What do you think?
Rate this book
That's No Angry Mob, That's My Mom: Team Obama's Assault on Tea-Party, Talk-Radio Americans
Responsible. Independent. Hard-working. These are qualities which used to define Americans. But now we’re a nation of whiners, blamers, and excuse-makers. So says Michael Graham—radio talk show host, former GOP campaign consultant, and journalist—in his new book, That’s No Angry Mob, That’s My Mom. That’s No Angry Mob, That’s My Mom taps into the frustration and anxiety felt by hundreds of thousands of taxpayers at Tea Parties nationwide. Frustration that the government is taking over our lives; punishing success while rewarding failure; and fostering a society of Americans who don’t take responsibility for their actions and then expect the government—and their fellow citizens—to pick up the bill. Graham, known for his searing wit and controversial comments, also explains who the tea party “activists” really are: ordinary, everyday citizens pushed into action by the threat of higher taxes and increased government intrusion. Tackling everything from the economy and education to health care and the housing market, Graham argues that it’s up to us to take control back from the government bureaucrats and to restore the home-spun values of hard work, fair play, and individual responsibility. That’s No Angry Mob, That’s My Mom shows us how.
- GenresPoliticsNonfiction
259 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2010
47 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
October 1, 2022
This was a very good book.
I've learned that reading older political books loses some of its impact/luster because the issues get stale, but this is a very good recollection of how the Obama Administration, media, and cultural elites demonized the Tea Party of the late 2000's, to make any and all objection and or resistance to the left's agenda was called racist, homophobic, unamerican, etc.
The interesting part is that this seems to be an exact blue print of how they are today treating the "MAGA" movement and demonizing those (many the same) folks with the charge of racism, hate, and unpatriotic for merely having a differing opinion.
Only goes to show, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Good book.
I've learned that reading older political books loses some of its impact/luster because the issues get stale, but this is a very good recollection of how the Obama Administration, media, and cultural elites demonized the Tea Party of the late 2000's, to make any and all objection and or resistance to the left's agenda was called racist, homophobic, unamerican, etc.
The interesting part is that this seems to be an exact blue print of how they are today treating the "MAGA" movement and demonizing those (many the same) folks with the charge of racism, hate, and unpatriotic for merely having a differing opinion.
Only goes to show, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Good book.
July 12, 2016
Arguably, Michael Graham came up with the best possible title for his book. In the wake of the ascendancy of the far left to the highest offices in the land--finally including the presidency itself--and with the redefinition of middle-of-the-road (redefined somewhat leftward), it came as a shock to the Democratic party politicians who brought all of this about to be confronted with the push-back of something calling itself the tea party (or T.E.A. Party--with the initials standing for "taxed enough already"). The reaction of the establishment left (yes, the left used to be fighting the fight against the "Man," and they haven't fully grokked that now they ARE the Man.) reacted hysterically, calling the tea party extremists, haters, white supremacists (even the African-Americans in the tea party are presumed to be white supremacists) and nothing more than an astroturf, naysaying, violent angry mob. Michael Graham points out the ludicrousness of all of these charges. As Graham points out, astroturf is the way the Democrats do things, so they assume that must be where the tea party came from. In this book, Graham shows where the movement actually came from, both by doing some journalistic research. (Imagine a reporter actually interviewing people involved in the first tea party demonstrations rather than relying on the fantasies of politicians expressing their fevered nightmares at having their authority questioned.)
At the heart of his book, Graham uses his own mother's participation in the tea party movement to illustrate the absurdity of anti-tea party stereotypes and rhetoric. His mother was as surprised as anyone by the characterization of her civic activism as racist, privileged, violent and dangerous. (As Graham says, his mother IS dangerous, but only when she tries to parallel park.) Mrs. Graham not only seems to be an extremely nice lady, but she is hardly privileged, having come from a poor family and worked for everything she ever got. Far from being racist, when she moved from her native California to South Carolina at the height of civil rights unrest she was appalled by the level of racism she encountered and acted against it.
