Are US politics simply labels? If “tea-party” is all inclusive; why so few minorities?

From the right, Limbaugh and his crowd speak of “Liberals” as if they are poison; Hennety is after socialism, and Glenn Beck uses the term “progressive” as a catch-all for what is bad with Democrats, or anyone, anything, on the left. All three “gurus” now adopted Global Warning as a rallying cry against Democrats.

Those media spokespersons from the left are a little less creative, they pick on broad general items, and on “right-wing” personnel. Keith Oberman is after Bill O’Reilley, and more recently after Glenn Back. Rachel Maddow does not like Glenn Beck and devotes a great deal of time attacking the “conservative” talk show host/actor. Maddow also goes after that is remotely anti-gay. And there is Chris Matthews who simply like to hear himself talk, and beat up on guests to demonstrate his brilliance.

And then there is the “tea-party”. There is no leader to this movement, anyone who can draw a crown, even Sarah Palin, can be a leader and spokesperson for the moment. Even though the “movement” is intended to be all-inclusive, very few “non-white” people seem to be present at tea- party gatherings, Bishop Jackson, a person of color who seems to have a personal dislike for Barak Obama, is a rare exception.

And so it goes; American early twenty-first Century politics are more devoted to labels and to issues; what a waste of the country’s enormous capacity for disseminating information!