Tea for 2,000 in Rancho Cucamonga

Liberty or death: Flying the freedom flag in Rancho Cucamonga.Liberty or death: Flying the freedom flag in Rancho Cucamonga.

Ignore the propaganda and to hell with the scoffers. The tea parties are the real deal.

If I had to guess, about 2,000 upbeat, patriotic, solidly middle-class denizens of Inland Southern California lined the busy intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Day Creek Avenue in Rancho Cucamonga between 5:00 and 7:00 on Wednesday evening. The police estimated the crowd at roughly 1,600, but that seemed awfully conservative. In any case, a spirited and diverse throng waved flags and signs, chanted and shouted and cheered as passing traffic along the bustling thoroughfare honked their horns in approval.

So... those are the “right-wing extremists” you may have read about recently.

I confess, I was a bit lukewarm about the whole "tea party" business at first. (Joel and I discuss why in the latest podcast. And I share many of Chad the Elder's sentiments here.) Not that I don't enjoy a demonstration. A few effigy burnings now and again would do the body politic good. But tea bags? Americans did tea 236 years ago. We're not arguing about taxation without representation anymore. We're arguing about spending the United States into ruin.

Wednesday's event allayed many of my doubts. The new American tea party protesters are harkening back to an old tax revolt to lend credence to a modern political movement. Two-thousand people here, another thousand there... multiply that by a several hundred events across the country and pretty soon you're talking about an honest-to-goodness movement. How far this thing goes, I wouldn't dare hazard a guess. But I do know there are already events in the works for May 18 -- the day before California's special election -- and July 4.

I have to believe Obama's partisans are more than a little concerned. Smug bloggers and pompous pundits spent the days leading up to April 15 mocking the tea party protests, dismissing them as "astroturf" -- fake grass roots -- created by Fox News and Dick Armey's FreedomWorks. (If support from a national organization disqualifies a local rally from being called "grassroots," then the word should never appear in the same sentence with "MoveOn.org" or "Kos" ever again.)

One of the worst pieces of anti-tea party dross I encountered Wednesday came courtesy of Democratic party hack and CNN commentator Paul Begala. The man who made a small fortune concocting elaborate fictions for the Clintons attempts to defame the tens of thousands of good people who turned out across the country as “goofballs,” “phonies,” “whiners” and -- get this -- “plutocrats.”

Plutocrats! I saw small business owners, teachers, Teamsters, stay-at-home moms, retirees, college kids, and even a few government workers angry and worried that the political establishment has saddled the next two or three generations of Americans with a ruinous debt fueled by government spending gone mad. I didn’t see a fat cat in the bunch. But, as I say, it was a big crowd. Who knows? Maybe one slipped in.

And, by the way, the tea partiers don’t merely blame Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress for the coming debt tsunami -- $35,000 and counting for every man, woman and child in America, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis. They blame Republicans, too, for years of fiscal irresponsibility when they held the purse strings. Naturally, they worry what Obama and the Democrats will do. They don't believe his promises about tax simplification, and they are not mollified by stupid giveaways and pitiful adjustments in withholding on their paychecks. They see a $1 trillion deficit and know that the government can't print enough money to paper it over.

The Rancho tea party, as well as an event earlier in the day in downtown San Bernardino, was organized by an energetic activist named Laura Boatright. She was thrilled with the turnout but slightly disappointed that no elected officials or chamber of commerce types bothered to show up. Maybe they knew they wouldn't be too welcome?

Boatright understands that the problem facing Californians and Americans generally is that we elected the people who brought us to this pretty fiscal pass. "You know how Harry Truman had that sign on his desk in the White House that said, 'The buck stops here'? Well, that's not true," Boatright said. "The buck stops with us... with the people. It's our responsibility to vote these politicians out of office."

And that requires money, organization and persistence. "This isn't the last event," Boatright assured me.

The Inland tea parties drew big crowds, surprising even the event planners. Events in Palm Springs and Temecula drew about 1,000 people, according to a Press-Enterprise story. Organizers in Temecula had only been expecting a few hundred people.

I've posted several photos of the event after the jump. (Click on "read more" below the icons.) Darleen Click of Protein Wisdom, whom I had the pleasure of meeting, was also on hand snapping pictures of the festivities. Check out her post and her photos.

Plutocrat: Well, she <i>is</i> wearing a suit jacket. Bet her pockets are lined with cash. Somebody alert Paul Begala!The angry face of the plutocracy: Well, she is wearing a suit jacket. Wanna bet her pockets are lined with cash? Somebody alert Paul Begala!

