Tea Party Convention Should Not Go On.

There is a National “Tea Party” Convention coming up in Nashville Feb 4-6. The problem is the Tea Party is not one movement and the Tea Party Convention organizers are not recognized leaders of the movement. So when they plan a $550 per plate dinner it is naturally going to ruffle many feathers of rank and file Tea Party people who see it as nothing more than a co-opting of a grass-roots movement.

I agree. I think Sarah Palin should decline the invitation to be the key note speaker. I think this Convention is going to damage the great success of the Tea Party movement along with everyone involved.

The Tea Party movement should make every effort to not look like they are falling for the Washington “business as usual” mentality.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/us/politics/26teaparty.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583687,00.html

,

  1. #1 by Larry Bergan on January 31, 2010 - 1:45 am

    Astroturfing is expensive and phony; just like the fake grass it’s named after.

    Come on Ken, you must see that money is the real driving force behind this media movement. These people are not on your side. They’re using you.

  2. #2 by Ken on January 31, 2010 - 2:00 am

    Speaking of astroturfing have you heard about the Ellie Light controversy? It was exposed that around 68 newspapers across the country ran letters to the editor by an “Ellie Light” who claimed to live in various communities that were all pro Obama. Turns out this Ellie Light is a he and is a big Obama supporter.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/27/california-health-care-worker-claims-pseudonym-ellie-light/?test=latestnews

  3. #3 by Uncle Rico on January 31, 2010 - 6:31 am

    Speaking of astroturfing have you heard about the Ellie Light controversy? It was exposed that around 68 newspapers across the country ran letters to the editor by an “Ellie Light” who claimed to live in various communities that were all pro Obama. Turns out this Ellie Light is a he and is a big Obama supporter.

    Total non-story.

  4. #4 by cav on January 31, 2010 - 8:37 am

    If the tea party credo were’nt completely overwritten by dangling nut sacks, what would it be?

    I’d really like to know. May I suggest a name change?

    Movement to restore dignity to government, or something.

  5. #5 by anonymous on January 31, 2010 - 9:16 am

    No different than what goes on here Ken. The guy/gal posted on kos, what else do you need to know?

    No need to worry about any of this. The proof will be in 2010, when reality comes to the ballot box, and after their losses Democrats can assess how much of what they saw was astroturf, and how much of what they deny, is actually real.

    Larry that is funny you saying that the movement is using the people like Ken. After a year of Obama you don’t feel like a porn star’s dildo by now? With anal stimulator. Perhaps you can find a street corner and just hold a good sized sign that just says, “USED”.

    It’ll be fun. Politics is not giving the people what they want, it is about giving the people what you want them to have. That often involves a whole lot of nothing.

  6. #6 by Cliff Lyon on January 31, 2010 - 9:46 am

    Ken,

    Who ARE the “recognized leaders of the movement.”

    Who for that matter are the recognized leaders of the Republican Party?

    Which bring me to the question of LEADERSHIP. In order to be a leader, you must lead. In order to lead, you must have a purpose or a mission around which people can rally and DO SOMETHING.

    Like the Republican Party, the Tea Party has no SOMETHING, except for NOTHING. Do nothing. Stop government, stop gays, stop abortion.

    The only nothing that is something is to stop terrorists and when you tried to do that, you cost taxpayer a trillion and made things worse.

    So you see Ken, the party of “No” and the party of “Hell No” (as in Tea) is a very destructive force that will tear this nation apart if it is not stopped.
    Hopefully, it will wither on the vine.

  7. #7 by Ken on January 31, 2010 - 9:59 am

    Cliff

    You are right about no recognized leadership in the Republican Party.

    • #8 by Cliff Lyon on January 31, 2010 - 10:41 am

      What about The Tea Party? Who are the leaders?

  8. #9 by anonymous on January 31, 2010 - 10:16 am

    Wither on the vine? That is laughable, many of the People are for the first time actually reading the documents which describe the scope of the Federal role, and are quite interested in making the Federal gov’t stay within its boundaries delineated in the Constitution.