Using a sea of humor, an arsenal of facts and a dumpster-full of over-the-top anti-tea party quotes from prominent members of the ruling class in politics and media, Graham argues that the tea party is the embodiment of traditional American values, and it is rather the Democratic party with its elitist policy mavens--who cannot demonstrate that they are competent to run an entire society from their Washington, DC catbird seats and yet try to--who are the extremist goofballs.
BTW, Graham mentions the sign that compared Obama to Hitler at a tea party rally and notes that leftists ever since have cited it as evidence that 1Cthat 19s what they 19re all like 1D even though there was only one such sign. In fact, it turns out that that sign, which was not even carried around, was fixed to a book stall, which was run by a follower of the late American fascist Lyndon LaRouche. At the rally in question, only a few participants perused the stall 19s wares, but most walked without a buy once they saw what the guy was peddling. A similar 14or, who knows, perhaps the same 14LaRouche-supporter later set up a stall at Occupy Wall Street. (No sales figures available for comparison.)
One painful note is Graham 19s enthusiasm for Republican senator Scott Brown who amazed everyone across the spectrum with his win of the seat formerly held by Edward 1CTed 1D Kennedy. Brown 19s commitment to opposing government over-reach has since been less than inspiring, but Graham, writing five years ago, seems to have a point worth not missing: a conservative message that at least seems genuine can actually win votes even in a notoriously leftward state.
At the heart of his book, Graham uses his own mother's participation in the tea party movement to illustrate the absurdity of anti-tea party stereotypes and rhetoric. His mother was as surprised as anyone by the characterization of her civic activism as racist, privileged, violent and dangerous. (As Graham says, his mother IS dangerous, but only when she tries to parallel park.) Mrs. Graham not only seems to be an extremely nice lady, but she is hardly privileged, having come from a poor family and worked for everything she ever got. Far from being racist, when she moved from her native California to South Carolina at the height of civil rights unrest she was appalled by the level of racism she encountered and acted against it.
Using a sea of humor, an arsenal of facts and a dumpster-full of over-the-top anti-tea party quotes from prominent members of the ruling class in politics and media, Graham argues that the tea party is the embodiment of traditional American values, and it is rather the Democratic party with its elitist policy mavens--who cannot demonstrate that they are competent to run an entire society from their Washington, DC catbird seats and yet try to--who are the extremist goofballs.
BTW, Graham mentions the sign that compared Obama to Hitler at a tea party rally and notes that leftists ever since have cited it as evidence that 1Cthat 19s what they 19re all like 1D even though there was only one such sign. In fact, it turns out that that sign, which was not even carried around, was fixed to a book stall, which was run by a follower of the late American fascist Lyndon LaRouche. At the rally in question, only a few participants perused the stall 19s wares, but most walked without a buy once they saw what the guy was peddling. A similar 14or, who knows, perhaps the same 14LaRouche-supporter later set up a stall at Occupy Wall Street. (No sales figures available for comparison.)
One painful note is Graham 19s enthusiasm for Republican senator Scott Brown who amazed everyone across the spectrum with his win of the seat formerly held by Edward 1CTed 1D Kennedy. Brown 19s commitment to opposing government over-reach has since been less than inspiring, but Graham, writing five years ago, seems to have a point worth not missing: a conservative message that at least seems genuine can actually win votes even in a notoriously leftward state.
Read
July 30, 2011This book is a veritable slaughter house for sacred cows. Michael Graham does an excellent job of articulating three things: 1) the basic premise of the Tea Party movement, and why it attracts people like his (and perhaps your) mother (it's not that hard; fiscal responsibility); 2) the non-logical, emotional responses against the Tea Party movement and why they are non-logical and emotional. Names are named, examples are given; and 3) how and why the Tea Party movement has not only arisen, but why it is growing and thriving.
