I found it intriguing that, in reading the New York Times this weekend, the Tea Party goers were quick to credit themselves with the Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts last month. Mark fuckwad Skoda, the leader of the Memphis Tea Party, was very affirmative in this belief, saying: “We did it without pejoratives. We did it without name-calling, we did it without all the absurdity that one would suggest is the traditional anger of the movement. We grew up.”
Now, we were at the ground level for this one, Friends of Freemont, and to Mr. Skoda I would say this: you did nothing of the fucking sort. The Tea Party movement is hellbent on claiming the Massachusetts special election as their victory because it makes for great headlines and for wonderful fiction. Much the same way that they fictionalize the beginnings of the American Revolution to suit their political needs. (As us ‘out-of-touchers’ who read books know, the American Revolution was led by intellectuals like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin who were people seeking to be unified under a common central government, not a band of renegades out to destroy its influence).
So, let’s break this one down for Mr. Cunt Skoda, Friends of Freemont, before history is continually rewritten by both him and the mainstream media, who seem to be missing the boat on this one. And let’s do it step-by-fucking-step, in case any non-intellectual ball-sniffing fucks want to jump in at any point:
1.) Everyone seems to be forgetting Kennedy.
And I don’t mean Edward M. Kennedy. You see, the third party Independent who ran in this special election was named Joseph Lewis Kennedy. He ran on the platform of cutting government spending and decreasing the amount of government control over the private sector and free enterprise. Ideas sound familiar? In fact, in the debate I watched, Mr. Kennedy was even referred by the moderator as the “Tea Party candidate,” which I found to be interesting for a couple of reasons. The first being that Kennedy identified himself as a member of the Libertarian National Committee and never as a “Tea Party” candidate. I, therefore, found it odd that the moderator would refer to him as such. And, second, that Kennedy did not immediately correct this misrepresentation. Whatever the case, Kennedy won a whopping 1% of the vote when all was said and done, which was not even enough to claim that his presence swung voters away from Martha Chokely. Massachusetts voters, therefore, did not seem very embracing of the third party candidate who upheld the same values that seem so prevalent in the Tea Party movement.
2.) The Coak Fuck
Which brings me to #2— the simple fact that Martha Coakley ran one of the worst Democratic campaigns in party history. But I’ve spoke about this choke fuck far too much already, so let’s go right to #3…
3.) The ‘Socialist’ Vote for Healthcare
Despite Tea Party cunt claims that Scott Brown’s victory signaled the public’s rejection of Obama’s ‘socialist’ healthcare program, we Massachusetts ‘intellects’ know better. First, a poll taken shortly after the election showed that 48% of the people who voted for Scott Brown hoped that he would work with Democrats to pass healthcare reform. The second ‘intellectual’ idea that kind of floated in there was, well, the fucking fact that Massachusetts already has a ‘socialist’ healthcare program set up, which is very similar to the Obama plan and requires every state resident to purchase a form of healthcare. Not to mention the fact that Massachusetts voted time and time again for the leading proponent of healthcare reform, Edward Kennedy, to the Senate year after year after year. So, the problem, it seems, was not that the people of Massachusetts rejected Obama’s healthcare plan. But was, rather, that the White House (and the Chokely campaign) did not do a good enough job in letting the people of Massachusetts know what the benefit to them was if the Obama plan passed.
4.) Standing at the Harbor and not a tea marching fuck in sight
For my final point, I would just like to say that (as I’ve documented) I went to a couple of rallies for Martha Coakley in order to both get a gage of the Democratic tone and to seek out those Tea Partiers that were protesting against the Democratic candidate. What I encountered was not the Tea Party movement, however, but simple-minded Scott Brown supporters who liked his face and his truck as well as a radical group known as the LaRouche Political Action Committee (which does not appear to have any affiliation with the Tea Party movement). You would have thought, had the Tea Party organized such a state-wide revolt against Martha Coakley, that they would have traveled to it’s original location dressed up in their horse shit smelling, 18th Century garb, carrying misrepresentations of revolutionary flags, and dumping a bunch of Lipton into the Boston Harbor. But, thus was not the case, Friends of Freemont, and this I can attest to.
So, to reiterate— why is the Tea Party movement trying to claim the Scott Brown victory as their own? Well, because they need to. The movement, although clearly grabbing headlines on a weekly basis, is not well organized and not founded in any state of political realism. They have no answers to solve any of the problems in this country and, although clearly know how to confuse it’s citizens, have no real method of winning over a large majority of Americans.
If the Democrats have any sense in 2010, they will take a page out of the Nixonian book of politics and they will attack these Tea Party fucks with a host of combatant field operatives. I have plenty of ideas, David Plouffe. I know that you’re back on board for the cause. I warn you, David, that I won’t work cheap. But I will be fucking effective. If you have any balls, contact me through the blog. We can do lunch. I’ll wear a mask and you can wear that David-defeating-Goliath smile that everyone loves.
It’s time to wake up, citizens of Free.
Mr. Freemont Barrington