    You need leaders to implement what has already been decided and stands as the law of the land. The usurpation of powers the Federal gove’t has no rights to is being met by the those the gov’t is responsible to. The People.

    Nothing would be better than what is currently happening. That is what many people now know. First thing to do in a fire, is put out the fire. Conservatives will get to leadership once the nation is out of danger. Just a few months away.

    The idea that someone in a perceived crisis must “do something”, anything, has ensured the doom of many a people. When the Feds are reduced to doing nothing, it will be time to see what you can get done in your state, with your own resources for a change.

    13 trillion open debt, and tens of trillions in unfunded federal mandate liabilities guarantee the scenario anyway. At least Utah is young, think of what it’s going to be like in say Florida. Sad for Utah though because Florida is one of the 10 states in the Union that pay for everything, 20 break even, 20 are basket cases. This means less money for no load Utah.

    Prepare now, the Federal gov’t can barely save itself, how is it going to save you?

  9. #10 by anonymous on January 31, 2010 - 11:03 am

    Samuel Adams was the reputed leader of the Tea Party, but no one could legally prove it. The witnesses all claimed they were Indians that did the tea dumping, even the masters of the vessels as they were before the event told that no damage would occur to their ships in the action. They helped cover, as did all witnesses.

    Leonard Pitt led George Hewes in the event and in his writing of the event claimed that he didn’t know the other leaders of the action, of which he believed there were 3 or 4.

    http://www.theamericanrevolution.org/hevents/bteapart.asp

    You will have to discover the Tea Party leaders on your own. If you don’t know any leaders of tea parties, then you are probably a Torie.

    Then again, there may not be any real “leaders” that can be officially contained. This is the beauty of the movement, the enemies of the constitution and free assembly have no one to vilify, attack, or ridicule to affect their supporters in the belief that it is bad to have people freely assemble. It has no face but that of the People…exactly like the Tea Party that led directly to the struggle that founded this great nation.

    If you want to find out what the People are like that lead Tea Party’s, go to one, I guess any number of people speaking publicly could be considered leaders at a Tea Party meeting. The objective is exchange information and decide who to vote for to best serve the interests of bringing the Federal government to operate and stay within its charter, the constitution.

    Leonard Pitt led George Hewes in the event and in his writing of the event claimed that he didn’t know the other leaders of the action, of which he believed there were 3 or 4.

  10. #11 by anonymous on January 31, 2010 - 11:13 am

    Oops, forgot to delete the bottom sentence, so we double up. Interesting to know that not even those who were involved in the event knew who all the leaders were. George Hewes wrote the description, Pitt was his “cell” leader as it were.

    Mystery, intrigue, duplicity, rebellion, intelligence, and its success, revolution. All’s fair in love and war? Or something like that.

    Who leads ACORN?

    Here is few names.

    Bertha Brown: Philadelpha, Pa.
    Stephanie Canaday: Providence, R.I.
    Carol Hemingway: Philadelpha, Pa.
    Maude Hurd: Boston, Mass.
    Mary Keith: Cleveland, Ohio
    Sonja Merchant-Jones: Baltimore, Md.
    John Moore: Philadelpha, Pa.
    Maxine Nelson: Pine Bluff, Ark.
    Sharon Paterson-Stallings: Hartford, Conn.
    Marie Pierre: New York, N.Y.
    Marcel Reid: Washington D.C.
    Pedro Rivas: Paterson, N.J.
    Alicia Russell: Phoenix, Ariz.
    Paul Satriano: St. Paul, Mo.
    Linda Sciamatta: Columbus, Ohio
    Julie Smith: Cleveland, Ohio
    Gloria Sweringa: Prince George, Md.
    Own Toney: Boston, Mass.
    Angela Walker: Wilmington, Del.

    • #12 by Cliff Lyon on January 31, 2010 - 11:15 am

      Glenn, I sent you a message on Facebook. Think about it and get back to me.

  11. #13 by anonymous on January 31, 2010 - 11:44 am

    I don’t have a facebook account.

    • #14 by Cliff Lyon on January 31, 2010 - 12:11 pm

      Liar Glenn, I’ll take that as your answer. Let me know if you change your mind.

