FOR SALE: Republican National Committee

Posted by on March 17, 2011 at 2:16 am. 6 Comments :

If you’re in the market for an antique political party that, despite having a great deal of wear, has had millions of dollars invested in it by its previous owners, you’re in luck:

“The Republican National Committee is considering sanctioning the GOP presidential primary debates and then selling the broadcast rights to news outlets.”

This is wrong on so many levels. First of all, it reduces the electoral process to a consumer product. If you thought that campaigning was like selling soap before, you aint seen nothin’ yet.

This repulsively misguided proposal turns the debates into profit centers for the party. How exactly do they market them? Do they sell exclusive rights to media organizations they favor? Do they license the program to all takers who will pay the fee? Do they post it on eBay and sell to the highest bidder? Perhaps they could go the infomercial route and partner with retailers who can sell campaign buttons, t-shirts, and commemorative plates during the breaks.

Would the fee include the right to designate debate moderators? Would the licensee be able to write the questions for the candidates? What other privileges come with the broadcast rights? Could the they compel the candidates to do promotions? Could they program the debate as the lead-in to a their new Shelley Long sitcom or CSI: DC?

How would the party and the broadcaster account for the payment? Would it be considered a political donation? If so, there are Federal Election Commission limits as to how much can be exchanged. And what’s to stop a partisan media conglomerate from offering to pay a license fee for multiple stations, papers, and Internet sites, in an effort to funnel cash into the party?

What’s next? How about “naming rights” like sports arenas? Maybe the “Citibank Republican Party” or the “GO ‘Daddy’ P.” Perhaps they could sell product placements or get the candidates to make testimonials. Burger King could give away tickets to the debate with every Whopper in a cross-promotion with what Republicans fill their stump speeches with.

Even better, why not just sell the party outright? I’m sure Rupert Murdoch would love to add it to his corporate empire that already owns notable Republican businesses like Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. Although based on their current business relationship, that may just be redundant. After all, Murdoch already employs multiple prospective GOP presidential hopefuls, as well as former House Speakers and Cabinet secretaries.

If the RNC goes through with this they will be affirming their distaste for ethics and their affinity for corruption. They will be ending once and for all any argument that they are not shills for corporate cronyism and greed. Only today’s modern, tea-stained, Republican Party could even contemplate such an asinine plan. I can’t wait to see what they come up with next.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

IDIOT ALERT: Dick Morris Predicts Obama Loss In 2012

Posted by on March 16, 2011 at 4:54 pm. 5 Comments :

It is simply mind-boggling how some people continue to get attention from the media despite being consistently wrong about everything they discuss. Prostitute toe-sucker, Dick Morris, is the epitome of just such a loser. For reasons that are incomprehensible, The Hill has published an incoherent screed by Morris wherein he asks…

“Will Obama get reelected? No way! In the teeth of the economic catastrophe that is shaping up, his chances are doomed.”

Doooomed, he portends. To lead off his logic-deprived argument, Morris describes how a “consumer confidence scale,” invented by the ultra-partisan Scott Rasmussen, fluctuated from 81.7 in December, to 88.3 in January, to 84.5 in February, to 73.1 in March. According to Morris, this wild ride in a brief four month period is evidence that Obama cannot be reelected 20 months from now.

What a dolt! His own data illustrates that those numbers are unreliable projections of events far off into the future. Next month the index could be 63 or 91. And that says nothing about what it will be in six months – or twenty. He isn’t asserting a trend or taking into consideration current events now or later. Yet he still concludes that Obama is toast. Then he really goes off the rails:

“The tsunami in Japan, perhaps the greatest tragedy since 9/11, will further impede any prospect for economic growth. There will be a demand for spending to repair the devastation of the quake. But Japan is tied with China as the world’s second largest economy, generating 12 percent of the global GDP. With Japan neither producing nor buying for the foreseeable future, the drag on the global economy will be profound.”

Let’s begin with his assertion that the tsunami in Japan, with estimates of up to 10,000 casualties, is the greatest tragedy since 9/11. It is, without question, a horrific occurrence. But Morris’ diseased brain must have already forgotten the tsunami in Indonesia in 2004 (230,000 dead), the cyclone in Myanmar in 2008 (138,000 dead), and the earthquake in Haiti just last year (316,000 dead). Or maybe he thinks those weren’t great tragedies.