Crazy Uncle Sam wants you!: There were surprisingly few freaks at the Rancho Cucamonga Tea Party on April 15, 2009. Memo to organizers: Next time, more freaks!Crazy Uncle Sam wants you!: There were surprisingly few freaks at the Rancho Cucamonga Tea Party on April 15, 2009. Memo to organizers: Next time, more freaks!

The Ringleader: Laura Boatright of Ontario, Calif., organized the tea parties in San Bernardino and Rancho Cucamonga. "The buck stops with us... with the people," she said.The Ringleader: Laura Boatright of Ontario, Calif., organized the tea parties in San Bernardino and Rancho Cucamonga. "The buck stops with us... with the people," she told me.

Gadsden Guy: There were at least a dozen Gadsden flags waving at the Rancho Cucamonga Tea Party. No doubt Janet Napolitano is gravely concerned.Gadsden Guy: There were at least a dozen Gadsden flags waving at the Rancho Cucamonga Tea Party. No doubt Janet Napolitano is gravely concerned.

A spirited crowd: Many people at the Rancho Cucamonga tea party are exercised about Prop. 1A, a deceptive measure on the May special election ballot that would extend tax increases in the guise of limiting spending. The gentleman in the center-left of the photo is wearing A spirited crowd: Many people at the Rancho Cucamonga tea party are exercised about Prop. 1A, a deceptive measure on the May special election ballot that would extend tax increases in the guise of limiting spending.

God bless America: Hundreds of people waved flags and demonstrated their support for lower taxes, restrained spending and smaller government along Foothill Boulevard in Rancho Cucamonga on April 15. Estimates put the crowd at 1,600 to 2,000 people.God bless America: Hundreds of people waved flags and demonstrated their support for lower taxes, restrained spending and smaller government along Foothill Boulevard in Rancho Cucamonga on April 15. Estimates put the crowd at 1,600 to 2,000 people.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TAXES!!

I say to hell with the politicians in Sacramento. Of course, I am also concerned about what's going on in Washington, but our wonderful state has gone and done what most other states have been loathe to do in these tough economic times.....raise our taxes yet again.

Despite numerous promises from our traitorous governor of no new taxes on the common people, he and his thuggish Republican cohorts manage to scrape together a bankrupting budget. Do you realize that Californians are now paying fees on their fees on their taxes????? That's outrageous!!

California has a really big problem. It's called the teacher's union, Octomom, and illegal immigration. Just the cost of illegal immigration is costing this state tens upon millions of dollars in education, medical costs, and welfare. But the mere mention of illegal aliens means you're automatically labeled a racist.

The teacher's union is backing Prop 1B. Want to know why? It's their huge bribe for staying quiet on 1A. Of course, the state employees and the teachers unions all want to keep their lucrative retirements going, and of course, we're there to foot the bill.

And what about Octomom? Who do you think is footing her bill, and has been paying for her all these years? The taxpayers of California. Does she really believe that she has been paying her own way to have these 14 children?

It's time that all Californians rise up and revolt against the gangsters and thugs in Sacramento...Throw 'em all out! We deserve better.

Joel's post about the parties

is pretty weak and fairly disappointing. http://tiny.cc/1s83h Thought he was above parroting the JournoList talking points.

Re: Joel's post

Don't steal my thunder, Ricardo.

OK, fair enough

I've officially called off the dogs.

RE: Joel's post about the parties

Ugh. I second your take, Rick.

Bush started it ... with a now-relatively modest TARP 1, which has been multiplied in both real terms and in the now-clear planned expansion of state power as articulated by Obama and the Democratic Congress.

Saying the Tea Party movement should have galvanized nearly 1 million people five months ago is like saying the "green" movement's protests and agitation is illegitimate, because it should have started when the Industrial Revolution got going.

Re: My post about the parties

I expected some pushback from my conservative friends on this, and that's OK. I don't expect us to agree about the tea parties. Because, well, what the heck do we agree on?

But "parroting Journolist talking points?" C'mon man. Tell me *why* I'm wrong instead of telling me I'm too stupid to form my own independent conclusions.

Re: Pushback

I have some comments on Ben's follow-up post.

I also think Douthat (http://tiny.cc/WZa30) has an interesting take on the tea parties, comparing them to the early antiwar rallies.

Obama is a very popular President, at the moment, his unpopularity among Republicans notwithstanding, and it's awfully hard to see the Tea Parties doing much to change that reality in the short run; if anything, they're far more likely to reconfirm the majority in its opinion that American conservatism is increasingly wacky, echo-chamberish, and out-of-touch.

