Our local Teabaggers have been writing in to the Coloradoan over the past two weeks and complaining about the way they're misunderstood and misrepresented in the press. The Teabaggers say they receive unfair treatment from liberals (which is a group I call my own). It seems that liberal mischaracterizations of Teabagger politics hurt the Teabaggers' feelings.

In the interests of fair and balanced dialogue, I've reproduced below the Teagbaggers' three recent letters (where the highlighting is mine). When you read the letters, I wonder if you'll notice, as I did, that each letter is distinguished by an economy of expression that avoids elaboration and the inclusion of even the simplest explanatory detail but, rather, uses short, clearly worded clauses and sentences to make points. It's not an easy way to write, but all three of the letter-writers express themselves in that style, as if one author had composed all the letters. For example, note how Steve Goppert (letter 1) and Wes Tucker (letter 3) both dramatically inform us in their second paragraphs that, "I am white".

Regardless, we learn from the letters that Teabaggers are non-violent, non-racist and fervently committed to upholding the Constitution.

Tea Partiers are Not Violent
Listening to news and progressives, I found out that, because I went to the Tea Party parade in support of the Constitution and smaller government, I am an angry, violent racist. Because this is so far off the mark, one can only conclude that the folks saying that are grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading.

Perhaps some are confusing passion with anger. I talked to everyone I could at the Loveland gathering, and everyone was smiling and friendly. I am white; however, like Martin Luther King Jr., I believe we should judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

Our president called us a nasty slur rather than Tea Partiers. His Secret Service called the SWAT team to protect him from a peaceful Tea Party group in Illinois. Those people looked a lot like us in Loveland and were peaceful. There was no reason for the SWAT team. In Phoenix, SWAT was needed because of the violence at a La Raza, SEIU, socialist demonstration. Police were hit by rocks. Who is violent?

This same president said that the Arizona immigration law would allow the police to stop people based on race at a ice cream parlor and demand their papers. The Arizona law specifically prohibits that. Who is truthful? Who uses race (blacks and Chicanos support me like you did for the election) and class (tax the rich) to stir up support?

Who is passionately for America and the rule of law? Nonviolent, concerned Tea Party people.

Steve Goppert
Loveland

Liberals See Through Race-tinted Glasses
There they go again. Recently, there have been two letters from liberals, the true obsessive racists who see everything through race-tinted glasses, suggesting that the only possible motivation for the "Tea Partiers" is (gasp) racism.

There could, after all, be no other possible reason for disagreement with a president who has taken on President George W. Bush's already horrible deficits and compounded them with the result that the national debt is headed inexorably toward $10 trillion. Yes, these ignorant dissidents would surely have no other reason than blind racist hate to be upset about their country going so deeply into debt that there is not enough money in the known universe to pay it off.

Back in the Bush years, we were constantly admonished that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism." Although liberals are offended by the existence of those who choose not to wash the feet of the Obamamessiah – if it was true then, it's just as true now.

Robert C. Michael
Fort Collins

Race has Nothing to do with Tea Party
In a recent letter to the editor, Kate Forgach agreed with Jerry Robinson that tea partiers are angry in part due to the president's race. What is the evidence of that? Andrew Breitbart even offers $100,000 for anyone with proof. Go for it!

I've been participating in Tea Party protests for over a year now and have seen absolutely zero support for that idea. Actually, I'm appalled to be categorized as such and I certainly wouldn't hang out with any group that promotes it. I am white and have a black son from Jamaica and a Hispanic son from Mexico. Both are currently serving their country in the military. I spend time in Haiti helping out.

Am I racist? I would be happy for either of my minority sons to be president of the United States. It's not about the president's race, it's about his agenda.

I wasn't in agreement with Bush's spending, the prosecution of the Iraq war or lack of border security in a post 9/11 world, but if Bush's spending was wrong, how is Obama's spending four times as much in 1.5 years as Bush spent in eight right?

The concern of the tea partiers is this administration's abandonment of a constitutional republic in exchange for European-style socialism or worse.

That's what I and my fellow tea partiers are angry about. To ascribe it to racism is nonsense.

