The political right would like us all to believe their April 15 tea party protests are the spontaneous work of just plain folks — no partisan or ideological axes to grind, mind you.
Predictably, that’s not the case, as is made clear in an excellent Think Progress post that tells how corporate lobbyists, Fox News and funding from an oil-rich conservative family are powering the planned events.
Despite these attempts to make the “movement” appear organic, the principle organizers of the local events are actually the lobbyist-run think tanks Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works. The two groups are heavily staffed and well funded, and are providing all the logistical and public relations work necessary for planning coast-to-coast protests.
. . . This type of corporate ‘astroturfing‘ is nothing new to either organization. While working to promote Social Security privatization, Freedom Works was caught planting one of its operatives as a “single mom” to ask questions to President Bush in a town hall on the subject. Last year, the Wall Street Journal exposed Freedom Works for similarly building “amateur-looking” websites to promote the lobbying interests of Dick Armey, the former Republican Majority Leader who now leads Freedom Works and is a lobbyist for the firm DLA Piper.
To put this in perspective, our economy is trashed; our military is stretched thin in two no-win wars, one of them unnecessary from the get-go; 47 million have no health insurance; global warming advances unchecked; and we’ve got the highest unemployment in decades.
So what do corporate America, the political forces of darkness and The Party Of No — who got us into this fix — have to contribute? Highly publicized bitch-and-moan events, bellyaching about the high price of cleaning up their messes.
And, of course, they’re sneaky about who’s behind it all.
This would be laughable if it was in a “Police Academy”-type comedy. Here in real life, it’s two parts disgusting to one part pathetic.
By way of a telling example, check out this, from a list of Yahoo! news stories on the tea parties:
As an inherently decentralized movement, there’s no “right” or “wrong” way to hold a Tea Party protest. But there are a few tricks to maximize the affect(sic) of your message, organizers tell FOXNews.com.
Fox News – Apr 11 8:22 AM
Obviously, someone at Fox doesn’t know his/her “affect” from their “effect.” For the rest of this nonsense, see Recipes for Effective ‘ Tea Party ‘ Protests – The Tea Party Revolution… Brought to You By Twitter
…the work of lobbyists and pols
Excuse me, but the lobbyists and pols with any power are in the Obama administration.
I’ve found the Tea Parties to be a genuine movement in response to the rising spending (for no good purpose) and state/corporate confluence in Washington. That a few established entities have joined does not change the nature of the protest.
It is also nice that taxpayer funded ACORN will actively contend the Tea Parties. Stalinism here we come.
The only fun to be had with tea parties is that the activity is becoming known as “teabagging”, another word with significance in the demi-monde. It’s not quit so amusing as the “2m4m” debacle, but it’s worth the occasional chuckle.
For some odd reason, there weren’t any “tea parties” when Bush was bankrupting us with the Iraqi quagmire. It figures that these tea parties are just another corporate astroturf gimmick.
RSF wrote: “I’ve found the Tea Parties to be a genuine movement in response to the rising spending. . .”
You would. No sense letting facts get in your way at this late date.
Jeff, with things in such a mess, let’s take our chuckles where we find them.
Tom, I suspect there were celebratory tea parties aplenty during The New Dark Age of Bush — in Beijing, Moscow, Pyongyang, Tehran and Pakistan’s ungoverned territories.
Conservative activism lacks sincerity and is all about “me”, including these tea parties. Lol, “Stalinism here we come”. Give me a break.
Conservative activism lacks sincerity and is all about “me”
That’s why conservatives are against abortion. We think people should live, and we should make an effort to propagate the species. How selfish!
No sense letting facts get in your way at this late date.
So the genuine concern of myself and some friends who have worked on these is not real? So we have been co-opted by corporate masters? Well, you’re the expert on brain washing.
bankrupting us with the Iraqi quagmire
Iraqi spending had a purpose, it did not bankrupt us, and it will come to an end, unlike the bottomless patronage spending of this administration.
…worth the occasional chuckle.
I’m sure by the end of the Obama administration we will be wearing the gimp suit and locked in a closet. Laughs-a-plenty will be had by all.
…yes, forcing your minority views that all abortion should be illegal on everyone else isn’t selfish at all. Conservatives aren’t for abortion because they want to save lives, but because they want to push their version of morality and their interpretation of the Bible on everyone else. “Saving” lives is a good by-line, but no one is buying it. If conservatives gave a damn about lives, they would give a damn about the lives after they are born as well instead of just when they are fetus’. Opposition to things like “socialized” health care for children and education funding and neighborhood parks isn’t a convincing argument that you people care about life and aren’t selfish in your endeavors. Yes, that’s right, pro-life ends when it costs <i>you</i> money. Good point, throw a tea party.
