to see that NONE of our elected officials were doing what our Founding Fathers did: DOING WHAT IS ACTUALLY BEST FOR THE PEOPLE AND THE COUNTRY !! We actually trusted them. We were silent. They woke us up. 2) The United States is (was) the world leader because we are (were) NOT a Socialist nation. Those that want to bankrupt the middle class with the $21 trillion in debt that the Obama budget plan will give us ARE UNAMERICAN!!! Liberals (including Zernike) WISH it were racism and the economy. It is not the economy. It is the real American way, STUPID!

Posted by: stephenwv at February 24, 2011 10:51 AM

"I speak only from my experience with conservative/libertarian types, and the ones that I know are motivated primarily by the economic ramifications of Obama's presidency rather than the color of his skin."

Then why didn't they organize when Bush was expanding government in an unprecedented way and turning a surplus into one of the worst deficits in the history of the country?

Also, if so many of them are not racist, why don't they dissociate themselves from the current movement and form a new group that will not allow members to carry blatantly racist signs to all of their rallies?

Posted by: PaddyDog at February 24, 2011 10:52 AM

The trolls have arrived. Shut it down.

Posted by: PaddyDog at February 24, 2011 10:54 AM

Mine! I'm excited!

Zernike actually does go into the racism that exist within the Tea Party but that wasn't really a focus, so much as the tea partiers kept insisting that those radically hateful racist rhetoric exists more on the fringe of the Tea Party (fringe of a fringe, if you will).

Anyway, like I said in the review, one thing that was clear is that the Tea Party was not united in their ideas at all, and something that angered Tea Partiers was how the media often chose to focus on the crazies. They go so far as to say that these racist crazies were planted by liberals to make the Tea Party look disreputable (Who the fuck knows). Even Zernike said that for as many events and rallies that she attended (and she traveled around America for this), never was there an instance where there were people screaming racial slurs the way they appear on cable news.

She does, however, acknowledge that it exists. But the tea partiers are so virulently opposed to being portrayed as racist that they take pains, during the briefings of their rallies and protests, to tell their supporters that they need to focus on the issues.

She was a lot more candid in the talk, and she said that in all the events she went to, there is one (ONE!) prominent black tea partier and in ALL the events, the promoters would have him on the stage.

bachelor, maybe it's not a motivating factor, but it is a factor, whether or not people are willing to admit it or not (so I do have to give Snuggiepants's friend props for admitting that she has a problem because people can often be myopic in their own failings). And just because it's ridiculous does not make it untrue.

Finally, since my poster is up there with an uncredited slogan, I did a quick google search and it was actually Scully that came up with it! Thanks Scully!!

Posted by: denesteak at February 24, 2011 10:55 AM

Racist or not, if the central point of the movement is "We can't go on running up trillion-dollar deficits without the system collapsing and taking down ALL of us with it," then that much is true.

I haven't yet made up my mind whether I should start learning Arabic or Mandarin.

Posted by: , at February 24, 2011 10:56 AM

"We're not the bad guys! They are!"

Second the shut down idea.

Posted by: Fredo at February 24, 2011 10:59 AM

Then why didn't they organize when Bush was expanding government in an unprecedented way and turning a surplus into one of the worst deficits in the history of the country?
---
Some of that was Bush, and some of that were forces beyond anyone's control. Bush is not to blame for the bursting of the tech bubble any more than Clinton should get credit for the bubble in the first place.

Posted by: , at February 24, 2011 11:01 AM

Gah, this had only two comments when I started writing my comment!

There was a reason why I didn't focus on race in the review - because Zernike did not focus on it. So basically, what , said.

Posted by: denesteak at February 24, 2011 11:02 AM

This, like many of my first dates, will go nowhere. The liberals and the Tea Partiers will each be making the same statements we've all heard and read a million times. I know my team/position, and of all the "discussions" I've participated in on this topic, not one comment from the opposition has made me seriously reconsider my position. I'll bet I'm not alone in that.

Posted by: sars at February 24, 2011 11:07 AM

this movement is made up of dissatisfied people who just want what they want, regardless of what others need.

Very well put.

Also: Ignore 'em, folks. You should know that by now.

Posted by: The Other Agent Johnson at February 24, 2011 11:09 AM

Um. Is the sign at the bottom supposed to be ironic, since "political" is spelled wrong?

Posted by: Kristobel at February 24, 2011 11:15 AM

@ denesteak

I give you the maddest of props for reading this. If I did I'm fairly certain that my Rage Monster would take over & start stomping all over my small South Carolina town. And then the torches & pitchforks would come out & I'd be forced to go in to hiding again... Oh the life of a liberal in the Tea Party Heaven... Sigh...