The writing style is light and engaging, but is clearly targeted on the choir to which it is preaching. This is the weakest part of the book, in that calling someone who still believes in the Hope and Change (tm) of the Obama campaign an "O-bot" repeatedly will probably not bring them into your camp, no matter how accurate the reasons. -I- enjoyed it because it fed my red-meat needs, but I'm not sure it will lead many into the light. The CASE it makes for supporting the concept of the Tea Party is logically sound and reasonable, but I'd be surprised if this book, by itself, changed many minds... I think people are hard-wired to defensiveness too strongly for that.
The real strength of this book is that in about 250 pages it hits on just about all of the major differences between the liberal and conservative sides of the argument: health care, illegal immigration, the role of government, the weakness of the press, etc. It provides not just one-off quotes, but the context for the statements that SHOULD be indefensible and yet stand unchallanged.
This is what I took away from the book: Much of the arguments against the Tea Party movement can only be stated in anonymous and impersonal ways, and it is a rare (and likely disfunctional) person that could express those exact same words to somebody like Graham's mother face-to-face... it would require absolute disrespect for the person being spoken to and no sense of shame.
I would welcome a similar treatment of this topic from the other side: light, engaging discussion of why it is racist and homophobic to question the wisdom of TARP, Stimulus and Stimulus II.
Personal jab: I recall when we are all being educated, post-Tailhook, about sexual harrasment, and one of the 'checks' on behavior was to consider if you'd be comfortable making a questionable statement or act in the presence of your mother or having somebody say the same thing to your sister. Not a perfect check (it takes all kinds), but a pretty hand little internal QA. If people believe the level of political discourse has descended too low, this would probably be a good QA to apply as well.
The writing style is light and engaging, but is clearly targeted on the choir to which it is preaching. This is the weakest part of the book, in that calling someone who still believes in the Hope and Change (tm) of the Obama campaign an "O-bot" repeatedly will probably not bring them into your camp, no matter how accurate the reasons. -I- enjoyed it because it fed my red-meat needs, but I'm not sure it will lead many into the light. The CASE it makes for supporting the concept of the Tea Party is logically sound and reasonable, but I'd be surprised if this book, by itself, changed many minds... I think people are hard-wired to defensiveness too strongly for that.
The real strength of this book is that in about 250 pages it hits on just about all of the major differences between the liberal and conservative sides of the argument: health care, illegal immigration, the role of government, the weakness of the press, etc. It provides not just one-off quotes, but the context for the statements that SHOULD be indefensible and yet stand unchallanged.
This is what I took away from the book: Much of the arguments against the Tea Party movement can only be stated in anonymous and impersonal ways, and it is a rare (and likely disfunctional) person that could express those exact same words to somebody like Graham's mother face-to-face... it would require absolute disrespect for the person being spoken to and no sense of shame.
I would welcome a similar treatment of this topic from the other side: light, engaging discussion of why it is racist and homophobic to question the wisdom of TARP, Stimulus and Stimulus II.
Personal jab: I recall when we are all being educated, post-Tailhook, about sexual harrasment, and one of the 'checks' on behavior was to consider if you'd be comfortable making a questionable statement or act in the presence of your mother or having somebody say the same thing to your sister. Not a perfect check (it takes all kinds), but a pretty hand little internal QA. If people believe the level of political discourse has descended too low, this would probably be a good QA to apply as well.
August 14, 2016
Decades after the fact, I sometimes still think about an old college friend. While I concerned myself with the issues that mattered - like how to pass a class I never attended, and which frat house would have the best weekend party - she was latching on to every activist (read: Liberal) group within driving distance of our dorm.
The moment I best remember, the one which pretty much defined her character for me, was when she teed off on me in a 20-minute rant - a diatribe about religion that closed with the line, "Some behaviors are so @#!@#! offensive, they need to be illegal!"
I just stared at her. I was at a complete loss for words, because I had no idea how to respond to something so absurd. And dangerous.
As the years have gone by, I've often felt that same shocky paralysis in the face of the rage - and the resulting absurdities - of political zealots (within any group). When I decided to read "That's No Angry Mob", I was expecting a fun read, one that would soundly tweak those types while entertaining me. And Michael Graham certainly doesn't disappoint: This is a fun book, filled with Graham's quick wit and irreverent attitude.