  12. #15 by Richard Warnick on January 31, 2010 - 12:04 pm

    The Tea partiers and the Party of NO deserve each other.

    Some try to excuse their behavior by saying that these voters and politicians are distraught and irrational now because they finally realize their solid, unwavering support for the Bush administration was a catastrophe for the nation, as well as a betrayal of their own putative principles.

    They get no sympathy from me. I was in anguish during the Bush years, and I’m still upset over the continuation of Bush’s unconstitutional power grab by the Obama administration. Not to mention President Obama’s failure to get behind progressive policies he advocated during the 2008 campaign.

    The Tea Party freakout is misdirected at nonexistent “Marxism,” and a tax increase for the rich a year from now that is the result of Republican legislation.

  13. #16 by shane on January 31, 2010 - 1:09 pm

    I think this Convention is going to damage the great success of the Tea Party movement

    What would that great success be?

  14. #17 by Boss Hawg on January 31, 2010 - 2:39 pm

    Basically thwarting just about anything Obama touches Shane. They are the inception of the movement that got Teddy’s seat filled with a republican.

    You don’t see it as success so let me make it clearer, the tea baggers are more responsible for the coming Democrat defeat. They may rid the congress of rinos too if that is possible.

    Change of mind? Doubtful, threats and bullying there, have off with yourself Cliffy.

  15. #18 by brewski on January 31, 2010 - 10:19 pm

    I think a lot of this misses the point. Most people don’t care about parties. They really don’t care about who is a Democrat or a Republican or a Tea Party-er. What they want is their problems solved by somebody who isn’t a crook.

    Ross Perot tapped into the frustration that neither party was listening to them. Ross was not the right messenger but his message was right. Solve problems and don’t be a crook.

    Obama was wildly successful in selling the same story. He did not win because people were yearning for a leftist agenda. He won because he told people he was going to be different. He told people he was going to change things. Unfortunately for the county and for him, he isn’t any different and he certainly hasn’t changed anything.

    Many of those same people who voted for Obama also voted for Brown. Not because they think that Republicans are the answer or that that don’t like Democrats. They voted for Brown because they are willing to bet that maybe for once one of these guys will be different. That he won’t be just the same and that he might actually solve problems and not be a crook.

    While many of the faces are different and the sales pitches are different, the momentary popularity of Perot, even Clinton (briefly), and Obama, Brown, even Palin and now the Tea Party is due to the same frustration on the part of voters with seeing politicians not solving their problems and being crooks and careerists regardless of D or R.

  16. #19 by shane on February 1, 2010 - 9:18 am

    Basically thwarting just about anything Obama touches Shane. They are the inception of the movement that got Teddy’s seat filled with a republican.

    They voted for Brown because they are willing to bet that maybe for once one of these guys will be different

    Boston Globe reports that financial industry contributed heavily in Mass. Senate race to block Obama’s reform plans: “In a six-day span just before the US Senate election, Republican Scott Brown collected nearly $450,000 from donors who work at financial companies, a sign the industry is prepared to spend heavily in the upcoming midterm elections to beat back new controls and taxes President Obama wants to impose … The Financial Services Roundtable, one of the industry’s most influential groups in Washington, has been increasingly vocal in opposing [the House financial reform bill] … its chief lobbyist, Scott Talbott, said both donations and activity have picked up more recently…”

    Nice work Tea-baggers! You found another nut sack to swallow!

  17. #20 by Richard Warnick on February 1, 2010 - 10:06 am

    UPDATE on the Tea Party convention meltdown:

    A message to all members of Tea Party Nation Setting The Record Straight by Sherry Phillips

    We have made the best of a tight budget and scaled back the price of attending this convention as much as we could without putting TPN into bankruptcy. The convention is sold out and we have a waiting list of over five hundred people. We never did this to make us rich or famous. Quite the contrary, we are patriots who love our country, our members and the people who are coming to Nashville to attend this great event.

  18. #21 by cav on February 1, 2010 - 10:36 am

    I’m having a problem with the righteous T (with a capital ‘t’) partiers being confused with that other strain of heat-seeker, the stark raving wingnut (and here the nut sack lingo is appropriate).