Posted by: Bodhi at February 24, 2011 11:16 AM

No! My mistake!

But since you pointed it out, yes. Total irony.

Posted by: denesteak at February 24, 2011 11:17 AM

I can't believe there are people trying to make Bush look innocent in this debate about who is responsable for the economy crisis.

Posted by: Delaney at February 24, 2011 11:17 AM

Anybody that thinks that the US has the best health care system in the world hasn't been seriously ill. Big Pharma and the American Cancer Society run our system, pushing doctors to prescribe certain meds and insist on overtesting for cancer. Meanwhile, if you're really sick, you'll be going from specialist to specialist, hoping that you'll hit the needle in the hay stack, ie, an actual diagnosis as to what's wrong with you (nurses call that "the medical treadmill"). Then there's the paperwork. All that managed care means is that many trees must be sacrificed for your care, and many employees must navigate a convoluted system of rules and regulations that require them to work hard to try to find a reason not to pay your claim. And if you complain about the insanity of it all, your primary will push antidepressants on you, because you're supposed to be grateful for your superior managed care.

Racism (and nationalism) flourishes when economies flounder. History teaches us that, and it's obviously a big part of what's going on right now. There's nothing new about the rhetoric that's being spewed: competent politicians know how to use buzzwords to rile people up and get their backing. I say 'competent', not 'ethical'. Maybe Obama needed to be more of a total bastard to get his agenda done—sacrifice a second term to achieve real progress. I've been reading about James K. Polk: he sounded like a real prick but he got everything done in one term and then retired (of course the ethics of his achievements is up for debate).

Something is wrong with our logic when we are screaming about teachers making $50K when AIG execs got $165 million in bonuses post bailout, when our CEOs are earning over a million as a matter of course, even if their companies are losing money. Is it really a desired goal of this country to create a greater disparity between the wealthy and the poor (especially a population of poor people without access to healthcare and education, so that they're destined to die young and stupid)? The thought that we might be trying "trickle-down" economies again makes me physically ill, because I saw how little trickled down, thank you very much.

I'm mad at both sides, Dems and Repubs, because they seem to be focused on screaming rhetoric rather than finding a meeting place in the middle to try to get the country back on track. The main problem that I have with the TeaPartiers is that they've increased the level of screaming, and I don't believe many of their supporters have thought what their proposals actually mean. And it seems like everyone is "reactionary" right now, in other words, reacting, not coming up with substantive progress to solve our very real issues.

Damn Clinton and his errant penis. I blame him for blowing the progress we made in the 90s. And damn Greenspan for being sucked into the technology and housing bubbles. They basically paved the way for the coming revolution (where most of us are really going to suffer).

Cue the trolls.

Posted by: Gladhander at February 24, 2011 11:23 AM

Delaney,

If you mean me, I'm not giving Bush a pass. I'm saying that from the standpoint of turning a surplus into a deficit, some of it had to do with the collapse of the tech bubble. There's plenty to blame Bush for, but not for that. It likely would have happened no matter who was in office.

Posted by: , at February 24, 2011 11:26 AM

RACE WAR!

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at February 24, 2011 11:27 AM

and insist on overtesting for cancer.
---
Gladhander,

As someone who had testicular cancer and now has stage 1 sarcoidosis, I'm of the view that I cannot be tested enough. I get scanned every 3-4 months. I hate drinking that chalky, allegedly berry-flavored shit every time but there are far worse things I could have happen to me.

My doctors are the tits, too.

Posted by: , at February 24, 2011 11:31 AM

Something told me not to get online today, I was happy sitting out on the patio enjoying these quiet moments before I pick my son up from kindergarten. But no, I just had to see what the gang was up to on pajiba. And now I know. I’m going to try my best to avoid this discussion, because it probably won’t end well.

Posted by: Pookie at February 24, 2011 11:45 AM

Hey, ","

I'm very glad you have good doctors, and that the medical system worked for you. The US *can* be very good if you have certain types of cancer. The problem comes when you don't have cancer, because most doctors are so focused on not getting sued that that's all they think about. At least in my case, I ran into that a lot (doctors overtly admitting that fear of being sued was driving their recommendations), and those extra scans they insisted upon and extra biopsies that they tried to pressure me into doing (which they admitted would be injurious to to me) were a level of insanity that you can't even imagine. I hope everything works out for you. I wish I could be confident that I'm going to be okay, but I'm not. I glow from all that radiation, but my symptoms persist, and now my risk of future cancer is higher due to all those extra scans.

Posted by: Gladhandler at February 24, 2011 12:03 PM

but I thoroughly disagreed with their philosophy of stamping their feet like petulant children when they cannot get what they want.


Bwahahahahaha! See Wisconsin.

Posted by: PD at February 24, 2011 12:09 PM

I totally took this picture ;)

Posted by: Rachizle at February 24, 2011 12:30 PM

Gladhandler,

Best wishes to you. I can only suggest, if you are in a position to do so, try different doctors. But it sounds like you already have.

I admit to some good fortune in my regard. I live less than a mile from both hospitals in my relative affluent college town; one is the university teaching hospital.

So there are plenty of doctors around, not all of them so great; Mrs. , works for one of the hospitals and lets me know who to steer clear of. Nevertheless, I have an eye doctor (glaucoma), ear doctor (hearing loss, Meniere's Syndrome), heart doctor (I have three stents), urologist and oncologist, besides the usual dentist and GP, and I'm pretty happy with all of them, and I don't feel like they're milking me. Maybe I've just been lucky, or maybe the vast majority of doctors are really pretty good, even in a bass-ackward state like mine.

Posted by: , at February 24, 2011 2:28 PM

Is the founding of the Tea Party based upon racism. Well, no. Was the election of a black president a contributing factor in the forming of the Tea Party. Yes. Does that make sense. Not really, however, I think it has more to do with people's racism becoming passive rather than overt.

More to the point of it's being a "white party," it's my turn to risk being racist. African Americans make up about 13% of the U.S. population. An unfortunate amount of that 13% lives in poverty or in working poor conditions. It's a travesty and horribly complex problem, but it is true. Of those African Americans who are not in those dire straits, it is unlikely that they come from the Republican party roots you kind of need to be a Tea Partyer. So the likelihood of finding a lot of African Americans who align themselves with the party is rough. That isn't to say that you aren't going to find plenty of anti-affirmative action, keep the ladies in the kitchen, white guys in the party. I just don't think it's the primary reason why the party formed, or even in the top five. The damning thing for the party is that it didn't form under the Bush administration when a Republican was creating incredible deficits fighting unfounded wars.

Lastly, if you want to find someone who these people really, REALLY hate, drop a couple of Muslims into a rally and have them start praying to Mecca.

Posted by: professorlove at February 24, 2011 2:49 PM

Anyone who wants to read up on links between "the" Tea Party and racism would do well to include this report from the NAACP in his reading list: Tea Party Nationalism: The Report.

It's very calm.

Posted by: Salieri2 at February 24, 2011 3:01 PM

Really?

Reading a book about the Tea Party Movement by a Times correspondent then attending a talk with that correspondent, a Times commentator and a Times editor - really? That's like reading Ingalls on Engels and thinking you got the real story. When there's one POV in the room, you end up shooting shoals of sustainably harvested straw fish in barrels of biodiesel, with constitutionally protected full-auto combat shotguns, of course.

You get stuff like right after mentioning that the author of Boiling Mad "was reluctant to say that the rise of the Tea Party can be attributed to racism", there's - what, 5x the words? - of "review" talking about the Tea Party's racism. That's called "borrowed authority." When you steal the weight of observation to bolster opinion that's, well, back in the day that would get your paper "a solid F."

It's cheap - Harold Hill cheap. It's also the last thing you want to do when you're right. For Godtopus' sake, they used to teach this stuff in school. (And you damm kids get off of my lawn.)

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at February 24, 2011 4:02 PM

BierceAmbrose, I actually got a chance to attend the talk and decided to pick up the book after because Zernike did not focus on racism and I was curious to see more about it, beyond the "Racism!!!" memo. There also wasn't one POV in the room - Frank Rich really objected to a lot of Zernike's assertions... and Tanenhaus did not offer opinions. Just offered historical context (comparing it to other fringe political groups that rose to prominence after a new president is elected or after a economic crisis.) If Pajibans chose to focus on the race issue in the comments, so be it.

You must be pretty mad about my review and read it wrong since I actually did not focus on race - I talked about healthcare and how they are mad about the spending. Anyway, thanks for grading my paper "a solid F." I'm gonna go rewrite it now. Because of all that "borrowed authority," I think it's lacking some "Go fuck yourself, BierceAmbrose."

Posted by: denesteak at February 24, 2011 5:04 PM

Nice, steak, I am smiling at my desk, even though the content of this thread makes me want to off myself.

Love a good putdown, although I would've steered towards cocknose myself.

Posted by: Peter G at February 24, 2011 11:23 PM

Just reread the review.

You're a cocknose, BA; reread the fucking thing.

Also, very well written review. Most Cannonballs are poorly written (sorry, most), but this was great. Tempted to read your blog. I'm not going to, but I was tempted.

Posted by: Peter G at February 25, 2011 12:14 AM

"Go fuck yourself?" "Cocknose?"

Really?

I count 8 references to race in the article, two using the word "racism", while the others include a reference to President Obama's skin color, and another to slavery. If the comments went to the race place, the review chummed the waters.

Mentioning slavery, which is unequivocally racist, and connecting the Tea Party with it is the reviewer, not quoting the talk, the book or Tea Party people speaking for themselves. In my reading the Tea Party people say "constitutionally limited government", meaning something quite different from reading the constitution "the way a creationist reads the bible." Saying what you want is fine for opinion and not at all OK for reporting. Mixing up opinion and reporting gives the one the authority of the other - it's propaganda. So, what do the Tea Party folks say for themselves? What does the journalist / author say they mean?

I do think it's hysterical that the columnist who sits at a desk was arguing with the reporter about what she saw on her beat, you know, observing the subject they're both talking about. I'm flashing back to the B-12 episode of Studio 60, when Jordan tells off a reporter for making stuff up.

And I am mad. You're talking about my mom.

My historically a-political mother went to two Tea Party events. She lived through the Great Depression and the collapse of a small business in the spasms of the 1970s. (Gas rationing. Wage and price freezes. Inflation and recession together. Good times, which we're about to see again.) To her, now feels like then and what the government is doing seems exactly backwards. So, she went to a couple rallies with people saying "Just stop making it worse." At least so she says, but I've been told she's just greedy.

I get mad when my mother is called names, especially on the sly. "Zernike ... said that though racism is probably an unacknowledged motivator ..." So, these Tea Party people, including my mother, are racist, but too stupid to know it. At least say it directly, like the "greedy" part.

So, I was dead-on from the review chumming the conversation with race through mixing opinion with reporting to name calling. It's an article not a comment, reviewing a book & talk by a journalist not an coffee rant with friends or an operative reciting a script. It's a different standard.

If you want to read a piece about current US politics written by a pollster who gets paid by "both" sides try In Search of Self-Governance, by Rasmussen.

Meanwhile, keep it classy.

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at February 25, 2011 12:57 PM

BierceAmbrose, this was a review I wrote on my blog for a book I read for CBR3. It certainly wasn't for the New York Review of Books (Whoo boy, it's not). If I chose to make the point about race in the beginning of my review, that was because the reason why I got interested in Zernike's book was because she was so insistent on not focusing on race at the talk. Which was my point about the book. She touches upon it but brushes it off, choosing instead to stay on the economic issues that frustrate the Tea Partiers. And if you believe my review gave the short shrift to Zernike's reporting, then it's probably because it's true and I did - because I'm writing this on my personal blog. And you should definitely check the book out, because it's much, much better than this school report crap (as you would call it) that I just typed up on my personal blog. You may hold me to a different standard, but I think I'm gonna choose my own standards to hold myself and my blog writing to.

Also, I really wasn't talking about your mother. I kinda lost my temper at you up in my comment, but I think that's about all the mud-slinging I did.

I might check out the Rasmussen book - is it good? I try to go back and forth between political/serious books and fiction, so I just finished my fluffy fiction book, but have an ever-growing tower of non-fiction to tackle. It'll go on my list.

Thanks, Peter G.! My blog is mostly all book reviews - I'm too lazy and private to write about my actual life. And thanks everyone for playing... I'm just still excited mine got picked.

Posted by: denesteak at February 25, 2011 4:50 PM

Kate did an amazingly job of trying to report on the Tea Party movement without any personal bias. Yes, I am the guy she presents on the back cover of her book.

I'm sorry to report many of you still don't get it . . . trying to paint us as racists or covert Republicans, blind to George W. Bush's acts of treason (i.e. Patriot Act).

When our Founding Fathers built this country, they discussed political parties and decided not to create them . . . REASON: after pledging their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to build this country, why would they then tear it appart with political parties?!

If you still think the Tea Party is about Republican vs. Democrat, go home turn on ESPN and let the adults take care of what is coming next.

If you are tired of the leadership of both parties, playing us for fools, while they strip our money of its value and attempt to rob future generations of LIBERTY . . . come join us at the next Tea Party rally.

God Bless You, Your Family and God Bless America!

Jeff McQueen
President & Founder
www.USRevolution2.com

Posted by: Jeff McQueen at March 15, 2011 9:16 AM