Wes Tucker
Fort Collins

The Teabagger letter-writers (whether they be three writers or one ghost) eloquently declaim the slings and arrows of liberal criticism. I am genuinely touched by the Teabaggers' passion. I had no idea they dislodged themselves from FOXNews long enough to hear what the rest of us think about them.

I genuinely feel abashed. I feel that I have underestimated the Teabaggers' capacity for self-reflection. I feel the need to walk in the Teabaggers' shoes and see how the world looks from their perspective.

It's my hope, in my comments below, to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with my brother and sister American Teabaggers and to help them push back against the ugly inaccuracies that liberals direct at them. I will use the Teabaggers' own words to reveal the integrity of their positions and the infamy of liberal slander.

First, let's put to death the lie about Teabaggers being violent. The Teabaggers' placards and guns, which they patriotically carry at their rallies, show otherwise, as you can see in the photographs below. There's not a hint of a brandished weapon in any of the photographs. And thus, we do not have reason to accuse the Teabaggers of advocating violence.

What's that you say? You're unnerved by the Teabaggers' enthusiasm for guns and by their well-articulated threats to use them? Let me explain something to you. Brandishing a gun is illegal. Carrying a gun (by any individual, at any time and in any place – according to right-wing gun evangelists) is a constitutionally guaranteed right.

I honestly don't know why you – or anyone else – troubles themselves over the exuberance of Teabagger rhetoric or by the Teabaggers' patriotic promises to use their guns, in a non-brandished way, against us and the Republic. Such rhetoric proves the Teabaggers love the Constitution, probably more than you do.


Secondly, it's never crossed the Teabaggers' minds that Barack Obama is a scary Negro. Teabaggers are the suffering victims of liberal bias – a bias that sees Teabagger positions only through a racial lens. The writers to the Coloradoan make this point, above, as do the Teabaggers in the photos below. It represents a fearsome critique of liberalism.


All of us are challenged – in a good way! – by the Teabaggers' use of racial stereotypes. As you can see in the photos below, Teabaggers are fearless in adopting racially-charged material to spread their non-racist message.

Some of us would think twice about using the catchphrases from Black TV sitcoms to criticize the policies of a Black President. We would think that such catchphrases reduce our critique to a racial caricature. But the Teabaggers know better. They triumphantly turn material from Diff'rent Strokes (NBC, 1978-1985; and ABC, 1985-1986) and In Living Color (Fox, 1990-1994) into hilarious, biting commentary. The Teabaggers are truly racially blind. I encourage you to follow their lead – And feel free to crack some pithy Teabagger humor at your multidemographic workplace.

•From Diff'rent Strokes, the Teabagger placcard below refers to Gary Coleman's catchphrase, "What'choo talkin' 'bout, Willis?"

•From In Living Color, the Teabagger placcard below refers to a sketch entitled Homey D. Clown, which includes the line, "I don't think so... Homey don't play dat!"

And what can we say about the Teabaggers' enthusiastic comparison of Barack Obama – a Black man – to a monkey? The comparison is redolent of racism and underscores the Zen-like center of non-racism, from where Teabaggers operate. Otherwise, we could only observe that the Teabaggers adopt one of the most incendiary and derogatory portrayals of Blacks in order to advance their politics.

Likewise, what else can we do but slap the Teabaggers on their backs, for giving us their telling portrayal of Obama as a witch doctor?

Having said all that, let's turn to the Teabagger portrayal of Barack Obama as the "massa" (slave-Negro dialect for "white property owner") of a slave-owning plantation. Talk about incendiary! Who can deny that every one of us is the victim of Barack Obama's uppity victory in the last election? The fact is, representational Democracy is a Teabagger bitch, which renders us, in the Teabagger non-racist worldview, as "The Jews For Obama's Ovens". I have nothing else to say.


And what's not to like about a political party that adopts a sexual practice as its defining metaphor? I like how the Teabaggers promote teabagging. They use the term in an affirmative way, when describing their own actions, and as a derogatory slur, when applying the term to their opponents. Who would have guessed that John Waters' popularization of teabagging in the movie Pecker (1998) would have resulted in right-wingers adopting it as their own?