    There’s a division I’d like to see built apon.

  19. #22 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on February 1, 2010 - 12:58 pm

    Brewski–

    Thanks. Good points. Everyone should read your post.

    Ken–

    I think it’s interesting for you to talk about co-opting a grassroots movement, because the Tea Party movement is just one big fat co-op. I’m not surprised that it came on the heels of Glenn Beck’s “Common Sense,” yet another co-op. They’re all just a bunch of co-ops.

    But I think you should realize that Congress and the President work on the same “business as usual” mentality as the Tea Parties do: seek public support and use it to get something done.

    The fact that a bunch of people plan to show up somewhere and then do it is superfluous; a bunch of people planned to show up at the President’s inauguration and then did it. So what? The tea partiers are people, just like Obama’s supporters are people, and they support a common goal. They get funding and support from media personalities, networks, and lobbying firms just like everything else that’s successful in Washington. No matter the noble reasons of the individuals, the group itself is a political contrivance–a ploy to further a political goal.

    It was already co-opted, just like how it co-opted the Boston Tea Party before it. Stopping formal organizations from using its name or ideology is just symbolic fluff.

    That said, yes, I agree; the tea party convention should not go on. It’s a BS movement self-absorbed by its own grassroots pretense. It already has all of the balloons and confetti, and Glenn Beck throwing rice as the Republican Party smooches the blushing bride.

    Dwight Sheldon Adams

  20. #23 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on February 1, 2010 - 1:06 pm

    Cav–

    What bothers me is the problem of mob mentality. I’m absolutely sure there are tea partiers out there with good ideas and firm integrity–probably the majority of them. My problem is that they are being led and represented by people and groups of people like the “stark raving wingnut[s]” of which you speak.

    The longer these groups intermix, the more the good ones will become like the bad ones. Bad ones don’t usually falter as much–their ideology is simpler to create and maintain, and allows for less variation. The good ones will be turned, bit by bit, to follow the extremists. This doesn’t mean they will convert completely, but you can bet that the crazy tea-baggers will subtly change the dynamic of the others to the point where the crazy ideologies are the ones most fully served by the movement.

    The same, btw, is true of most groups which have no firm, declared purposes and which unquestioningly welcome the fringe, whether it be liberals accepting moral relativity or conservatives denying formal organization. It happens all of the time.

    Dwight Sheldon Adams

  21. #24 by james farmer on February 1, 2010 - 1:29 pm

    Obama was wildly successful in selling the same story. He did not win because people were yearning for a leftist agenda. He won because he told people he was going to be different. He told people he was going to change things. Unfortunately for the county and for him, he isn’t any different and he certainly hasn’t changed anything.

    Typical uninformed crap from brew. One can readily make the counterargument that Obama has prevented the nation from finding itself in straights far worse than those he inherited from Bush (the worst terrorist attack ever to hit America). You would do well, brew (and Dwight), to listen to Obama’s exchange with the Repug caucus in Baltimore. Claiming Obama is business as usual given the current financial and political environment is nonsense.

  22. #25 by Richard Warnick on February 1, 2010 - 2:35 pm

    Congress and the President …seek public support and use it to get something done.

    That’s what it says in the social studies textbooks. But I wonder, where was the public support for the USA PATRIOT Act? For the invasion of Iraq? For warrantless domestic surveillance? And on health care, why did Congress reject the popular public option for an unpopular individual mandate?

  23. #26 by brewski on February 1, 2010 - 7:11 pm

    James,
    I did watch all of the Obama/GOP confab. I also have already commented on it.

    There is a long list of specific promises and expectations Obama raised, and why people voted for him, that he has either reneged on or let us down. All the bumper stickers and lawn signs said “Change” on them. I don’t see how appointing lobbyists to high level admnistration positions, how taking a bribe of $150MM from the drug lobby, how appointing a tax cheat to head the IRS, how signing a single appropriations bill with 8,500 earmarks in it is change at all. There is nothing uninformed and nothing crap about it. This is the stuff people wanted to change, people expected to change, it hasn’t change and people are pissed off.

