Vogel's article is what I call a "wedge piece" -- one that purports to be objective (and which can often even appear sympathetic) but which actually is intended to drive a wedge of some kind between people or within and among a group, in this case the TEA Party movement, and thus weaken a position, a person or a group by suggesting that a weakness already exists -- sort of a "self-fulfilling prophecy" meme.
 
Vogel's first subtle attempt at "disparate delegitimization" is:

 "...the movement, which — depending on who's doing the telling — took its name either as an homage to the 1773 Boston tax revolt that played a major role in sparking the American Revolution or from an acronym standing for 'Taxed Enough Already.'”

My response:

It's not an either/or choice and to suggest so is proceeding from a false premise, whether intentionally or due to ignorance. First, TEA Parties originally took their name from the acronym for Taxed Enough Already, i.e., TEA, which is the reason, by the way, that it should always be presented that way -- "TEA Parties," and not merely "tea parties." Besides, if it were always correctly presented as the acronym TEA, it would make it at least more cumbersome for critics to use the gay sexual slur of "teabaggers" to describe and deride TEA Party participants.

TEA as an acronym captured the main points of that to which TEA Partiers originally objected, to wit, too big government bent on too much spending and therefore too much taxing, as exemplified first by the Bush/Obama $700 billion TARP bailouts and then exacerbated by the Obama $787 billion so-called stimulus plan. Just from October 2008 to February 2009, a mere four months, Americans had seen our national debt increased by a breathtaking $1.49 TRILLION. And we already had all indications (which have since proven all too true) that the new president, with his handmaiden Democratic Congress, was just getting started. And all and almost every one of them (the president et al.) were doing all this without listening to objections from We the People to slow down, have more debate and at least read the bills which they were pushing at breakneck speed through the Congress. So, we also had all this sudden debt increase, and therefore projected tax, without feeling we were even being heard, much less adequately represented, as well.

[This article's mainly opinion for entertainment, with some tongue-in-cheek and a few facts mixed in, so get a cup of coffee, or maybe a glass of wine, or whatever's your poison, and relax and take your time.]

4. Cash for Clunkers was such a success!
In the aftermath of President Obama’s Cash for Clunkers Program, US auto sales plunged 23%: 47% at GM, 44% at Chrysler, 8.9% at Ford, 16% at Toyota, 23% at Honda, and 11% at Nissan.
 
5. Who's who in Honduras?
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Senator John "horse face" Kerry (D-MA) blocked Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) from traveling to Honduras on a fact finding mission, while President Obama and Congressional Democrats continue to support the deposed former president, who tried to override the Honduran constitution and become president-for-life, instead of supporting the democratic government in upcoming elections. Maybe Obama sees a "model" in Honduras he would like to emulate here? Just askin' - Just sayin'.

6. You may be Taliban if:
a. You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to beer.
b. You own a $3,000 machine gun and $5,000 rocket launcher, but you can't afford shoes.
c. You have more wives than teeth.
d. You wipe your butt with your bare hand, but consider bacon "unclean."
e. You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide.
f. You can't think of anyone you haven't declared Jihad against.
g. You consider television dangerous, but routinely carry explosives in your clothing.
h. You were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs.
i. You have nothing against women and think every man should own at least two.
j. You've always had a crush on your neighbor's goat.

7. Notable quotable
So-called "conservative" David Brooks on Obama's pants, after meeting the president for the first time: "I remember distinctly an image of – we were sitting on his couches and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant -- and I'm thinking (a) he's going to be president and (b) he'll be a very good president." Gee, that's at least close to MSNBC's Chris Matthews' "tingle up the leg," isn't it? Who ARE these guys, and what kinds of measures of who will make a good president do they engage in? 

8. What's the hurry?
Rich Lowry, Editor, National Review, on President Obama's "Plan for Health Care Reform," said it best: "As with the stimulus package, Obama's health care plan depends on speed. More important than any given provision, more important than any principle, more important than sound legislating is the urgent imperative to Do It Now. Do it now, before anyone can grasp what exactly it is that Congress is passing. Do it now, before the overpromising and the dishonest justifications can be exposed. Do it now, before Obama's poll numbers return to Earth and make it impossible to slam through ramshackle government programs concocted on the run. Do it now, because simply growing government is more important than the practicalities of any new program."

9. A nook, a cranny, a crook?
In the difference between a nook and a cranny, a nook is a corner and a cranny is a crack. So, why wouldn't that mean that a crack in a corner would be a crook? No, I forgot, the real crook is the Congressman in the corner, making condescending cracks about his constituents.

10. A not very apologetic "apology"
Media Matters, after attributing two "racist" statements to radio host Rush Limbaugh but then not being able to substantiate them, said on October 22, 2009:
You know, in fairness to Rush, those two out of literally dozens of racist things were not necessarily accurate. We were never able to find them. We've had people call us trying to find it. We don't know where they came from. They could just be Internet apparitions. But you know, that being said, anyone who wants to know how racist he is, we're happy to give them other examples.
But then, despite saying "in fairness to Rush" (yeah, like that's what they're all about) and "those two out of literally dozens of racist things" (dozens? -- really?), they ..... um ..... failed to provide ANY of the "other examples." So, with Media Matters, it must be just like it is with the Obama Administration -- "It's so just because we SAY it's so."