Then Morris, in the space of one short paragraph, contradicts his main point. He says that Japan will neither be producing nor buying, despite having said in the previous sentence that there will be a demand for spending to repair the devastation of the quake. So Japan will, in fact, be buying, and to a lesser extent producing, as they seek to rebuild. It is a sad reality that disasters can produce opportunities in reconstruction efforts. And because of the devastation at home, Japan is going to have to rely on foreign developers, including those in the U.S. So how exactly will that hurt the U.S. economy and Obama’s reelection prospects? Morris doesn’t say.

Next Morris offers his solution to America’s woes. But all it is is a reiteration of the Bush era policies that produced the financial calamities we are presently experiencing. For instance: rolling back regulations, canceling tax increases on the wealthy, reducing federal spending, repeal of ObamaCare, and of course, drill, baby, drill. Morris believes that…

“…the true legacy of the Obama years is likely to be stagflation and an entire decade wiped out by his policies, budget and programs. Long after he is gone in 2013, we will still be repairing the damage of his terrible decisions.”

So Morris is seeding the notion that even if a Republican president is elected in 2012, he will be hobbled by Obama’s mistakes for eight more years. But Morris is the same jerk who derides Obama for ever suggesting that we are still feeling the effects of Bush’s mistakes just two years hence. He accuses Obama of shifting blame to the past administration, but Morris is preemptively blaming Obama for imaginary economic troubles in 2020. He’s playing the blame game on steroids. Plus, he’s giving his prospective Republican president a pass for failing over two complete terms.

For the record, Morris also predicted that Obama would never be elected to begin with. His 2006 book, “Condi vs. Hillary,” contained his astute analysis of the upcoming election in the title. That didn’t exactly pan out for him, did it? From the introduction to the book:

[T]here is no doubt that Hillary Clinton is on a virtually uncontested trajectory to win the Democratic nomination and, very likely, the 2008 presidential election. She has no serious opposition in her party […]

The stakes are high. In 2008, no ordinary white male Republican candidate will do. Forget Bill Frist, George Allen, and George Pataki. Hillary would easily beat any of them. Rudy Giuliani and John McCain? Either of them could probably win, but neither will ever be nominated by the Republican Party.

So Morris got the Democratic nominee wrong, despite his conviction that there was “no doubt.” He also got the Republican nominee wrong, and the Republican who Morris said could win if he were nominated actually lost. Is there any way he could have been more wrong?

It is on the strength of this sort of analysis that Morris gets asked back to provide additional “insights.” That is just astonishing, and so very sad. Why would The Hill publish his irrepressibly misguided prognostications given his record? Why does Fox News feature him almost nightly? How often do you have to get things ridiculously wrong before people in the media decide to stop asking for your worthless opinions?

Unfortunately, we do not seem to have reached that threshold yet, because Morris is still getting invitations to opine on subjects about which he knows little to nothing. And the worst part is that he isn’t the only one. Isn’t anyone keeping score?


Why Does Fox News Keep Glenn Beck Around?

Posted by on March 16, 2011 at 10:43 am. 10 Comments :

In a discussion on the fairness and balance of Fox News, the network’s CEO Roger Ailes famously told Barbara Walters that, “I’m not in politics. I’m in ratings. We’re winning.”

If we are to take Ailes at his word, then we have to wonder why he keeps Glenn Beck on the schedule. The program has been shedding viewers like a mongrel with a scalp condition for months. His year-to-year numbers dropped 40% in January and another 32% in February. He is sinking faster than any other program on cable news. A couple of weeks ago Rachel Maddow drew more viewers than Beck for the the first time ever. Over 300 companies have declined to advertise on his program due to offensive content like his anti-Semitic rants against George Soros and his bloodthirsty allusions to having to “shoot them [radicals] in the head.”

Last week Beck was on vacation and Fox Business host Andrew Napolitano filled in for him. The result was the ratings barely budged. And on Tuesday Rachel again drew more viewers than Beck’s program with its guest host. This is fairly conclusive evidence that the audience for that time period is constant regardless of who is on the air. Consequently, Fox could replace Beck at any time (as some speculation suggests is under consideration) without suffering any ill effects in the ratings.

So why don’t they? They could certainly fill that hour with another conservative mouthpiece that would cost them far less to employ. They could make much more money by recovering the A-List advertisers who have previously abandoned the program. And they would not have to endure the embarrassment of being associated with Beck’s delusional conspiracy theories that are lately drawing criticism from even the most stalwart advocates of conservatism.

The only reason that a so-called “news” network would continue to employ someone whose analyses and assertions are so distant from any sane definition of journalism, and so reviled by more rational observers, is because the network approves of, and agrees with, his inane proclamations of doom and his determination to transform political discourse into a feast of demonization and personal destruction.


The lesson from Beck’s absence last week is profound. If after learning that their ratings would remain constant in a post-Beck world, Fox News elects to keep him in the lineup anyway, we must conclude that Ailes and his boss Rupert Murdoch, are on board Beck’s crazy train. That’s the answer to the question in the headline. Ailes and Murdoch cannot disassociate themselves from the Beck Doctrine. They obviously regard Beck’s contribution to their mission as more important than either money or respect. So the next question is: What the hell is their mission?


The Fox Follies: March 14, 2011

Posted by on March 15, 2011 at 1:42 am. 5 Comments :

When Fox News isn’t bastardizing the truth or shilling for right-wing billionaires and Tea Baggers, they can be surprisingly entertaining – if you find gross ignorance and deception funny. For instance…

Fox News is already intimately associated with at least one delusional conspiracy theorist and fear monger (Glenn Beck). Now Fox Nation is advancing to the next level by promoting news obtained from Super Conspiracator Alex Jones (who thinks Beck has been ripping off his shtick anyway):


By the way, despite the foreboding headline, the article merely speculates as to the risk of fallout reaching California with experts saying that they regard it as unlikely. But why should that stop the Fox Nationalists from bluntly asserting that we are in the path of radioactive fallout?

A few weeks ago Rachel Maddow was lured in by a satirical article that she mentioned briefly in an eight minute segment. She discovered the error and owned up to it the same day. Still, Fox Nation ridiculed her with a featured story. Today Fox Nation posted an item about Islamic objections to padded bras. Guess what?


It’s as fake as they come. It was the work of a Pakistani version of The Onion. Did Fox Nation then follow up by ridiculing themselves? Did they even own up to the mistake? Nope. They just scrubbed the story and pretended it never happened, creating innumerable broken links by gullible FoxPods on Facebook. (Here’s the Google cache).

And my favorite:


Fox News displayed this graphic in a report on Japan’s nuclear power facilities. The problem is that there is no reactor in “Shibuyaeggman.” In fact, there is no Shibuyaeggman. Now that would be bad enough, but Media Matters investigated further and discovered that “Eggman is the name of a dance club in a trendy neighborhood of Tokyo called… Shibuya.” So unless there’s a reactor under the dance floor somebody has seriously violated Fox’s “Zero Tolerance” policy?

Finally, I find it interesting that Fox Nation has removed their “Search” box. They used to have one in case somebody wanted to find something on their web site. Now it’s gone. I think it’s because enabling research is contrary to the Fox mission of preserving ignorance. Either that or they don’t want to help people find evidence of prior mistakes they neglected to delete.

Shibuyaeggman everybody.


Whose Side Are You On? Reagan Or Hitler?

Posted by on March 14, 2011 at 11:00 am. 6 Comments :

The conservative extremists seeking to attack working Americans and bust unions in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, and really everywhere, need to understand with whom their philosophy is shared. Then they need to decide if that is acceptable.


So choose a side:

“We must close union offices, confiscate their money and put their leaders in prison. We must reduce workers salaries and take away their right to strike” ~ Adolf Hitler, May 2, 1933

Or…

“Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.” ~ Ronald Reagan, September 1, 1980

It doesn’t seem like a particularly difficult choice to me. I was not a supporter of Ronald Reagan. In fact, I think he did considerable harm to the country. But he was the first and only union president to be elected to the presidency of the United States. The fact that his conservative credentials are so well established makes his views on unions all the more significant and non-partisan.

Unfortunately, the knee-jerk right-wingers who profess to idolize Reagan either dismiss his support for collective bargaining or they are too ill-informed to know about it. With regard to the latter, that would be an intentional result of the media they favor. Do you think that Fox News would ever broadcast these quotes? With regard to the former, it is still intentional in that they are willingly hypocritical and obedient to the special interests who have fooled them into thinking that the welfare of billionaires is superior to their own. Just look at what they regard as Shared Sacrifice:


At some point the rank-and-file Tea Baggers need to wake up to the fact that they are being used. Corporations want to end collective bargaining so that they have a free hand to exploit and abuse their workers. The politicians, who are bankrolled by those same corporations, want to disrupt fundraising and support for progressive candidates and policies.

None of this is accidental. And the people who will get hurt the most are those who are following the conservative disinformation blindly with the pathetic impression that it makes them patriotic. They should ask themselves if they are really advancing the cause of freedom. They should ask Ronald Reagan.


James O’Keefe’s NPR Sting Debunked By Glenn Beck Site

Posted by on March 12, 2011 at 9:32 am. 17 Comments :

It should come as no surprise that James O’Keefe is an unethical liar who produces deliberately deceptive videos to smear his political opponents. That’s been proven on many occasions. What’s surprising is that now even Glenn Beck’s web site, The Blaze, is confirming this after having analyzed O’Keefe’s latest videos attacking National Public Radio.

James O'KeefeScott Baker, Editor-in-Chief of The Blaze, published a fairly in-depth review of O’Keefe’s scam wherein he compared segments of the edited version to the original unedited source material. What he found he described in his conclusion as “editing tactics that seem designed to intentionally lie or mislead about the material being presented.” Here are some of the overt misrepresentations O’Keefe manufactured:

1) O’Keefe’s edited video portrayed NPR’s Ron Schiller as happily willing to take a donation from a Muslim Brotherhood front group. The long-form video downplays the connection to the Brotherhood, and discusses its current status as a moderate, non-violent organization.

2) The edited video portrayed Schiller reacting approvingly in a discussion of Sharia law. The long-form video shows that the response was actually to a different subject entirely. It was just edited in to make it appear as if he was responding the discussion of Sharia law.

3) The edited video portrayed Schiller as hostile to Republicans and conservatives. The long-form video shows him praising the GOP. Those remarks were completely cut out.

4) The edited video portrayed Schiller disparaging the Tea Party as racist. The long-form video shows that those remarks were actually the views of others that was describing.

5) The edited video portrayed Schiller demeaning the intelligence of conservatives. The long-form video shows both him and his NPR colleague defending the intellect of conservatives and even Fox News viewers.

6) The edited video portrayed Schiller asserting that federal funding for NPR was not necessary or desirable. The long-form video shows him going into detail about the necessity of those funds.

When Glenn Beck’s web site calls out a conservative for being unethical, there must be something seriously wrong. His lies must have been so egregious that they surpass the threshold for lying ordinarily maintained by people like Beck. Part of me worries that this whole critique of O’Keefe is a prank and that tomorrow The Blaze will reveal that they were just kidding to see if liberals like me would pick up the story. But for the time being it appears to be a legitimate thrashing of a corrupt propagandist.

Granted, The Blaze is not nearly as judgmental as I am, and much of their criticism was couched as questions, i.e. the article’s headline: Does Raw Video of NPR Exposé Reveal Questionable Editing & Tactics? Yes, it does! But they seem loathe to come right out and censure their ideological ally. Nevertheless, this damning analysis is a significant departure for a Beck enterprise. Perhaps there has been some influence from The Blaze’s new boss, Betsy Morgan, who once ran the Huffington Post.

The examples above are representative of the grossly deceptive practices that James O’Keefe, a convicted criminal, engages in repeatedly. They are further evidence that nothing he does or says deserves to be taken seriously.

This also demonstrates the crippling naivete of NPR for reacting so hastily in compelling the resignation of NPR chief Vivian Schiller. Have these people learned nothing from the Shirley Sherrod affair when an innocent person’s reputation was dragged through the mud based on fraudulently edited video? And are they oblivious to the very real harm they do by empowering jerkwads like O’Keefe?

The only attention that O’Keefe and his ilk should get when they release a video or publish a story is from the Weekly World News or Comedy Central. Responsible journalists should avoid these obvious fabrications like the plague. Why anyone in the media would afford this known liar any respect given his propensity for bastardizing the truth is beyond me. They only embarrass themselves by doing so.

And that goes for the targets of these phony stings as well. People on the left need to have much greater resolve to defend their associates and their principles in the face of vile and dishonest attacks from the right. Otherwise we are handing them unwarranted influence over the debate and cutting ourselves off at the knees. That has to stop NOW!

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Sarah Palin Question Stumps Jeopardy Contestants

Posted by on March 11, 2011 at 10:05 am. 3 Comments :

For those who think that Sarah Palin is a serious candidate for president (or sewer inspector), they may need to adjust their perspective a bit. In addition to having dreadful approval ratings that have gone steadily downward since her debut in national politics, she is also such a trivial factor in American life that she is almost invisible.

On Monday, March 7, 2011, Jeopardy featured this question in the category Hearts: Her latest book is titled “America by Heart: Reflections on Faith, Family and Flag”

Not one of the contestants knew that the correct question was “Who is Sarah Palin.” And remember, to become a contestant on Jeopardy you need to be exceptionally intelligent with a well-rounded store of knowledge that includes history, science, popular culture, literature, and, yes, politics. Yet none of them had ever heard of this book. That’s a sign that Palin’s pop celebrity status is waning, and it’s a good sign for America.

The problem is that the media still drools over her like a Pavlovian mutt craving a moose bone. I think that when Jeopardy contestants are stumped as to the identity of this half-term governor, failed VP candidate, and vacuous purveyor of ghost written Twitter and Facebook posts, the press corps should be asking themselves the question that none of the Jeopardy players could come up with: “Who is Sarah Palin.”

Sarah Palin is a non-entity in American politics. To the extent that people pay any attention to her at all, it is to express their almost universal disgust. Continued coverage of this self-serving ignoramus is a combination of journalistic fraud, incompetence, and laziness. Just stop it already.


Fox News Hypocrites Bash American Workers

Posted by on March 10, 2011 at 3:28 am. NO Comments :

Last night Wisconsin Republicans orchestrated an anti-democratic coup to reverse 50 years of worker rights. The legislative trickery produced a fierce backlash by opponents of Governor Scott Walker’s union-busting agenda. Here’s how Fox News presented this story on their Fox Nation web site:


The headline “Rabid Leftists Storm Wisconsin Capital After Vote,” was a deliberately incendiary invention of the Fox Nationalists. The article to which this item linked was in the Wisconsin Journal Sentinel with a much less provocative headline: Demonstrators crowd Capitol in wild scene after Senate vote. And it’s not like this is an isolated event either:


This is a concerted propaganda campaign by Fox to demean and demonize law-abiding demonstrators. The “rabid leftists” to whom Fox refers are in fact Wisconsin citizens. They are teachers, farmers, homemakers, and even the very police officers on duty in the capital building. They are Americans exercising their Constitutional rights to free assembly and speech. They are peacefully and respectfully redressing legitimate grievances.

Contrast this with the way Fox characterized the Town Hall protesters who opposed health care reform just two years ago and attempted to suppress the free speech rights of reform advocates:


Note how the Fox Nationalists celebrate this rabid assemblage that even features a likeness of the President as Hitler. That’s the sort of rhetoric and imagery that Fox likes to pretend never existed, but this was the headline on their web site on August 13, 2009.

So one crowd of angry but peaceful protesters, disgusted by a Republican ploy to steal from them both their rights and their votes, is portrayed as “rabid leftists.” But another crowd of racist and offensive protesters, seeking to kill legislation that would provide health care to millions without coverage, are portrayed as patriots. That’s the Fox News model of fairness and balance.

Ironically, the story at the bottom of the list in that image, regarding the awakening of a “sleeping giant,” is just as relevant today if you insert Governor Walker’s name in place of Obama. Despite the extremist and illegal actions on the part of the Wisconsin GOP, this dispute is far from over. The people are not going to take this laying down. This is what we’re fighting:


NPR Fiasco Proves Right-Wing Dominates The Media

Posted by on March 9, 2011 at 2:28 pm. 9 Comments :

Fox News Investigative TeamI really didn’t want to do this. I really didn’t want to add to the hype that surrounds video pervert and propagandist James O’Keefe. But subsequent developments that have resulted from his escapade make it impossible to refrain from reiterating what is a much bigger problem than O’Keefe or a couple of bureaucrats at National Public Radio.

Ron Schiller, a fundraiser for NPR is the latest victim of O’Keefe’s Borat-like practice of pseudo-journalism. In a hidden video sting, O’Keefe captured Schiller saying that…

“The current Republican party, particularly the Tea Party is fanatically involved in people’s personal lives and very fundamental Christian. I wouldn’t even call it Christian. It’s this weird evangelical kind of movement. […] not just Islamaphobic but xenophobic, and they are, they believe in sort of white, middle America, gun-toting, I mean it’s scary. They’re seriously, racist, racist people.”

Setting aside the fact that that is indisputably true, what is more important to note is that it is irrelevant. Schiller is a fundraiser, not an editor. He had zero influence on the stories NPR broadcasts or their content. His private statements may have been indiscreet for an organization that is presently being attacked by Tea Party Republicans, but they play no role in NPR’s operations other than this effort to solicit a contribution. And analysis of NPR’s reporting shows that it has been exceedingly fair with regard to the Tea Party.

However, with only the video of a known liar and convicted criminal to go on, NPR responded by repudiating Schiller’s comments and terminating CEO Vivian Schiller (no relation). How is this different from the travesty that saw former Agriculture Department official Shirley Sherrod fired from her job over a similarly fraudulent video that was also heavily, and deceptively, edited?

Nevertheless, another allegedly progressive enterprise has kowtowed to a right-wing propagandist. If nothing else, this proves that the media is dominated by conservative forces who consistently control the narrative. Contrary to the spin from the right, NPR is anything but liberal and often it serves only to validate the dishonest mainstream press. They’ve had two correspondents working as paid contributors to Fox News. How many have they had on NBC or Democracy Now? And NPR’s Mara Liasson continues her employment, even after Fox News CEO Roger Ailes called them all Nazis.

The myth that public broadcasting is liberal has got to be buried once and for all. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is headed by Patricia de Stacy Harrison, a former chair of the Republican Party. And has everyone forgotten the irrepressibly corrupt Kenneth Tomlinson who was the chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors and was run out of office just ahead of an indictment? Perhaps the Republicans in congress are right and defunding should be explored more seriously. I simply can’t continue to make excuses for these agencies that are too often used as political pawns without fulfilling their mandate to serve the public.

Even if NPR was disposed to unload Schiller, they should have waited a few months so that O’Keefe couldn’t hang another trophy on his wall. They are empowering a dangerous and dishonest cabal of right-wing activists and they seem to be completely oblivious and irresponsible. And to what end? Do they think that firing a couple of patsies will mollify their critics. All they have to do is listen to one of their harshest critics on Capital Hill, Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who said that, “Our concern is not about any one person at NPR.” These folks are out to destroy those whom they perceive as their progressive opponents and they will settle for nothing less. Yet the victims of this political massacre are behaving like battered spouses who are certain that the beatings will stop as soon as they no longer deserve to be beaten.

This reflects the moral buckling exhibited by the White House every time someone is targeted by conservatives or Fox News. Just ask ex-administration personnel like Shirley Sherrod, Van Jones, or Yosi Sergant. Did any of those terminations elicit a truce from the right? You have to wonder why liberals always seem to get the boot for off-the-cuff indiscretions while conservatives remain at their post to continue their deliberate insults and hate speech. Why is Vivian Schiller now unemployed when she didn’t have anything to do with the offending remarks, but Roger Ailes is still running Fox after calling NPR Nazis? And why is NPR correspondent Mara Liasson still working for Fox News? And why does Glenn Beck have a job at all? (But let’s not get into that bag of nasty right now).

It needs to noted that the cheesy tactics of O’Keefe should never be given credibility. First of all, he has personally been exposed as a liar and a crook who deceptively edits his videos. And the process of acquiring his stories is devoid of credibility. It is relatively easy to sucker some chump in an organization of thousands to say something stupid, especially if he isn’t aware that he is being recorded. That puts him at a distinct disadvantage where his interviewer is able direct the conversation and to carefully phrase everything that is said, but the subject will be less guarded and more candid, not realizing that his words will be chopped up and used against him.

We need to strengthen our resolve against these sort of attacks. We need to support those who represent our values, just as those who represent the right are supported by their GOTea sippers. We have to stop being cowed into submission because we think someone on the right might not like something. They aren’t going to like anything we do anyway, so why bother attempting to placate them? What we really need are more leaders like those in Wisconsin who are unafraid of standing up to criticism and standing up for principles.

I agree with Eric Cantor. Our concern is not about any one person. It is about courage and commitment and loyalty. If we can’t get that from the folks at NPR or members of congress or the White House, then we need to start looking for it somewhere else. Our agenda is America’s agenda and that makes it our obligation to fight on. And we must never, EVER, allow jerkwads like O’Keefe, or his patrons at Fox News, to steer our course.


Tea Party: Losing Ground And Desperate

Posted by on March 8, 2011 at 6:57 pm. 3 Comments :

Tea CrusadesThe ongoing conflict in Wisconsin between an intransigent, union-busting governor and the representatives of average, working Americans is trending consistently toward the position of the people. Despite millions of dollars of Koch Industries lobbying funds, the Republicans and union bashers are, in their own words, “losing ground.”

This is an excerpt from a recent fundraising letter sent by Tea Party Express (TPE) to supporters:

“Friends, new polls coming out in Wisconsin show that the Obama-Labor Union ad campaign against him is having an impact. Governor Walker has started losing ground…”

Actually, the old polls were showing that as well. What is new is that even reliably right-leaning pollsters like Rasmussen are now showing that Governor Scott Walker is viewed unfavorably by nearly 60% of his constituents. The despondent correspondence goes on to say that…

“If we lose in Wisconsin then Republican Governors across America will take the lesson that they should give in and capitulate, and all the progress we have seen from the tea party movement will be undone,”

Indeed. Both sides of this debate recognize the impact that the conclusion will have on similar debates across the country. It’s interesting that TPE is so concerned about a defeat in Wisconsin that they believe it will undo “all the progress” they’ve made. But what is even more interesting is that they are directing this concern to only Republican governors.

That focus is something that I have been addressing for months, and that the media needs to acknowledge: There Is No Tea Party!

When will they get this through their barnacle-encrusted skulls? There are no Tea Party candidates; no Tea Party policies; no Tea Party voters. They are all Republicans. They run as Republicans and vote for Republicans. To pretend that it is something distinct is delusional. And this isn’t just me talking, it’s…

Republican Party spokesmen:
John Boehner, House Minority Leader: There really is no difference between what Republicans believe in and what the tea party activists believe in.

Tea Party spokesmen:
Mark Skoda, Tea Party Leader: This movement is beginning to mature … not as a third party but a force to be reckoned with in the traditional party structure.

Media spokesmen:
Carl Cameron, Fox News: They plan to establish separate spin off political action committees to fund raise for candidates who back Tea Party goals and the official Republican National Committee platform.

See? Everybody agrees that there is no Tea Party. It is journalistic fraud to persist with the charade. This is especially true of Tea Party Express, which was created by the Republican consulting firm of Russo/Marsh. Sal Russo runs TPE as a revenue center for his firm, funneling most of their donations right back into his wallet. And for some inexplicable reason this is the corrupt, phony Tea Party clan that CNN has hooked up with to host a Republican (of course) presidential primary debate.

This is madness. If the press treats the Tea Party as a separate entity and gives them a voice distinct from their Republican source, they are in effect giving the GOP twice as much exposure as the Democrats. To be fair and balanced they would have to regard MoveOn.org or the SEIU as a separate party and hire their spokespeople as news analysts and feature their responses to official GOP dogma – in addition to that of actual Democrats. I don’t see that happening.

In the meantime, the Tea Party is growing noticeably more desperate. Their latest fundraising appeal is evidence of how seriously they take their declining popularity in Wisconsin and the impact of that nationwide. They have never really been a popular movement as most polls have pegged their support in the teens with pluralities having no opinion. And their views have been shown to be wildly out of touch with mainstream Americans.

The media has to be pressed to justify their misrepresentation of Tea Partiers. Either that or put me on every panel where they have a Republican posing as something that doesn’t exist.