  24. #27 by Larry Bergan on February 1, 2010 - 7:32 pm

    brewski:

    Obama got invited to speak at the Republican conference last week and the Republicans looked like schoolboys called in for reprimand, because they are.

    That’s a heck o’ lot o’ change as far as I’m concerned.

    Some things are not good, but not everything is going in exactly the wrong direction for once.

  25. #28 by brewski on February 1, 2010 - 8:28 pm

    Apparently schoolboys are in the eye of the beholder:

    What is true, there’s no doubt about it, is that once it got through the committee process and there were now a series of meetings taking place all over the Capitol trying to figure out how to get the thing together — that was a messy process……But I think it’s a legitimate criticism. So on that one, I take responsibility.

    Obama, on reneging on his promise to have an open televised process on healthcare where everyone would have a seat at the table.

    I was confronted at the beginning of my term with an omnibus package that did have a lot of earmarks from Republicans and Democrats, and a lot of people in this chamber. And the question was whether I was going to have a big budget fight, at a time when I was still trying to figure out whether or not the financial system was melting down and we had to make a whole bunch of emergency decisions about the economy. So what I said was let’s keep them to a minimum, but I couldn’t excise them all.

    Obama, on reneging on his promise to rein in earmarks.

    from the start, I sought out and supported ideas from Republicans. I even talked about an issue that has been a holy grail for a lot of you, which was tort reform, and said that I’d be willing to work together as part of a comprehensive package to deal with it. I just didn’t get a lot of nibbles.

    Creating a high-risk pool for uninsured folks with preexisting conditions, that wasn’t my idea, it was Senator McCain’s. And I supported it, and it got incorporated into our approach. Allowing insurance companies to sell coverage across state lines to add choice and competition and bring down costs for businesses and consumers — that’s an idea that some of you I suspect included in this better solutions; that’s an idea that was incorporated into our package. And I support it, provided that we do it hand in hand with broader reforms that protect benefits and protect patients and protect the American people.

    A number of you have suggested creating pools where self-employed and small businesses could buy insurance. That was a good idea. I embraced it. Some of you supported efforts to provide insurance to children and let kids remain covered on their parents’ insurance until they’re 25 or 26. I supported that. That’s part of our package. I supported a number of other ideas, from incentivizing wellness to creating an affordable catastrophic insurance option for young people that came from Republicans like Mike Enzi and Olympia Snowe in the Senate, and I’m sure from some of you as well.

    Obama, on the many good reform ideas on health care which have come from Republicans (you remember, those guys who just want the status quo)

  26. #29 by Larry Bergan on February 1, 2010 - 9:01 pm

    Anybody can post reasonable explanations and call them reneging.

    Why didn’t Fox “news” broadcast the health care hearings? Too much news? C-Span only has so many cameras.

    The other two seem like good answers, sorry.

    The Republicans sat like choirboys.

  27. #30 by brewski on February 1, 2010 - 10:17 pm

    Whew, well that make me feel better. I am glad Obama had reasonable explanations for reneging on his promises. I guess you’d agree that Bush had reasonable explanations for invading Iraq.

    Larry, why do you ask me why other people do things? In the last two days you have asked me to read the minds of both Rumsfeld and Fox News. And what you are you doing watching Fox News in the first place? Don’t you get Pacifica Radio?

  28. #31 by Larry Bergan on February 1, 2010 - 10:28 pm

    Already answered the Rumsfeld mind reading thing on the correct post. Go there.

    I don’t have Fox “news.” Haven’t watched it for at least 5 years.

    Choirboys, I tell you.

  29. #32 by Larry Bergan on February 1, 2010 - 10:36 pm

    You really have to start making it to class on time, brewski; otherwise this just isn’t going to work!

  30. #33 by james farmer on February 2, 2010 - 10:00 am

    I guess you’d agree that Bush had reasonable explanations for invading Iraq.

    brew:

    Congratulations for making the most outrageously stupid assertion at 1U on 02/01/2010! Your track record for such statements continues unabated. Maybe we should start a score card between you and “anonymous.”

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: