19 Responses to “Tea Parties Draw 250,000+ Across The Country”

1. Simon Says:
   April 16th, 2009 at 11:54 am

   250,000, huh? Well, Marc Ambinder said yesterday that if “100,000 Americans show up to protest their taxes, the onus to dismiss them as a nascent political force shifts to the Democrats.” I suppose it may be deemed shifted, then.

   Nevertheless, I continue to agree with what Justin said the other day. It really isn’t clear to me what purpose is served by all this.

2. giantslor Says:
   April 16th, 2009 at 1:28 pm

   It shows that a disempowered minority is angry about being disempowered. That’s about it.

3. JMG Says:
   April 16th, 2009 at 3:06 pm

   It’s also complete astroturfing. Activism is easy when someone else foots the bill.

4. gerryf Says:
   April 16th, 2009 at 3:11 pm

   Hey, by all means…protest away. There’s nothing wrong with protesting taxes and spending, I’m just confused as to where all these people were the last 40 years.

   It’s pretty weird we had 250,000 people protesting taxes when probably 95 percent of those people (certainly more than 90 percent of all taxpayers so I am extrapolating to the protesterts) just benefited from the largest tax cut in history.

   OK, most people then were protesting the deficit spending then, right?

   Oh, wait…Reagan, Bush I and Bush II combined for 70 percent of the total debt owed by this country up until 2008….where was the outrage then? Of the four most recent presidents, only Clinton had a surplus. Now, some on the right will argue the GOP made him have a budget surplus…I am not sure I agree with that, but OK, I will give the GOP credit for that then–but where was this fiscally responsible GOP during Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II?

   I actually agree that the Obama spending plans should be much more tightly scrutinized–and yes, even curtailed in the long term (I happen to think that some deficit spending is OK under certain circumstances like we are in now).

   And, I might have been out there with them yesterday–but this was 90 percent political and 10 percent outrage….those people who are really outraged were played by a political movement that laughs behind their backs

5. Simon Says:
   April 16th, 2009 at 3:23 pm

   JMG, that’s not actually correct. Perhaps some of these events were astroturfed (although I must note that it’s not astroturfing to ask for and/or to receive help from larger outfits), but I know the folks who organized the tea party here, and I know some other folks who organized tea parties elsewhere in the country, so I can personally speak to the fact that those parties weren’t astroturfed.

   I also notice that the same “Bush is an idiot / Bush is a criminal mastermind” doublethink is in play here. The left seems to believe that the GOP leadership is both completely incompetent and simultaneously the puppetmasters of the tea partiers.

6. Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Will The Right Learn From The Tea Parties ? Says:
   April 16th, 2009 at 4:15 pm

   [...] Justin Gardner, I’ve got to wonder if conservatives might learn something from yesterday’s protests: [...]

7. Justin Gardner Says:
   April 16th, 2009 at 5:27 pm

   Simon, you don’t have to be a genius to bankroll an organization that can get some people out on the streets. What people are saying, and rightly so, is that Freedom Works is helping foot the bill…and that’s funded by folks like Richard Mellon Scaife, etc. Also, Dick Armey, Newt Gingrich and a myriad of other political personalities are promoting this, not the least of which is Fox News. So it’s not about incompetence, it’s about authenticity.

   I mean, let me put it to you this way, do you really think you would have had the turnout you did yesterday if not for the help of the bigger outfits? And do you really think you’ll see these same numbers next week, a month from now, a year from now?

   Ultimately, the point we’re all trying to make is that this doesn’t seem like a sustainable movement because there’s no core message. Or perhaps I’m missing it, but there doesn’t seem to be. And until these folks get that, this isn’t a movement…it’s a blip.

8. Simon Says:
   April 16th, 2009 at 5:57 pm

   it’s about authenticity.

   If that is so, then charges of astroturfing are even less apt. If it’s about authenticity, what matters is the authenticity of the expression, and does anyone really question the sincerity of the people who have shown up to these events, rather than the way in which these events were put together?

   I mean, let me put it to you this way, do you really think you would have had the turnout you did yesterday if not for the help of the bigger outfits?

   Perhaps it’s accidental, but the use of “you” makes it sound as though you’re suggesting I’m part of this tea party business. To the extent it wasn’t clear from my comment above and yesterday, FTR, I’m not. I sympathize, but it’s all a little populist for me, and, as you point out, unfocused. To be sure, there is something worthwhile about expressing frustration at this administration’s ruinous policies, but I’m not clear on how this turns into a booster, on its ultimate utility to defeating the policies being protested.

9. michael reynolds Says:
   April 16th, 2009 at 6:38 pm

   I have some respect for the Libertarians who showed up. They are genuinely people of principle. They always have been. (Then again, they’ve never had the temptation of power.)

   Which is not the case with Republicans who love their own deficit spending and only hate the deficits we have to run up to save the country from their incompetence.

   Let’s remember: we handed the GOP a projected surplus. Alan Greenspan was concerned that we might pay the debt down too quickly. Then we got the Republicans who exploded the deficit and after 8 awful years handed a shattered mess back to the Democrats. Who are now left with few options but to repair the car the Republicans drove into a ditch.

   And for this, Republicans rage and howl about their taxes. Taxes 90% of them don’t pay.

   I would be honored to have my party face the LP in the next election. They at least are honest. We could have an election about actual ideas. But Republicans should not try to pass themselves off as Libertarians, and Libertarians shouldn’t let them.

10. JMG Says:
    April 16th, 2009 at 7:47 pm

    Simon-

    As valid as you may feel your anecdotal evidence is, that’s all it is: anecdotal. Activism, at least real activism, requires some protracted commitment and sacrifice; like canvassing, fund raising, campaign organizing, and phone-banking. These tea parties are paid for, all the activists have to do is show up with their props.

    I’m sure what they feel is genuine and authentic. But authenticity demands so sacrifice.

11. JMG Says:
    April 16th, 2009 at 7:48 pm

    erm

    *some

12. michael reynolds Says:
    April 16th, 2009 at 9:58 pm

    By the way, I just listened to Jeannine Garofolo make an ass of herself on Olbermann stating flatly that all these teabaggers are racists.

    I think there’s clearly a racist element present. But attacking Libertarians in particular as racist is stupid and wrong and Olbermann shouldn’t have put up with it. He should apologize.

13. Simon Says:
    April 16th, 2009 at 10:25 pm

    JMG, ordinarily you would be right; Speaker Pelosi introduced me to a terrific phrase a couple of years back, viz., “the plural of anecdote isn’t data.”

    In this instance, however, anecdotes will suffice because of the overreach of your earlier comment. You didn’t say “the Chicago tea party was astroturfed” or that “most of these tea parties were astroturfed” – specific statements would indeed resist falsification by anecdote. Instead, your comment (”It’s also complete astroturfing”) was phrased as a general criticism of the tea parties, applicable by its own terms to all. And a risk of making blanket statements is that the statement is falsified if it is wrong in any iteration. Your statement was false for at least two tea parties of which I’m aware, so, even if it holds for every other one in the country, your statement is still overreach. At most, you can argue that many, most, or almost all of the tea parties were astroturfed (such claims would also be quite dubious, but I leave that fight to others), but what you cannot do is claim that “THE” tea parties were astroturfed. Some may have been; some were not. Beyond that, I can’t say – but I suspect you can’t, either.

    And in any event, one is compelled to ask, “as compared to what”? The implicit suggestion that these events were any more “astroturfed” (by whatever definition one prefers) than any demonstration organized by the left (the phrasing is a telltale) is fairly silly. The criterion that Justin suggested – that the authenticity of the demonstration is 100% about the sincerity and authenticity of the feelings of those present at the event – seems entirely reasonable.

14. Alistair Says:
    April 16th, 2009 at 10:38 pm

    I will say this, the tea baggers should alway be careful who the invite because the ended up cheering for Obama’s tax cuts and with in minutes after this person spoke they booed him for being an Obama supporters.

    http://flprogressive.blogspot.com/

15. JMG Says:
    April 16th, 2009 at 11:31 pm

    Simon,

    Since you seem to have a robust (if not pervasive) affinity for a kind of colloquial legalese, I offer a revision:

    Any individual tea party, in any region of the country, in which Richard Mellon Scaife, Freedom Works, Dick Armey, Newt Gingrich, et. al. furnished either resources for, or the physical permits for a protest, speakers, PA systems, advertising, and all the other things required for a political protest; and, at the same time, required minimal, if any, contributions from the protest attendees, is an example of astroturfing. This astroturfing is not a wholesale impeachment of the proceedings, but do shed light onto the mentality, and commitment, of the attendees.

16. Kevin Jackson Says:
    April 17th, 2009 at 6:57 am

    Michael- I recorded Garofalo since you said it was over the top and I agree it was. Not everyone was a racist. That said there was a lot of ugliness that had nothing to do with taxes. So if you want Olbermann to apologize, how about Fox and the GOP for promoting that element too? How about the Libertarians (who- some are and some aren’t) speaking up and saying we want NOTHING to do with some of you pushing these messages of hate, it has nothing to do with our principles. Everyone could be more responsible.

    During the election, I would have loved to have seen McCain and yes Clinton say to their racist elements, “We would rather lose than win with your support. You do not represent anything that we value.” Christians could do the same for their noxious elements but that is in the end a fantasy.

17. Fox News Admits To Doing Public Relations for the Tea Parties | Prose Before Hos Says:
    April 17th, 2009 at 7:49 am

    [...] Also: Quote For The Day, Tea Parties Draw 250,000+ Across The Country, The Patriot Game, Teabagging Nation, Tea Party Atonement, Tea Bagger: ‘Burn the Books!’, [...]

18. Simon Says:
    April 17th, 2009 at 8:27 am

    JMG, that’s more precise. I would still say that your understanding of astroturfing is wrong, but to the extent the term is new coinage whose meaning and value is still unsettled, I suppose I can’t begrudge you that.

    Kevin, interesting that you point to McCain and Clinton but omit Senator Obama. He might have said to those of his supporters who were racists elements: “If you are voting for me because I am black, I would rather lose than win with your support. You do not represent anything that I value.” That, too, is in the end a fantasy; indeed, it was Dr. King’s.

19. Kevin Jackson Says:
    April 17th, 2009 at 9:00 am

    Simon wrote-
    Kevin, interesting that you point to McCain and Clinton but omit Senator Obama. He might have said to those of his supporters who were racists elements: “If you are voting for me because I am black, I would rather lose than win with your support. You do not represent anything that I value.” That, too, is in the end a fantasy; indeed, it was Dr. King’s.

    I actually think I remember that he did say he wanted people to vote for him based on his ideas and not his color. I may be wrong but I think he voiced that early on in the campaign. I don’t remember hearing anyone saying “I’m voting for Obama because I won’t vote for a white person (or think of your favorite derogatory synonym here) though.” Voting for someone in my eyes is different than voting against them though. A bit like the difference between pride or bigotry.

Leave a Reply

Related Posts:

• The real battle is at the state level
• Raising The FDIC Limit To $250,000
• The Problems With Pakistan