Since President Obama signed the $787 billion stimulus plan in February, going on four months have passed and the states most in need of stimulus plan funds, those where unemployment is the highest, haven't seen most of the contracts worth only a comparatively paltry $4 billion in U.S. stimulus funds so far awarded. Four billion dollars is only .005 percent of $787 billion, and the states most in need haven't even seen much of that.

The so-called America Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was intended, and tenaciously touted by Team Obama, to help turn the economy around by using federal money to create jobs, especially in states most severely affected by the recession. Most of the money is for state projects such as highway and infrastructure work, but federal agencies also are expected to spend billions on federal projects as well.

It seems the first so-called "shovel ready" project contracts were awarded unevenly for several reasons. Some federal agencies more quickly signed contracts than others, while some contracts were awarded to projects either already under way or to companies with a history of doing government work.

In other words, it seems that haste, rather than targeting (remember transparent, targeted and temporary?) was the byword. "Just get some of it out the door, so we can say we've done something. Don't worry about where it's going or for what." Which, in a strangely twisted way, seems almost appropriate for legislation: (a) for a massive amount of taxpayer money, (b) which was hastily cobbled together by the Democrat majorities in the House and Senate, while refusing input from Republicans (Bipartisanship, wherefore didst thou goest?), (c) which wasn't even read before it was voted on and passed by Democrat majorities in House and Senate, and (d) which was equally hastily signed into law by the Democratic president (without Obama's promised online 5-day transparency review by the American people -- oh my! But, I guess if the Congress which voted on it didn't read it and the president who signed it didn't read it, then Obama probably thought, why should we? Well, maybe because it's our money? Just a thought.).  

Team Obama spokeswoman Liz Oxhorn said that the stimulus plan is "providing unprecedented assistance at a record pace to benefit as many Americans as possible." Well, Liz, there's only three things wrong with that statement: (a) "providing unprecedented assistance..." -- not yet; (b) "....at a record pace..." -- definitely not yet; and (c) "...to benefit as many Americans as possible." -- tell that again to the unemployed in the hardest hit states.

Maybe Liz and other liberal Democrats, and especially President Obama himself, should remember that just saying something is so doesn't make it so. And, one might argue, saying something which is patently not so, is, well, euphemistically speaking, disingenuous, but in plainer words, just plain lying.

In addition to the comparatively measly $4 billion in contracts it has awarded so far, the federal government has also asked companies to bid on thousands of projects worth more than $30 billion. Once that is done, whenever it does get done, that would total $34 billion contracted, out of the $787 billion in the stimulus plan. Even that's only .04 percent. But, oh, somebody is already spending at least several hundred thousands of federal or state dollars on roadside signs which advertise the projects which are coming. (Hey, no jobs yet, but this is where they'll be, whenever there are some.) Must be the new, "nuanced" definition of "shovel ready."

Economists say that this recession actually started almost a year ago and that, historically, recessions in this country usually last about two years. So, it would seem the recession had a better chance of curing itself, if the federal government had mainly just stayed out of the way, than Obama's so-called "stimulus plan," which so far has "stimulated" little -- and in the wrong places, to boot.

I was recently reading some posted comments online about President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, and one commenter suggested: "Could the case be made that the 'moderate Democrats' need to be the ones to step up here and do the right thing in opposing this nominee?"

My reaction:

First of all, that seems like a rational question to ask. And, yes, the case could be made, and should be made, but the watchword unfortunately seems to be: "Please don't hold your breath." In other words, no disrespect intended, but -- are you kidding?

For example, where were those "moderate Democrats," those so-called Blue Dog Democrats, when the UNREAD and NONstimulating "stimulus" bill was passed? Or when the PORK LADEN "budget" was passed? Or when still more billions, even trillions, in generational deficit and debt are spent -- and even Obama says such debt is "unsustainable" -- in a vain attempt to SPEND us out of a recession? Is that how YOUR checkbook works? Mine neither. But then, neither of us can just print more money, like Team Obama can, either.

However, I agree, it would seem that at least SOME Blue Dogs would show they have some common sense about all this, but, so far, not much of a whimper. They, like other Democrats, are too busy either wagging their tails over being in power or running around chasing their tails, fascinated, like a puppy with a squeaky ball, with any and all bright and shiny new spending ideas they can play with. So, sorry to say, don't expect any help from them on something like this Supreme Court nominee, either.

Sotomayor is "qualified" -- more so than Myers was but probably less so than Thomas, or even Bork, would have been -- because of her long time on the federal bench. But she certainly is not one of the "best qualified." She really is a twofer quota fill for Obama in payment for the Hispanic vote in particular and the liberal vote in general. She seems to lack the depth and breadth of legal intellect or personal charm to sway the current 5/4 court, which is good, making her basically a one-to-one replacement for the liberal Souter. So, as far as the Court is concerned, this nomination is probably a wash.

But watch out for Obama's NEXT nominee. THAT will be the deal-breaking nominee. There are lots of things I don't like about Obama, but I have to give credit where credit is due -- and he is a shrewd politician. The Sotomayor nomination could be his testing of the waters, to see how far and hard he can push an even more liberal pick next time around. Hopefully, he won't get another chance until 2010 or after and, by then, Republicans should have regained enough in the Senate, if not the Congress overall, to kill the chances, if appropriate, of whomever he nominates next.