Still, here we are in the sixth year of the Iraq War, and all those anti-war protests, their excesses and stupidities notwithstanding, look a lot more prescient in hindsight than they did (to me, at least) when they were going on. So if you're inclined to sneer and giggle at the Tea Parties, keep in mind that just because a group of protesters looks ragged, resentful, and naive, that doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong to be alarmed.

Re: Pushback

I think Douthat makes a good point there, actually, and here's a good moment for me to stand back and take a breath.

(Inhale. Exhale.)

There are three legs to my feelings about the tea parties, two of which I've explored and one of which I've not said anything about at all. And it taking that step back, I'm probably going to demonstrate why I am an inferior pundit.

Those three legs:

• RHETORICAL: Sorry, but there was a lot of douchebagginess on display yesterday. Lots of it. And I just hate that kind of stuff. I hate it from my side, too: I've never run with the Kos crowd or Firedoglake because shrillness seems (to me) to be their stock in trade. I don't watch Olbermann and can only occasionally watch Rachel Maddow. (Her dialogue with Ana Marie Cox about "teabagging" was painful for me to watch.) If I hate that stuff from liberals, you can imagine how I feel about it when it comes from conservatives.

I know. I'm a delicate, wilting flower.

• POLITICAL: That's mostly what my post-slash-column contribution were about. I get cranky about hypocrisy, and while I was perhaps incorrect about Malkin (I can be wrong sometimes, dammit) I'm not wrong that many of the folks trying to whip up a frenzy right now were pretty quiet about similar sins during the Bush Era.

• POLICY: There were a lot of topics thrown in the pot of yesterday's protests, so I'm not going to say the protesters, broadly, have a point. However....

...when it comes to debt: They have a point.

I don't like that how deeply we're plunging into the debt hole. I think a short-term case can be made for it, but it appears we're returning to an era of blithely running deficits, big ones, as the usual course of business. And if the current meltdown is teaching us anything, it's this: Debt as a way of life is unsustainable. And expecting to grow your way out of debt is a recipe for disaster.

Perhaps I need to be louder about this. (And perhaps it makes my criticism of the tea parties unfair; I don't think that's necessarily the case.) I do think I'm on record about being ambivalent, at best, about this stuff. It's kind of silly to continually shout one's ambivalence to the heavens, however, which is one reason I refrain. Nobody wants to read the Hamlet shtick.

very well stated Joel

... also ... ambivalence seems to be categorized as a characteristic to feel shame or guilt about. I worry most about those who have no ambivalence.

Re: "Douchebagginess on display"

I'm groggy and dragging -- walking around in the chill for two and a half hours yesterday has not done wonders for my cold (or whatever it is) -- and I owe you a reply on the "sore losers" post, Joel. But I can't resist commenting on your first leg.

As I mentioned in "sore losers," I love political street theater. Love it. I wish I could cover more protests. In 2007, just after I left the Press-Enterprise but before I landed with RedBlueAmerica, I asked to be credentialed for the Claremont Institute's Churchill Dinner for Donald Rumsfeld. I wasn't interested in anything the former secretary of defense had to say so much as the circus outside. I wasn't disappointed. My only regret is that I never kept my promise to properly chronicle the dust up I had with the 9/11 Truthers outside the hotel.

I am endlessly fascinated to the wild characters who show up at demonstrations. I love the show, but the showmen are so often a pitiable and contemptible lot. Most people -- like the vast majority of people who showed up yesterday -- are not activists. They're the chorus in the play. The lead actors are the organizers and professional rabblerousers.

Then you have the second-string antagonists, the hangers-on, the black sheep types. The angry Truther I spent 20 minutes or so arguing with at the Rumsfeld event was probably at a tea party yesterday, but he would have been an outlier. He was brandishing a Gadsden flag and had a slightly menacing air. He wouldn't (or couldn't) answer any direct questions and was full of the usual guff about the Project for the New American Century and ranted endlessly about government plots to silence engineers who were "speaking the truth" about how the Twin Towers fell. He'd never heard of the Espionage Act and knew nothing of its history. Eventually his pals had to pull him away because they could see he was losing his temper.

I saw a few young men on Foothill Blvd. yesterday who reminded me a little bit of that guy. I don't know -- it's something about the way they look. At first glance, you might not think anything of them. But on closer inspection, you notice little things that make you think, Insane. One of them was carrying a Ron Paul sign, which by itself isn't necessarily damning. But the guy was a dead ringer for Ray Davies, circa 1964. His pals were handing out literature about how the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified. I have literature in my files that I collected in the mid-1990s that says exactly same thing. This stuff is peddled by loud and annoying but harmless kooks.

The far more interesting dynamic at this "right-wing" "astroturf" demonstration yesterday was the friction between the anti-tax libertarians and the hardcore evangelical anti-abortion protestors. By "hardcore," I mean the people who show up with huge posters of aborted babies. I heard a tense exchange between a evangelical lady with her bullhorn and a libertarian fellow in his mid-30s who looked a bit like Comic Book Guy. "There's no point in me arguing with you," the guy said. "It doesn't make sense." And that was the end of it. The corner with the abortion protestors by far was the most sparsely populated on an otherwise crowded intersection. It just wasn't that kind of crowd.

Anyway, a lot of political rhetoric makes me crazy. I don't watch cable news because of what it does to my blood pressure. But political demonstrations are different somehow. The "douchebagginess" is just one ring in a three-ring circus. Most people get their catharsis and go home resolved simply to vote in the next election. Some will be motivated to get more active in politics or their communities. A few might run for office, a few might go off the deep end and a few might do both. (See Sheehan, Cindy.) It's just good, old-fashioned American hell-raising.

About Douthat

Douthat, while I respect him as a movie reviewer and a National Review alumnus, is of the mind that he can remake the Republican Party. He's a mini-me version of David Brooks and David Frum, who believe that the problem with the Republican Party is that conservatives won't just roll over and die, but keep adhering to principles. No sale, from my end.

As for the anti Iraq War protesters ... let me see if I have Douthat's point straight: No matter how excessive and stupid the wacky anti-war crowd has been for the last six years, they are now looking "a lot more prescient." Really? Let's be clear on what point the anti-war left yelling in the streets were making — namely that Bush, the war criminal, lied us into war to enrich Halliburton and we should have pulled out 1,000 yesterdays ago.

The success we now see in Iraq would never have happened if those anti-war voices were heeded. How is it, then, that "in hindsight" they are correct?

Given the fact that the Democratic and Obama budget incurs more debt in 10 years than the debt that has been accumulated from the first president named George to the last president named George ... I'm betting the tea party agitators will look a lot more "prescient" than the anti-war protesters were even in their dreams.

I don't consider Douthat as loathsome as Brooks

... but then again, Brooks sets the bar pretty low.

Maybe I'm taking Douthat less literally than I should. My take-away is that, like the antiwar groups just after the invasion of Iraq, the Tea Partiers may be seen as outliers now, but within a few years they may demonstrate some tangible progress in the direction of their goal (as in, causing turnover in Congress or electing a sympathetic president).

One place I do depart from Douthat is that from my perch the public was generally a lot more ambivalent about the Iraqi War six months after Saddam was toppled than they seem to be about the bailouts in their current state. I don't think outrage over the massive spending has gone viral. Yet. When the bill starts coming due (in the fall of 2010, perhaps?), people may turn a lot more quickly on the people from both parties they hold responsible. This isn't necessarily good news for Republicans.

alright already

here we are, once again, arguing about the past -- the water already going under the bridge or already way down stream. It is a losing battle and a whirlpool to drown in.

Howzabouts looking upstream. There is more game a'coming soon. Could start with:

Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable....

for example.

Good stuff, John

The thing is, the "New Energy Economy" folks are philosophically on the same page with the people who defend the CCC and all the makework projects of the first New Deal. (Actually, at least some of the New Deal programs did build some worthwhile infrastructure, but the overwhelming majority of the projects had no real economic value and quite probably extended and deepened the Depression. But that's a separate topic.)

The logic goes, so long as people are working, even if they're digging holes and then filling them up again, they're working. And "earning" wages. Which they can spend. You got a problem with that?

RE: I don't consider Douthat as loathsome as Brooks

Neither do I, Rick. It seems, though, that Douthat is trying to catch up on the backstretch. He'll be relied upon at The Times to be the "reasonable" conservative, meaning not very conservative at all, and quick to nitpick and criticize. Anyway, I don't wanna go down that road today ...

You seem to have read Douthat's piece more charitably than I have. I'd like to think you're right. Indeed, anti-war protesters were the "outliers." The "major combat operations" in Iraq were bound to end sometime, so eventually, they'd be "right." So I'm not gonna award points there.

I believe, as you seem to, that the Tea Partiers' bill will come due a lot sooner than that of the anti-war crowd — and I'd argue it will be because of their protests, not just eventually. I disagree, however, with the idea that a voter backlash will not necessarily be good news for Republicans. In 2006, when general disaffection was reflected at the polls, the GOP took a bath because they were in control of the White House and Congress. The Dems now control everything in Washington. Any backlash will strike them, primarily.

It's not like a new Whig party will suddenly emerge as a replacement majority for both parties.

A test of whether the Dems are hopelessly captive

... of the Obamites and the national interest groups could come over the next 12 months or so. More than a handful of Democratic congressional districts remain that are not in the death grip of incumbents and that could be open for an intra-party challenger who runs as a fiscal hawk. (Bear with me, now. These guys typically do not actually vote like fiscal hawks once they're elected, but they campaign that way, at least the first time around. One of the few Dems who actually was fiscally sane was Tim Penny, and the left-wingnuts ran him out of the party. In Colorado, there's John Salazar -- Ken's brother -- but he was against the bailouts from the start, so for that and many other reasons he's safe.)

There is a coalition of "blue dogs," but they're not even as interesting as the DLC types were a decade ago. Back then the centrists really were coming up with some interesting policy ideas, primarily dealing with education, welfare reform and health care, and they did acknowledge the value of market forces and incentives in crafting effective public policies. Today's lot doesn't really bring anything to the table, policy-wise. And the former DLCers have largely been either marginalized or they've gone native and taken their cushy sinecures in academia or the left-wing policy shops.

I can't name any districts off the top of my head, but there are certain geographic regions -- in the Midwest, inland regions of Pacific time zone states, the suburban south and southwest -- that have been competitive and that the Republicans have lost for various reasons in recent elections. The Dems may have an advantage in registration and organization in those districts. But could the incumbent be challenged in a primary by someone running against high taxes and debt?

If unrest about the bailouts build, I would see the emergence of a handful of credible blue-dog-like challengers emerge in some of these swing districts as a healthy sign.

Hillsdale Mall, San Mateo County

I spent about four enjoyable hours along El Camino Real taking in the party/protest there. I was very glad that the 15th did not occur on Tuesday when it was even a lot windier. I would put the crowd in the neighborhood of 300 people which actually exceeded my expectations by a good margin. At least half of the good natured crowd of regular folk were still there when I left around 5pm with the hand-drawn "Give Me Liberty, Not Debt" poster and three flags I had acquired at the event. I was pleasantly surprised by the effusive supportive horn honking and thumbs up from the passerby motorists. Occasionally some gloomy soul would pass by with a finger salute. It was fun to smile at them. The vast majority of attendees were total newbies to this sort of expression, and they were very energetic. Depending on how one defines 'extreme right wing', well I saw none of that there - some reference to global governance was about as extreme as it got. WOW

I had a pleasant conversation with a lady named Petra who had left Germany in 1986 and had closed down her small business for the day in order to attend. She was so happy to be an American now, but so sad to see what is going on here in USA; said she just had to be here.

Although taxes were high on the agenda, it seemed that socialism and debt were the bigger worries. I watched some news coverage for a while after getting home. Listening to Newt Gingrich yap his trap was a downer ... to see these lame politicos try to jump in front of the parade is annoying. Then there was Greta asking a hundred times 'is this the start of something that will grow or continue' and 'I want to see the numbers'. It was good to see coverage, but please take a back seat and just cover. Oh, well. We shall see. The government is sure to provide lots of fodder in the coming months.

I was just happy I got off my own ass and attend.

I was sadly not agitated by Fox News or any major capitalists

... and yet wanted to go to a TEA party, despite the lack of briberies and/or kickbacks.

The "sore loser" ploy is weaksauce, and it is astonishing how progressives have conveniently forgotten how incensed they were when the label was applied to them in 2000 and 2004. As if slapping a label on a bunch of diverse people invalidates any and all of their concerns like a political Shamwow -- poof! They're gone!

The "astro-turf" ploy is weak. Are we really at the time in history where "we" always see "their" side as incapable of individual and personal though and action? The other side is always being manipulated by Soros or Halliburton or Hannity? Really?

I expect better of the Monkeys, at any rate.

Maybe a few hundred thousand people just wanted to get together and see what they have in common, if anything.

Me? I had to coach varsity baseball in Arrowhead, alas. But I will be interested in seeing what happens *next* time, whether the "protests" will evaporate, like the mysterious (!) disappearance of the Yes on Illegal Immigration crowds, or whether the amount of participation will grow. If grow -- then I would counsel Wash DC representatives to be cautious. And less flippant and dismissive, which almost never goes over well with voters such as myself.

.
"Don't confuse political savvy with competence or principles." -- RobbL, 2009

HEY Arnold!

HEY ARNOLD! Terminate illegal’s, not citizens.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
We're sorry we had to do this, but the comment spammers were just out of control. Registered users don't have to ReCAPTCHA.