I sure hope you are against our super-stiff drug laws that are costing tax-payers a fortune by clogging our judicial system. I mean, if you are against wasteful spending, are you all the way, or just when it is politically expedient and works towards the goal of tearing the President down? I am betting you are the type who chastises Obama for every little thing he does after spending the last 8 years complaining about the mistreatment of Bush. Again, conservative activism is all about themselves and their wallets and nothing else.
Man, why do conservatives hate America so much? :-/
RSF, I don’t claim every planned tea party is directly the work of pols and corporate interests. Some no doubt are the work of concerned individuals. Some are no doubt a matter of monkey see, monkey do.
“. . .unlike the bottomless patronage spending of this administration.”
The term “bottomless patronage spending” applied to Halliburton, Blackwater and large chunks of the financial industry (Goldman Sachs was one of George W. Bush’s biggest contributors). We’re not seeing anything like that in this administration, unless you insist helping working-class and middle-class Americans through a really rough patch is patronage spending.
Come to think of it, I expect you do look on that as patronage spending.
DB, it’s not just wasteful spending on the drug war boondoggle. It’s also wasteful spending because the government doesn’t bargain with pharmaceutical companies to bring down the price of drugs for the Medicare and Medicaid Rx assistance programs.
Think of it as a bank-shot route to bottomless patronage spending.
I hate to see what my raving right wing co-workers come in wearing Wednesday – I’ll have to remember to take my camera, and post them all over facebook.
RightSaidFred: Get off it, the anti-choice movement is about nothing more than a power trip. Propagate the species, LOL! Like it needs anymore propagating. Who do you think you’re fooling?
I see I hit a nerve with DB. I wish I would have used another example because now we’re distracted by the buttons of the aborting debate with a sidekick of drug legalization.
forcing your minority views
This would be your side. Most pols have the conservative position in the majority.
Conservatives aren’t for abortion because they want to save lives, but because they want to push their version of morality and their interpretation of the Bible on everyone else.
Conservatives don’t equal sectarians. I suppose pushing for a policy change entails pushing “their version of morality”, but both sides do this, so I don’t see why you’re complaining.
If conservatives gave a damn about lives, they would give a damn about the lives after they are born
Conservatives give more to charity, volunteer at higher rates, and join more civic organizations, so try again.
Opposition to things like “socialized” health care for children and education funding and neighborhood parks isn’t a convincing argument that you people care about life
“Socialized” health care in America means less care in the long run, so who’s really concerned? Increased education spending usually means more left-wing patronage and less educating. I didn’t know conservatives were against neighborhood parks, but I suppose it is tied up with liberal’s love of more rules and regulations restricting land use and driving up the cost of living.
I sure hope you are against our super-stiff drug laws that are costing tax-payers a fortune by clogging our judicial system.
Relaxing our drug laws will cost us more in the long run. We have plenty of ruined lives and families from drugs now. Do you want even more? Prohibition of alcohol actually worked, if you look at greater worker productivity via less absenteeism et al.
The term “bottomless patronage spending” applied to…large chunks of the financial industry (Goldman Sachs was one of George W. Bush’s biggest contributors)
This is true, breathtakingly true. My take is that the Clinton-Bush II years were imbued with a sense of greater government spending fueled by an ever growing economy, so the usual oversight was set aside in pursuit of ever more economic gains by the financial/housing/retail/high tech sector. I saw many conservative brokers and traders get pushed out of the business. I saw more and more pressure from financial traders put on companies to increase their returns on capital, which led to warped and non-traditional business practices.
Bee, why not post those pictures on your blog?
RSF, you’re the first person I’ve ever encountered who claims alcohol prohibition worked in any way, shape or form. Where do your amazing facts about productivity and absenteeism come from, a WCTU handout?
Before we pass too quickly by Fred’s statement that “conservatives give more to charity”, a couple of notes. I haven’t looked into the vague statistic yet, but I want to keep in mind that “churches” are automatically 501(c)(3) tax exempt — don’t even have to file paperwork — and are automatically public charities. Giving to a “church”, including the tithing that is so very popular with wealthy mega-”churches”, is a tax-exempt charitable donation.
Does “conservatives give more to charity” have a different tone to it now?
you’re the first person I’ve ever encountered who claims alcohol prohibition worked in any way, shape or form.
In a casual conversation with a researcher, he remarked that the data for prohibition seemed more equivocal than the narrative supported, as if the theme had undergone a kind of betamax – VHS battle, and the anti prohibition side won, and thus they got the spoils of writing history.
http://books.google.com/books?id=3DE4P7NdaycC&pg=PA232&lpg=PA232&dq=worker+productivity+during+prohibition&source=bl&ots=muYNf40RvT&sig=Xpuy6q3HN8-FcoYK8WiCCyZa56Q&hl=en&ei=udblSaqxB5G8swPj-ZGcBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
This antagonistic encyclopedia article references a survey where about half a group of industrialists reported improvements in absenteeism during prohibition.
Prohibition’s failing was that proponents claimed much more than was delivered. I suspect that drug legalization proponents are claiming more than they can deliver.