Tea party' rhetoric steals the stage at GOP conference
Los Angeles Times - Kathleen Hennessey - Feb 19, 2010
Reporting from Washington - Both rising stars and faces from the past borrowed from the movement of the moment Friday at an annual ...
Tea party' activists filter into GOP at ground level
Los Angeles Times - Kathleen Hennessey - Feb 14, 2010
(Christopher Berkey / European Pressphoto Agency / February 6, 2010) By Kathleen Hennessey Reporting from Washington - First there was the "tea party" ...
Enthusiastic Republicans crowding many primary races
Los Angeles Times - Kathleen Hennessey - Feb 6, 2010
Reporting from Washington - As the Republican Party's chances of success in the fall elections increase week by week, so too has the ...
Tea party' convention a forum for woes, worries
Los Angeles Times - Kathleen Hennessey - Feb 5, 2010
(Ed Reinke / Associated Press / February 5, 2010) By Kathleen Hennessey Reporting from Nashville - Ask Gail Hathaway, a warm 61-year-old retired nurse from ...
Tea party convention seeks to put power in motion
Los Angeles Times - Kathleen Hennessey - Feb 4, 2010
Reporting from Washington - As anti-tax and small-government enthusiasts began pouring into Nashville for the National Tea Party ...
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Does this Blogger Get Paid?
This is what we get anymore, instead of news. This blog article is by John Harwood, February 19, 2010.
It basically says that if Washington was better run then Washington would run a whole lot better?
Does Washington Need Fixing?
More importantly, is there anyone who ever reads "Week in Review" column in the New York Times?
It basically says that if Washington was better run then Washington would run a whole lot better?
Does Washington Need Fixing?
More importantly, is there anyone who ever reads "Week in Review" column in the New York Times?
Names and Faces 1
From a New York Times article by Daniel Libit, For the Tea Party Movement, Sturdy Roots in the Chicago Area
Eric Odom
Executive director of American Liberty Alliance. Odom moved to Chicago from Nevada in 2007 to ago to work for the Sam Adams Alliance, a national group that supports free-market policies.
According to the New York Times article:
". . . Odom has become critical of the emerging bureaucracies within the Tea Party movement . . . has also butted heads with some local Tea Party organizations in Chicago . . . and said he had disassociated himself from the groups to avoid being bogged down in what he considered provincial turf wars."
The Times article also quoted Catherina Wojtowicz, leader of the Chicago Tea Party Patriots as claiming that Odom his own agenda and behaves in a territorial way.
Eric Odom
Executive director of American Liberty Alliance. Odom moved to Chicago from Nevada in 2007 to ago to work for the Sam Adams Alliance, a national group that supports free-market policies.
According to the New York Times article:
". . . Odom has become critical of the emerging bureaucracies within the Tea Party movement . . . has also butted heads with some local Tea Party organizations in Chicago . . . and said he had disassociated himself from the groups to avoid being bogged down in what he considered provincial turf wars."
The Times article also quoted Catherina Wojtowicz, leader of the Chicago Tea Party Patriots as claiming that Odom his own agenda and behaves in a territorial way.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Susan Davis of Wal Street Journal on the Nashville Meeting
I was going to review a Wall Street Journal article by Susan Davis, titled "Tea Party Plots Its Next Move", but I think it's appropriate to review the general state of newspaper Tea Party coverge first.
First of all, I know that a lot of Tea Partiers just flat out don't like the main stream media. Larger minds than mine will debate the pluses and minuses of that issue.
The Tea Parties are tough to cover, I think, because they are terribly amorphous.
But smart people discover order in apparent disorder.
So far I think there have been three barriers to good quality coverage of the tea parties:
(1) Traditional journalism formulas don't work particularly well.
(2) The media has been reluctant to allocate a proper level of resources to cover the Teas Parties.
(3) Journalists in general have drifted to the left, to the point where they really resent the activities of the Tea Parties and would just as soon ignore them or damn them with faint praise.
Ms. Davis started her article with the following , "Tea Party activists gathered in Tennessee this weekend grappled with a central question looming over the burgeoning political movement: Where does it go from here?"
So what's the real picture?
How are people organizing?
First of all, I know that a lot of Tea Partiers just flat out don't like the main stream media. Larger minds than mine will debate the pluses and minuses of that issue.
The Tea Parties are tough to cover, I think, because they are terribly amorphous.
But smart people discover order in apparent disorder.
So far I think there have been three barriers to good quality coverage of the tea parties:
(1) Traditional journalism formulas don't work particularly well.
(2) The media has been reluctant to allocate a proper level of resources to cover the Teas Parties.
(3) Journalists in general have drifted to the left, to the point where they really resent the activities of the Tea Parties and would just as soon ignore them or damn them with faint praise.
Ms. Davis started her article with the following , "Tea Party activists gathered in Tennessee this weekend grappled with a central question looming over the burgeoning political movement: Where does it go from here?"
So what's the real picture?
How are people organizing?
How are the Top Ten Newspapers Covering the Tea Parties?
Here they are. We'll be examining their coverage.
1. The Wall Street Journal
2. USA Today
3. New York Times
4. Los Angeles Times
5. The Washington Post
6. New York Daily News
7. New York Post
8. Chicago Tribune
9. Houston Chronicle
10. Philadelphia Inquirer/Daily News
1. The Wall Street Journal
2. USA Today
3. New York Times
4. Los Angeles Times
5. The Washington Post
6. New York Daily News
7. New York Post
8. Chicago Tribune
9. Houston Chronicle
10. Philadelphia Inquirer/Daily News
Eugene Robinson Health Care Article just Plain Old Boring
I don't exactly know who's who at the Washington Post. I used to recognize the "grunge liberals".
You know . . . the "off the shelf" liberals like Richard Cohen and William Rasberry. You know . . . the interchangeable units. You can imagine yourself walking into a warehouse full of standard issue liberal columnists and someone says, "Hey Jim Bob, reach up on that shelf and hand me down one of those liberal units."
And down comes Eugene Robinson (a standard issue "grunge liberal") off the liberal warehouse shelf to write another boring, predictable, tedious column in support of the Obama health care plan.
I'm thinking that old Eugene ate a couple of extra bagels before bed time even though it was against his doctor's orders; and he blew his diet out of the water and his wife nagged him about it, and he woke up the next morning feeling bloated and dehydrated and sat in his bathrobe in front of his laptop with one eye stuck shut and a couple of flies buzzing around his head.
"Sh*t," thought Eugene, "I gotta get this damn column out."
And since there are only a couple of topics liberal columnists ever write about, it was pretty easy for Eugene to select health care as his topic de jour.
And so Eugene started to type.
"Five score years ago," wrote Eugene, "a great American in whose symbolic shadow we stand today signed the Emancipation Proclamation."
"O wait," thought Eugene, "that's already been used . . . ahhhhhhhhhhhh screw it. I gotta knock this bitch out. I've got golf this afternoon."
And so Eugene hit the [delete] key and he started typing from the beginning again and he titled his column with a standard colloquial cliche -- "Democrats: Find your spines and pass health reform".
Then because a professional liberal columnist can never use too many cliche', he started his column with the words, "Better late than never."
And on goes Eugene.
The number one question I would like answered is this -- what really distinguishes his column from the thousands of columns written by bloggers this month?
Read his February 23 column?
Serious.
Where's the new information?
Where's the new information?
Where's the new information?
And while we're on the subject of boring liberal columnists, it's important to realize that hundreds of boring conservative columnis were no doubt written today and they contained just as little useful information as Eugene Robinson's column.
You know . . . the "off the shelf" liberals like Richard Cohen and William Rasberry. You know . . . the interchangeable units. You can imagine yourself walking into a warehouse full of standard issue liberal columnists and someone says, "Hey Jim Bob, reach up on that shelf and hand me down one of those liberal units."
And down comes Eugene Robinson (a standard issue "grunge liberal") off the liberal warehouse shelf to write another boring, predictable, tedious column in support of the Obama health care plan.
I'm thinking that old Eugene ate a couple of extra bagels before bed time even though it was against his doctor's orders; and he blew his diet out of the water and his wife nagged him about it, and he woke up the next morning feeling bloated and dehydrated and sat in his bathrobe in front of his laptop with one eye stuck shut and a couple of flies buzzing around his head.
"Sh*t," thought Eugene, "I gotta get this damn column out."
And since there are only a couple of topics liberal columnists ever write about, it was pretty easy for Eugene to select health care as his topic de jour.
And so Eugene started to type.
"Five score years ago," wrote Eugene, "a great American in whose symbolic shadow we stand today signed the Emancipation Proclamation."
"O wait," thought Eugene, "that's already been used . . . ahhhhhhhhhhhh screw it. I gotta knock this bitch out. I've got golf this afternoon."
And so Eugene hit the [delete] key and he started typing from the beginning again and he titled his column with a standard colloquial cliche -- "Democrats: Find your spines and pass health reform".
Then because a professional liberal columnist can never use too many cliche', he started his column with the words, "Better late than never."
And on goes Eugene.
The number one question I would like answered is this -- what really distinguishes his column from the thousands of columns written by bloggers this month?
Read his February 23 column?
Serious.
Where's the new information?
Where's the new information?
Where's the new information?
And while we're on the subject of boring liberal columnists, it's important to realize that hundreds of boring conservative columnis were no doubt written today and they contained just as little useful information as Eugene Robinson's column.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
CPAC Question for the New York Times
I'm pretty sure New York Times reporters don't answer questions from the public at large, but if they did, this would be a good question for them to answer.
The following quote is from a New York Times article about CPAC
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/us/politics/19conservative.html
"Republican leaders took the stage at a conservative conference here to pay tribute to the Tea Party movement and soberly pledge to defeat Republicans who did not adhere to conservative views. Speaker after speaker drew hoots as they mocked Mr. Obama for his use of a teleprompter, seemingly oblivious to the teleprompter that rose fromthe floor before them."
The authors of the article are Adam Nagourney and Kate Zernike
QUESTION
Which Republican leaders "pledged" to defeat Republicans who do not adhere to conservative views, what are those views, and who are the non-adherents?
The following quote is from a New York Times article about CPAC
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/us/politics/19conservative.html
"Republican leaders took the stage at a conservative conference here to pay tribute to the Tea Party movement and soberly pledge to defeat Republicans who did not adhere to conservative views. Speaker after speaker drew hoots as they mocked Mr. Obama for his use of a teleprompter, seemingly oblivious to the teleprompter that rose fromthe floor before them."
The authors of the article are Adam Nagourney and Kate Zernike
QUESTION
Which Republican leaders "pledged" to defeat Republicans who do not adhere to conservative views, what are those views, and who are the non-adherents?
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Richard Dickerson
The New York Times (on February 16, 2010) published a series of reader letters to the editor under the banner "What the Tea Party Movement Wants".
One letter writer, Richard Dickinson of Glendale, California, gave himself a nice pat on the back for his "more than 35 years in public service".
I am a lowly private sector Tea Partier, and I hope Mr. Dickinson will forgive me for saying I don't regard him as a "Public Servant" at all, but rather as a "government employee"; and that the primary problem with the American economy is that there are too many overpaid, unproductive government employees.
I know government employees would like to elevate their stature to "public servant" or something even higher like shepherd, with the rest of us as their lost sheep.
But the truth is that government employees are sitting back smugly collecting their benefits and counting their retirement dollars, when much of America is unemployed, homeless, and eating cat food; and therefore I suggest government employees such as Richard Dickinson should just be thankful (for once in their miserable lives) for what they have, instead of fomenting plans to bleed more cash out of the American people.
I wonder, do we ever hear retired farmers telling us they spent "more than 35 years in agricultural service"?
Do we hear retired doctors say they spent "more than 35 years in medical service"?
This may seem like a small issue, but it's really the primary reason Americans have completely rejected the Obama health care plan. From President Obama all the way down to the lowest line level drone like Richard Dickinson, government employees feel the need to sugarcoat everything they say, elevate their status, and never ever never get down to business and straight talk.
It's interesting we never hear anyone in the private sector bragging about their "more than 35 years in private service"?
It's really pretty scary to see "public servants" like Richard Dickinson trying to take away our free market choices in everything from retirement plans to health insurance.
I feel pretty inadequate trying to communicate with a guy like Richard Dickinson, because I speak only English, and it's obvious to me that he doesn't understand English.
I mean, how do I explain to Richard Dickinson that I am ok with the government running Grand Canyon National Park, but I don't want the government running health care?
How do I explain to Richard Dickinson that millions of other Tea Partiers feel the same way as me?
Sadly, we hear the same twisted arguments from the Richard Dickinsons of the world over and over. Normally they go something like this -- "so you don't want Police, you don't want Fire Departments, you don't want roads, you don't want water and sewage."
How ever does one explain to the Richard Dickinsons of the world that Police, Fire, roads, and public works are ok, but we don't want government health care?
You can't. You really can't.
As I said, the real servants are working in the private sector. Did you ever try to get a government employee to keep their office open an extra 5 minutes after 5 o'clock or on Saturday?
Government employees, such as Mr. Dickerson are well paid, receive sustantially better benefit packages than persons in the private sector, have better job security, and in general are less productive.
Here's the point. I didn't go out and do research on Richard Dickerson; he wrote a letter to the New York Times and touted his former government employee status as though it somehow gives moral superiority to his argument -- being a lazy, unproductive, overpaid government slug.
His letter then makes the following moronic statement -- "I have no problem paying more for the society that I live in, and no problem helping pay for a bigger and better society for our grandkids. This is no longer a country of prairie schooners."
Uh huh . . . what he really means is that I have no problem with everyone paying more for the government to shape our society according to the specifications of ex "public servants" such as myself.
Also, I wonder if Mr. Dickerson is somehow trying to convince us that "government" and "society" are one and the same, and the government, as funded with our tax payer dollars, is the only mechanism for producing a "better society"?
Finally, his statement that "This is no longer a country of prairie schooners" is just weird and more or less reflects on the quality of the editorial staff at the New York Times, but I'll have a crack at it anyway.
I suppose, in the view of Mr. Dickerson, a bigger, better, prairie schooner free society would consist of more more fat bottomed government employees, more public buildings, more government and the rest of us, including the Tea Partiers, working as his private slaves to support the whole top heavy hierarchy.
In conclusion, I would like to talk about a phenomenon I call the "dumb government employee stare". This happens when you tell a government employee what you want and then he turns to you and says what he thinks you should want or he just replaces what you said with some lie, or made up story, or fabrication; and then, since government employees don't have any real work to do, when you correct him, he just patiently turns back to you and repeats the same fabrication again.
He can do it all day with you. He doesn't care. He's getting paid whether he helps you or not; and he figures it's better to not help you anyway, because a dissatisfied customer (from the government perspective) is a customer who goes away and doesn't come back; and that means he can go back to watching porn, or playing tiddly winks, or whatever government employees do when they are not helping anyone, which is pretty much most of the time.
And then, until you join a tea party group, the government employees don't really care what you do, so long as you are not bothering them. But when you finally do start to make them feel threatened about their benefits and their retirement money and their slovenly work habits, then a few of them will write indignant letters to large regional newspapers like the New York Times and try to frame themselves up as though they are comparable to Mother Theresa or Albert Schweitzer or Mahatma Gandhi; but of course they are not. They're just a bunch of lazy incompetent slobs who would eat until they exploded if we let them.
Now they feel threatened and they are whining to the media about their public service.
What a joke!!!
One letter writer, Richard Dickinson of Glendale, California, gave himself a nice pat on the back for his "more than 35 years in public service".
I am a lowly private sector Tea Partier, and I hope Mr. Dickinson will forgive me for saying I don't regard him as a "Public Servant" at all, but rather as a "government employee"; and that the primary problem with the American economy is that there are too many overpaid, unproductive government employees.
I know government employees would like to elevate their stature to "public servant" or something even higher like shepherd, with the rest of us as their lost sheep.
But the truth is that government employees are sitting back smugly collecting their benefits and counting their retirement dollars, when much of America is unemployed, homeless, and eating cat food; and therefore I suggest government employees such as Richard Dickinson should just be thankful (for once in their miserable lives) for what they have, instead of fomenting plans to bleed more cash out of the American people.
I wonder, do we ever hear retired farmers telling us they spent "more than 35 years in agricultural service"?
Do we hear retired doctors say they spent "more than 35 years in medical service"?
This may seem like a small issue, but it's really the primary reason Americans have completely rejected the Obama health care plan. From President Obama all the way down to the lowest line level drone like Richard Dickinson, government employees feel the need to sugarcoat everything they say, elevate their status, and never ever never get down to business and straight talk.
It's interesting we never hear anyone in the private sector bragging about their "more than 35 years in private service"?
It's really pretty scary to see "public servants" like Richard Dickinson trying to take away our free market choices in everything from retirement plans to health insurance.
I feel pretty inadequate trying to communicate with a guy like Richard Dickinson, because I speak only English, and it's obvious to me that he doesn't understand English.
I mean, how do I explain to Richard Dickinson that I am ok with the government running Grand Canyon National Park, but I don't want the government running health care?
How do I explain to Richard Dickinson that millions of other Tea Partiers feel the same way as me?
Sadly, we hear the same twisted arguments from the Richard Dickinsons of the world over and over. Normally they go something like this -- "so you don't want Police, you don't want Fire Departments, you don't want roads, you don't want water and sewage."
How ever does one explain to the Richard Dickinsons of the world that Police, Fire, roads, and public works are ok, but we don't want government health care?
You can't. You really can't.
As I said, the real servants are working in the private sector. Did you ever try to get a government employee to keep their office open an extra 5 minutes after 5 o'clock or on Saturday?
Government employees, such as Mr. Dickerson are well paid, receive sustantially better benefit packages than persons in the private sector, have better job security, and in general are less productive.
Here's the point. I didn't go out and do research on Richard Dickerson; he wrote a letter to the New York Times and touted his former government employee status as though it somehow gives moral superiority to his argument -- being a lazy, unproductive, overpaid government slug.
His letter then makes the following moronic statement -- "I have no problem paying more for the society that I live in, and no problem helping pay for a bigger and better society for our grandkids. This is no longer a country of prairie schooners."
Uh huh . . . what he really means is that I have no problem with everyone paying more for the government to shape our society according to the specifications of ex "public servants" such as myself.
Also, I wonder if Mr. Dickerson is somehow trying to convince us that "government" and "society" are one and the same, and the government, as funded with our tax payer dollars, is the only mechanism for producing a "better society"?
Finally, his statement that "This is no longer a country of prairie schooners" is just weird and more or less reflects on the quality of the editorial staff at the New York Times, but I'll have a crack at it anyway.
I suppose, in the view of Mr. Dickerson, a bigger, better, prairie schooner free society would consist of more more fat bottomed government employees, more public buildings, more government and the rest of us, including the Tea Partiers, working as his private slaves to support the whole top heavy hierarchy.
In conclusion, I would like to talk about a phenomenon I call the "dumb government employee stare". This happens when you tell a government employee what you want and then he turns to you and says what he thinks you should want or he just replaces what you said with some lie, or made up story, or fabrication; and then, since government employees don't have any real work to do, when you correct him, he just patiently turns back to you and repeats the same fabrication again.
He can do it all day with you. He doesn't care. He's getting paid whether he helps you or not; and he figures it's better to not help you anyway, because a dissatisfied customer (from the government perspective) is a customer who goes away and doesn't come back; and that means he can go back to watching porn, or playing tiddly winks, or whatever government employees do when they are not helping anyone, which is pretty much most of the time.
And then, until you join a tea party group, the government employees don't really care what you do, so long as you are not bothering them. But when you finally do start to make them feel threatened about their benefits and their retirement money and their slovenly work habits, then a few of them will write indignant letters to large regional newspapers like the New York Times and try to frame themselves up as though they are comparable to Mother Theresa or Albert Schweitzer or Mahatma Gandhi; but of course they are not. They're just a bunch of lazy incompetent slobs who would eat until they exploded if we let them.
Now they feel threatened and they are whining to the media about their public service.
What a joke!!!
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Why is Michael Steele Trying to Split the Tea Parties
Who are the weird people I see on TV claiming to represent the Tea Party movement, and where did they come from?
Is this a Republican poison pill?
Or is this an attempt by Michael Steele to create a more compliant, more Republican friendly Tea Party?
I saw a woman named Karin Hoffman on TV News meeting with Michael Steele.
Who is she?
Ms. Hoffman claimed to be a Tea Party Leader; but I just didn't recognize her; and it made me wonder, can the media and the GOP just randomly select someone on any day and anoint him or her as a leader in the Tea Parties?
I just spent a year of my life in telephone conference meetings, emails, and twitters getting to know the leadership in the tea party movement. The leaders I know about are named Jenny Beth Martin, Amy Kremer, Micheael Leahy, and Eric Odom; but I never heard of Karin Hoffman.
Almost a year ago, I made plans with friends to attend a Tea Party in Canton Ohio.
My first knowledge of the Tea Parties was a blurb on network news about Rick Santelli, calling for a Tea Party protest of mortgage bailouts.
On the day of my first Tea Party, April 15, none of us brought signs or had any formal connection with any of the other attendees. None of the other five people who came with me have had any formal involvement with the Tea Parties since that time, but I know they all agree with the goals of the Tea Parties.
After the 15th, using a Google search, I found the Tea Party Patriots and I participated in some of their telephone conferences and google group discussions. To any observer or reporter who might have taken the trouble to listen in on some of the early Tea Party discussions, the grass roots nature of the movement would have been obvious.
If the issues weren't so serious, it would have been humorous how we struggled through 2009 to keep our focus on core issues of fiscal responsibility and smaller government; and to steer away from divisive issues or issues that might damage the credibility of the movement such as the so-called "birther" issue.
But we prevailed. The tea party groups prevailed; and along the way, we learned some things about the Republican Party that aren't very pretty. As an example, the millions of people who gathered in Washington D.C. to protest the Obama health care bill, the tens of millions of letters to congress, and the hundreds of millions of phone calls to Congressmen and Senators were pure tea party, and had nothing to do with the Republican Party. What we learned in 2009 is that the Republican Party is not organized enough to create an Astro Turf campaign, as our detractors so vigorously claimed.
Although the Tea Party movement does not explicitly support any political party, the stated principals of the Republican Party are largely the same as those of the Tea Party movement; and it is unlikely that Republican candidates would have won the office of Governor or New Jersey or junior Senator in the State of Massachusetts without the support of the Tea Party Movement.
And that is why I am puzzled by the recent actions of Michael Steele, Chairman of the Republican National Committee; and I am left wondering if, as some Tea Partiers claim, Chairman Steele and the Republicans are attempting to hijack the Tea Party, and if so, why?
My suggestion to Michael Steele is this -- hands off . . . do not inadvertently (or deliberately) lend credibility to any individual or individuals who claim to be leaders in the Tea Party movement. Anyone who approaches you asking for a high profile public appearance should be considered highly suspect; and by arbitrarily catapulting them into the media limelight, you risk offending and alienating millions of grassroots Tea Partiers who could be your friends this fall if you just keep the Republicans focused on smaller government, fiscal conservative, and respect for the Constitution.
My suggestion to the media (such as the New York Tims) is this -- try to cultivate some subject matter expertise. Try to create a picture of who was involved and when. Some major activity happened in places like Florida, Georgia, and Texas last year. Take the time to understand who was involved and the structure of the organizations they built. Just try not to be ignorant. If some self-appointed leader of the Tea Party movement issues a press release, for the sake of your own credibility, do a little fact checking.
But throughout
Is this a Republican poison pill?
Or is this an attempt by Michael Steele to create a more compliant, more Republican friendly Tea Party?
I saw a woman named Karin Hoffman on TV News meeting with Michael Steele.
Who is she?
Ms. Hoffman claimed to be a Tea Party Leader; but I just didn't recognize her; and it made me wonder, can the media and the GOP just randomly select someone on any day and anoint him or her as a leader in the Tea Parties?
I just spent a year of my life in telephone conference meetings, emails, and twitters getting to know the leadership in the tea party movement. The leaders I know about are named Jenny Beth Martin, Amy Kremer, Micheael Leahy, and Eric Odom; but I never heard of Karin Hoffman.
Almost a year ago, I made plans with friends to attend a Tea Party in Canton Ohio.
My first knowledge of the Tea Parties was a blurb on network news about Rick Santelli, calling for a Tea Party protest of mortgage bailouts.
On the day of my first Tea Party, April 15, none of us brought signs or had any formal connection with any of the other attendees. None of the other five people who came with me have had any formal involvement with the Tea Parties since that time, but I know they all agree with the goals of the Tea Parties.
After the 15th, using a Google search, I found the Tea Party Patriots and I participated in some of their telephone conferences and google group discussions. To any observer or reporter who might have taken the trouble to listen in on some of the early Tea Party discussions, the grass roots nature of the movement would have been obvious.
If the issues weren't so serious, it would have been humorous how we struggled through 2009 to keep our focus on core issues of fiscal responsibility and smaller government; and to steer away from divisive issues or issues that might damage the credibility of the movement such as the so-called "birther" issue.
But we prevailed. The tea party groups prevailed; and along the way, we learned some things about the Republican Party that aren't very pretty. As an example, the millions of people who gathered in Washington D.C. to protest the Obama health care bill, the tens of millions of letters to congress, and the hundreds of millions of phone calls to Congressmen and Senators were pure tea party, and had nothing to do with the Republican Party. What we learned in 2009 is that the Republican Party is not organized enough to create an Astro Turf campaign, as our detractors so vigorously claimed.
Although the Tea Party movement does not explicitly support any political party, the stated principals of the Republican Party are largely the same as those of the Tea Party movement; and it is unlikely that Republican candidates would have won the office of Governor or New Jersey or junior Senator in the State of Massachusetts without the support of the Tea Party Movement.
And that is why I am puzzled by the recent actions of Michael Steele, Chairman of the Republican National Committee; and I am left wondering if, as some Tea Partiers claim, Chairman Steele and the Republicans are attempting to hijack the Tea Party, and if so, why?
My suggestion to Michael Steele is this -- hands off . . . do not inadvertently (or deliberately) lend credibility to any individual or individuals who claim to be leaders in the Tea Party movement. Anyone who approaches you asking for a high profile public appearance should be considered highly suspect; and by arbitrarily catapulting them into the media limelight, you risk offending and alienating millions of grassroots Tea Partiers who could be your friends this fall if you just keep the Republicans focused on smaller government, fiscal conservative, and respect for the Constitution.
My suggestion to the media (such as the New York Tims) is this -- try to cultivate some subject matter expertise. Try to create a picture of who was involved and when. Some major activity happened in places like Florida, Georgia, and Texas last year. Take the time to understand who was involved and the structure of the organizations they built. Just try not to be ignorant. If some self-appointed leader of the Tea Party movement issues a press release, for the sake of your own credibility, do a little fact checking.
But throughout
Monday, February 15, 2010
Sumpter Whining about Glenn Beck Today
I guess Glenn Beck is running some sort of seminar and charging for the seminar and the materials.
Sumpter is whining that Glenn Beck should give away his seminar materials for free, based on the argument that Beck is a wealthy man.
I have an idea. Sumpter should write his own materials and give them away instead of sowing the seeds of class envy.
Sumpter is whining that Glenn Beck should give away his seminar materials for free, based on the argument that Beck is a wealthy man.
I have an idea. Sumpter should write his own materials and give them away instead of sowing the seeds of class envy.
Jim Sumpter's Really Old "Daily News"
Do I sound like I don't like Jim Sumpter?
I don't.
He's taking up 2 hours of space every week day on a Radio Station I like to listen to, and I wish they would replace him with a decent talk radio show host.
If Jim Sumpter was a car, he'd be a Yugo.
If Jim Sumpter was a financial adviser, he'd be Bernard Madoff.
If Jim Sumpter was a a radio talk show host, he'd be . . . well . . . Jim Sumpter.
Here's today's complaint about Jim Sumpter. The so called "Today's Headlines" blurbs on his site are old . . . really old by internet standards. Sumpter needs to team up with someone who understands XML / RSS feeds . . . or better yet, get off the air and make room for some decent young talk show host who understands the culture, technology, and the political climate of 2010.
I don't.
He's taking up 2 hours of space every week day on a Radio Station I like to listen to, and I wish they would replace him with a decent talk radio show host.
If Jim Sumpter was a car, he'd be a Yugo.
If Jim Sumpter was a financial adviser, he'd be Bernard Madoff.
If Jim Sumpter was a a radio talk show host, he'd be . . . well . . . Jim Sumpter.
Here's today's complaint about Jim Sumpter. The so called "Today's Headlines" blurbs on his site are old . . . really old by internet standards. Sumpter needs to team up with someone who understands XML / RSS feeds . . . or better yet, get off the air and make room for some decent young talk show host who understands the culture, technology, and the political climate of 2010.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
An Awesome Jim Sumpter Facebook Page
Ok, this guy is in disguise, so he may not actually be Jim Sumpter the famous jackass broadcaster, but nonetheless this is a pretty darn good page:
http://www.facebook.com/people/Jim-Sumpter/1392574584
Thanks Jim. If you're not Jim the broadcaster, rest assured your simple page has brought more humor and enlightenment into the world than a year of the other Jim's tripe.
Here's a really spazzy picture of Jim Sumpter, in case anyone is interested.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Jim-Sumpter/1392574584
Thanks Jim. If you're not Jim the broadcaster, rest assured your simple page has brought more humor and enlightenment into the world than a year of the other Jim's tripe.
Here's a really spazzy picture of Jim Sumpter, in case anyone is interested.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Another Dumb Jim Sumpter Article
Here is info from the Jim Sumpter Web Site, 10 February, 2010:
Remember . . . he's worse than the Democrats . . . he's worse than the Republicans . . . he's Jim . . . Jim Sumpter . . . the third tier "conservative" talk show host.
LOL
And remember, whoever said there's no "I" in "team" didn't know Jim Sumpter.
Report: Blockbuster scandal to force resignation of NY GovLet's see if the dum dum Jim Sumpter gets it right this time . . .
New York Times is said to be ready to go to press with 'blockbuster' scandal that will force Governor Paterson to step down - maybe as soon as today, although recent statement from aide claims Paterson "...isn't going anywhere."
Remember . . . he's worse than the Democrats . . . he's worse than the Republicans . . . he's Jim . . . Jim Sumpter . . . the third tier "conservative" talk show host.
LOL
And remember, whoever said there's no "I" in "team" didn't know Jim Sumpter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)