I think a few corporations understood how Obamacare would negatively impact the bottom line and decided to influence Washington by using its main lobby, the GOP. The corporations subsidized a phony populist group that's been nurtured and cared by the GOP. The teabaggers is another bastard-secret-love child fathered by corporations and mothered by the GOP. The child will be terminated (aborted) once Obama is out of office. So, no, the GOP did not take over the teabaggers or vice-versa.
Ah, Joseph, why'dja hafta open up this can o' worms? The story for publication is that it was a "spontaneous" grassroots movement, but from my research, that ain't necessarily so. Remember, Obama For America was "grassroots," too, but it surely wasn't "spontaneous," either. The young Brendan Steinhauser (of Armey's Army) "Protest Warrior" types planted the seeds and waited until they took root to hit the ground running with the help of Michelle Malkin and Glenn Reynolds, to name two. Zack Christenson, executive producer of WGN's Milt Rosenberg Show (he of the Stanley Kurtz/Bill Ayers UofI files confrontation with Barry's Obacolytes dust-up)had registered the Chicago Tea Party.com domain name in August '08. There were a couple other names of young activists involved, all pumped up on Malkin's blog, and a couple of other "protests" prior to the official launch after Santelli's rant, most notably a few Ron Paul events starting in December '07, I think, but, near as I can tell, the organized TEA(Taxed Enough Already)Party "phenomenon" was Armey's Army planted "grassroots."
Jane Hamsher has a post up at HuffPo about the "feud" between Paul and Palin over the movement's "soul." However, imo, the "feud" is more like the NFL "Who dat" brouhaha over who owns the TEA Party name/brand than it is about whose movement it really is. Thus, ongoing confusion.
Cinie has a great point about The Teaparty being like Obama for America. You can't generate a grassroots movement, but you can organize and mislead them. And the media will be complicit, because they love a simple meme, such as "Obama's support comes from $5 online donations."
:rolling eyes: Yeah, alessandro, let's all "support" a magical non-existent "third" party.
posted by Zee : 10:57 AM
Not to belabor the point (again), but there IS a third party in this country.
They're called the Greens.
They field candidates.
Debate the rest all you want, but "liberals" really need to break the habit of being perpetual victims.
I've personally reached the point of being "Tea Partied" out. Tired of hearing about it, tired of talking about it. Don't give a NY rat's ass about it. I would much rather focus on what our own are doing.
The opportunity to "convert" stone-cold-nuts-misinformed-teapartiers will never come if our own house isn't in order.
"Hey Tea Partiers!!!! Come join our disjointed-fractured-clusterfuck Liberal Political Framework!!! You too can shill for bad policy while claiming faux moral superiority!!!!"
The T-Bs are astro-turf phenom now run amok. The oil/gas guys set up a "grass-roots" group attack on the Climate bill, the health insurers set up attacks on Obamacare (which is truly, Biblically unpopular) and the T's began life as a fat-cat rightist whack at the stimulus package. But the uber-alienated Farah clones are just a step away from Tim McVeigh-land. They are a different, scarier cat than the fats or even the evangelicals...
"Did the teabaggers take over the Republican Party? Or did the Republican Party take over the tea party movement?"
Good question..... A good answer is that ANY movement that shows value is expected to be infiltrated by those supported with money who want their way. How to protect the movements values and not be swayed is another question. My thought is that as time goes by we will become even more eduated as a mass to know more about the destructive tactics used to destroy our democracy.
Currently and I know this well from being in a family who are deeply involved in those with money trying to destroy our Democracy that we only have ONE PARTY. Our two party system is gone as they both have been bought out. This one party DOESN'T want the Constitution. They have been planning this for decades and I learned many details in the 90's.
It may take a little more time for people to see through this insanity. This insanity has been well designed to make sure things are well stirred up and anything that has value is taken over. But it's up to us to see through right from wrong and move forward with what is right.
Anyone who had reviewed our history with how Hitler came to power will easily see that we're in a very similar situation now.
Marty Didier Northbrok, IL
posted by Anonymous : 5:02 PM
There are differences.
Ron Paul has three Tbgr challengers. Medina in Texas, a Tbgr, told Glenn Beck she found considerable evidence of government involvement with 9/11, whilst Palin endorses Gov. Goodhair (?).
I think of the Tbgrs as somewhat of a Frankenstein's monster, which may run amok beyond their creators' control.
But no doubt, in the Venn diagram, much of the Tbgrs are in the extremist wing pie section of the GOP, and hold classic GOP views.
posted by Anonymous : 10:38 PM
From Anonymous at 7:38 PM:
Ron Paul has three Tbgr challengers. Medina in Texas, a Tbgr, told Glenn Beck she found considerable evidence of government involvement with 9/11, whilst Palin endorses Gov. Goodhair (?)
I want to concentrate on the bolded portion of the excerpt above, but first would like to dispel any possible impression left by this excerpt that Ms. Medina is challenging Ron Paul. She is in fact a candidate for governor, and is not running for Ron Paul's Congressional seat. FWIW, her campaign website is here.
I'm considered a leftie by today's conventional standards - certainly not a Ron Paul or Tea Party supporter, not a Texan, and never heard of Ms. Medina before this week. But I think Ms. Medina is getting dumped on unfairly here (yeah, yeah, that's how it goes in politics - I know. I can still bitch about it though). And Medina did not say what Anon@7:38 attributed to her - although what she did actually say in her clumsy response to Beck will certainly damage her politically.
Unless conclusive evidence comes out to the contrary, I think her real crime was against good campaign politics, by allowing herself to get rattled into answering a question from a big time national media person - a question that she wasn't prepared for, on an issue that is irrelevant to her campaign (David Weigel's post on the interview is here). I cannot prove this is the case, but I don't think it can be proven she is a 9/11-Truther either, especially in light of her Shermanesque statement to the contrary, released on her Website after the Beck interview. Others who have looked at the same facts have declared a different conclusion - e.g., this blogger, who (to his/her credit) posted the key information for both sides of the issue.
I would normally be content to get some popcorn, sit back, and enjoy the self-destruction on the Republican side, but this primary race includes two odious mainstream Republicans. Ms. Medina may be just as odious - don't know, don't care - but I tend to side with the paultard teabaggers on the specific circumstances of this interview - and it has been shown that Glenn Beck is, beyond a reasonable doubt, a willing tool of whomever is paying his salary, with a commensurate "flexibility" in where he comes down on issues and individuals. And his Paymasters are, of course, solidly in the mainstream Republican camp.
Zee, anger management therapy and a good reading of the facts might help your highly displaced rage.
Why are you so scared of third parties?
posted by DancingOpossum : 1:08 PM
The funny thing to me is that of the 7 "tea baggers" whom I personally know... 5 of them are hard-core liberals. Has the tea party movement gone bi-partisan at this point & it's just any angry group of citizens who don't like the direction that our country is moving right now?