What I didn't expect were the searing insights into the attitudes and beliefs of those who seek not only to control, but to eliminate all dissension. For example, in describing "normal folks", Graham says: "... they don't view politics as an all-encompassing struggle. They don't need 'the fight' to give meaning to their existence - they already have a life."
That one had me thinking for a while - a long while - and it's just one of the many insights that I'll take with me from this book. I'm pretty sure that the next time I'm confronted with a political purist of any kind, I won't be struggling with paralysis: I'll be trying not to laugh.
July 19, 2010
Anyone notice that moveon.org removed its General Betray Us page? When Bush was President, dissent was a patriotic duty. Apparently, that directive was rescinded in Jan 2009. All's well now that the General segued from Bush appointee to Obama's man. But dissent is alive and well in the Tea Party movement, and the left's effort to deligitimize it comes right out of the Saul Alinsky handbook, and is well documented here. At first, the Tea Party was portrayed as a mob of unenlightened ignoramuses and the mainstream media paid it no mind. When that didn't work, the white majority demographics of the group were used to paint it as a bunch of racists - "If you're not with the plan, you're with the Klan." And when that didn't catch on, Tea Partiers were criticized for leading us to the abyss of violence, nevermind that there is remarkably little to no violence associated with the groups' meetings or agenda. The point of author Michael Graham's book is that this is not about policy; it's about team Obama's effort to change the mindset of the country and the American character, and the Tea Party stands in the way. Those who are not on board are denigrated and, in Graham's eyes, this is unprecedented: "Every American president has spoken out against his rivals... Trashing politicians is good fun. But political attacks against the American people? That's a new low." Per Graham, it's not about race or violence, it's about math - spending money we don't have to grow a bigger government we don't need.
September 7, 2010
Hands down, the best book I have read which discusses the "values" of the Tea Party. It is concisely written and chock full of information not written in any other political books. The greatest thing about the book is that it is written in humorous fashion and not dry like most political books. The only thing I disagree with the author on is his assessment of the Scott Brown campaign, but, hey, that is the great thing about the Tea Party. Disagreement is allowed without resorting to name calling!
May 25, 2012
I like Michael Graham, and I liked his book well enough.
The best and worst part of this book is that Graham writes pretty much exactly how he speaks on his show. An ex-stand up comedian, he is very funny. And he makes some great points.
But the downside to that is the book feels like it just glosses over things and makes major points into punchlines. His commentary is balanced on his radio show by the callers, making his role more a moderator and comic relief. As an entire uninterrupted book, it gets a little old.
The best and worst part of this book is that Graham writes pretty much exactly how he speaks on his show. An ex-stand up comedian, he is very funny. And he makes some great points.
But the downside to that is the book feels like it just glosses over things and makes major points into punchlines. His commentary is balanced on his radio show by the callers, making his role more a moderator and comic relief. As an entire uninterrupted book, it gets a little old.
May 29, 2010
Great read no matter what political party you are. Both parties have messed up the country and now we need to get it back to the principles and values America was founded on. Reclaiming America's values means defending individual liberty, opportunity and accountability. There's a reason people come to America - it's to experience the freedoms we have.
December 28, 2012
This was a good book, which covers many of the issues surrounding the healthcare reform debate in 2009, and specifically the formation of the tea party and the media's treatment of them. I struggled with giving this 4 stars versus 3, but I think I was leaning lower just because the subject matter tended to annoy me.
January 25, 2012
An excellent book, that I would recommend to all my conservative friends interested in what's going on in our country. The beginning is a little repetitive, but it has a lot of good information and analysis, and a lot of humor.
May 11, 2010
I am loving this book! I highly recommend it. Democratic or Republican. If you are a Capitalist or Constitutionalist, it is the book for you!
July 15, 2010
I love Michael Graham - listen to him all the time on WTTK - this book is superb - really helps to put things in perspective.
Read
May 15, 2011Currently reading. Will review when I am done
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews