David Gregory and Jay Leno speculate on ArPee Jr., and what drives the Tea Party Movement

Nothing quite like a pair of liberal NBC stooges deliberating on the conservative movement and on a conservative politician in hot waters, while carrying on the pretense of objectivity and non-partisan detachment in their analysis.

Rand Paul last week gave a weak and pathetic response to Rachel Maddow’s interview question on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Since then, he canceled a scheduled appearance for Meet the Press last Sunday, and the Tonight Leno Show last night. Both hosts of the respective shows were on Leno’s program, trying to sound objective:

I am not a Rand Paul reverist. But he is the GOP candidate and we need him to win. Even though he’s opened himself up for ridicule for not appearing on MtP (and Leno), it might be a good thing he canceled, given how unprepared he seems to be to give good answers to easy softball questions.

Mediaite:

Gregory revealed that in a note the Paul people had sent to MTP they “initially said he was just tired, exhausted at the end of the week…he didn’t want to be dragged down by the Liberal bias. I really think he just put himself out there in a way that was hurting his campaign.”

Meanwhile Jay Leno wanted to know how come the Tea Partiers are showing up now and not back when the Bush administration was stomping all over the nation’s civil rights?

Leno seems to be echoing the question he really wants to drive at, but won’t flatout iterate: Isn’t what motivates the Tea Party Movement more about race than political difference?

Leno asks why weren’t these Tea Partiers out there protesting TARP and Bush spending, “why now”, he asks (while also pointing out TARP happened under Bush; but not acknowledging the $700 billion TARP bailout package had strong backing from candidate Obama).

Truth is, many conservatives have been denouncing spending during the Bush years and were also against the Troubled Asset Relief Program. However, TARP (which had to do with saving our financial institutions through government loans, much of which has been paid back already- and subsequently “respent” by THIS administration, not to be paid back), eventually supported by Republican lawmakers, is different than the Obama stimulus package, opposed by every Republican lawmaker except the two Senators from Maine, which is money that will not be recovered back by the government.

GOP incumbent stalwart, Robert Bennett, lost in the primary, in large measure on account of TARP– this despite his high ACU ranking.

So what was Jay’s point again? What is he suggesting? That the anger and opposition to Obama’s agenda really isn’t about opposition to his policies? But upon the issue of race? Partisan politics?

Then of course, there’s the fear of the increased speed of growth in spending and size of government under the current president, $3.5 trillion after just one year, to galvanize the American people to activist action.

And then recent news like this only adds more timber to the fire:

Paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of this year, a USA TODAY analysis of government data finds.

At the same time, government-provided benefits — from Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other programs — rose to a record high during the first three months of 2010.

Those records reflect a long-term trend accelerated by the recession and the federal stimulus program to counteract the downturn. The result is a major shift in the source of personal income from private wages to government programs.

The trend is not sustainable, says University of Michigan economist Donald Grimes. Reason: The federal government depends on private wages to generate income taxes to pay for its ever-more-expensive programs. Government-generated income is taxed at lower rates or not at all, he says. “This is really important,” Grimes says.

More here.