The Tea Part Patriots had a Tea Party Summit in Arizona this weekend. Ron Paul won the straw poll. Herman Cain was second. Palin was third. The link includes a video of Paul’s speech to the Summit.
Here is a New American article that details the first day of CPAC, and highlights Ron Paul’s popularity. (HT: Bill Greene)
Here Jeremy Lott at AmSpec already concedes that Ron Paul is going to win the straw poll. My comment is below:
I keep telling y’all interventionists that non-interventionism is on the rise. We see that abundantly on display at CPAC. But your reaction is usually whistling past the graveyard, mindless derision (see Occam’s Tool above), or amping up the hysterics.
When are you going to realize that you are losing your grip on the movement and are going to have to engage the non-interventionists on a serious intellectual level? And serious intellectual level does not include shrieking anti-Semitism and playing the WWII card as first resorts.
Movement conservatism has long been committed to free trade. While the base of the GOP is skeptical of “free trade” deals, movement cons are a slightly different more ideological breed. This disconnect between the more populist base and the more ideological movement was seriously exposed during Pat Buchanan’s ’92 and ’96 runs for the GOP Presidential nomination.
There is a growing movement on the right in opposition to the KORUS FTA, however. I wonder if this anti-KORUS sentiment is anywhere in evidence at CPAC? I’ll sniff around for evidence that it is and let you know. If any of our readers are attending CPAC and would like to report in, that would be much appreciated also.
Update: I do know that “The Donald,” who is against KORUS, spoke today.
Timothy Carney took notice at the Washington Examiner.
Paul Chesser comments on the Carney article at American Spectator.
Jay Homnick has this to say about it at AmSpec.
Once again for those who haven’t seen it, here is a video of Specter’s farewell speech.
If you find anymore articles on Specter’s tantrum, post links in the comments, and I will post them here.
Update: Jennifer Rubin at the The Washington Post chimes in.
John Nichols at The Cap Times: Your Progressive Voice (Ick!) gives us a liberal take.
Political whore … er … I mean opportunist Arlen Specter delivers a whine fest on his way out of the Senate.
Tea Parties … whaa whaa … partisanship … whaa whaa … loss of civility … whaa whaa … compromise … whaa whaa whaaaaaaaaaaaa…
Specter bolted the Republican party because he knew he was going to get his a** handed to him in the primary. How dare the unwashed masses challenge His Highness. Then he jumps to the Dems and gets a challenger there. How dare the Dems not welcome the little rat with open arms.
Specter is probably the most smug and insufferable member of the Senate, and that is quite a distinction. (Lisa Murkowski is a close second.) Good riddance to him.
Here is a video of Specter’s farewell speech.
Here is a video of me celebrating his departure.
There’s a revolt going on against the “center” which will hopefully span two oceans.
One hopes members of Ireland’s Dail can find their independent spirit once again and turn down the EU’s slavery budget as imposed on them to keep European central banks from failing.
And one hopes Sen. Jim DeMint’s announcement that he will fillibuster the centrist deal between President Obama and Sen. Mitch McConell will keep Democrats from getting on board and convince the country the Tea Parties were more than just a way to elect more Republicans.
The “center” tries to impose its will in order to keep the powerful financial interests afloat while gas prices go up with the weak dollar and austerity budgets hurt everyone in hard economic times.
The only way they can be stopped is through rebellion.
Wayne Root has a plausible explanation: the Democrat get-out-the-vote machine.
Unfortunately Root still seems to cling to the Rovian fantasy that Hispanics are natural conservatives and can be wooed to vote for conservatives. But I believe his assessment of the role of the Democrat GOTV machine in Reid’s victory is accurate. What else can account for the difference in polling and the actual vote totals than that the pollsters’ turnout models were inaccurate?
Let’s jump into this mess by exposing the first lie — which also happens to be the first sentence in this malicious propaganda piece:
Cue the right-wing wailing and gnashing of teeth: The NAACP has now fully backed up its accusations of racism within the Tea Party movement with a meticulously documented report on the Tea parties’ multifarious connections to racists and various far-right extremists.
For starters, the NAACP didn’t research or write these attacks on the Tea Party; instead, the powerful and wealthy organization outsourced the hit to Devin Burghart and Leonard Zeskind of the Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights, which is, if you can imagine, an SPLC wannabe minus the subtlety.
The IREHR’s president, Leonard Zeskind, is a self-proclaimed Marxist who sees white racism everywhere he looks — he’s so extreme, the “antifa” thugs at One People’s Project link both his personal and organizational websites. The NAACP knew they’d get the desired results by giving the job to him. For a sample of his mindset, take a look at this shotgun blast at opponents of Obamacare:
Liberals and progressives have badly underestimated the strength and resilience of their opposition. While a more humane national health care policy is still entirely possible, Republicans and conservatives retain the ability to stop the drive forward — like scabs on a union workplace strike.
It looks now like an opposition “bloc,” with many different political elements: ultra-conservative Republicans of both the Pat Buchanan and free market variety; anti-tax Tea Party libertarians from the Ron Paul camp; Christian right activists intent on re-molding the country into their kind of Kingdom; birth certificate conspiracy theorists, anti-immigrant nativists of the armed Minuteman and the policy wonk variety; third party “constitutionalists;” and white nationalists of both the citizens councils and the Stormfront national socialist variety. Pro-capitalist corporate lobbyists and anti-capitalist fascists together.
So much for the claim that the “Tea Party Nationalism” report is an objective, fact-based look at one of the most important movements transforming American politics.
“Racism” these days means opposition to open borders, government takeover of private industry, and taxpayer-funded subsidies to the politically connected. Since that opposition is catching fire all over the country, expect to hear the word “Racist!” screamed even more.
Paul garnered 12.5 %. Chris Christie finished first with 14 %. Sarah Palin was second with 13.5 %.
Half term governor Christie’s popularity is surprising.
The singer here, Bruce Bellott, is my Facebook friend.
P.S. Bede is really going to come to regret teaching me how to embed videos.
Here is Dale on the lame duck Congress.
Below I wrote, “I love the iconography this guy represents. This is us yokels in flyover country sticking a thumb in the eye of Big City Elitists everywhere.”
For proof that Dale Peterson’s appeal is all about this yokel vs. elitist divide, take a look at these threads.
The reaction against Peterson from some of the commenters is palpably visceral, all out of proportion to the actual content of what is being said. (As is admittedly the reaction in favor of him.) But he really isn’t saying anything different than what any suit wearing conservative talking head on Fox News would say.
To the Elites, Dale Peterson represents the people who shouldn’t be heard from and who should just wait around for marching orders from their Elitist betters. But the yokels are getting uppity, and it both frightens and revulses them.
I just love this guy. I don’t really buy the idea that if we just elect more Republicans everything will be better, but I love the iconography this guy represents. This is us yokels in flyover country sticking a thumb in the eye of Big City Elitists everywhere.
That this guy lost his election in Alabama is a travesty, but here Peterson is being a good GOP soldier and ingratiating himself with the party. I suspect he plans to run for something again.
This is an outrage! There has long been a debate about whether the TEA Party movement is really an independent non-partisan affair or if it is simply an adjunct of the Republican Party. This is a complicated matter due to the spontaneous and decentralize nature of the phenomenon. In some communities it is more the former, and in some it is more the latter.
I think the trend has been toward the movement being co-opted by Republican centric (although not necessarily Establishment oriented) forces. And I think this largely has to do with those groups having the funding to provide higher level organizational structure to the local level.
This episode tends to confirm this trend although the message is decidedly mixed. Libertarian Alex Snitker is being allowed to speak, for example. Glenn Lord, who seems to be speaking for the group, is clearly imposing his own personal beliefs about the utility of third parties on the TEA Party as a whole. His e-mails attempting to justify the exclusion of DeCastro strike me as unprofessional. If there was a legit reason to deny him a speaking slot due to time, (Which I highly doubt. If they wanted to make time they could.) that would be one thing, but on what grounds is he also being denied a table? There isn’t room for one more table? The reason from Lord’s e-mails is clear. Lord doesn’t want him to have one because Lord doesn’t think third parties are useful.
Well this is interesting. PA Gov. Rendell is “appalled”(as he should be) that an anti-terrorism task force was keeping tabs on liberal activists, and is falling all over himself to apologize. Was he equally appalled when Missouri was fingering TEA Party activist, Ron Paul supporters, and Chuck Baldwin voters as potential terrorists? I certainly don’t recall this sort of outrage about that story except on the right. And I don’t recall the Gov. of Missouri doing this kind of abject apology dance.
On Saturday, 28 August, we witnessed–in the flesh–a false dichotomy in Washington, DC. Not that this ought to surprise anyone. To paraphrase a prominent Southern statesman, George Wallace – “There isn’t a dime’s worth of difference …”
One on side, we have Al Sharpton and his merry band of Perpetually Angry Colored People screaming and shouting to “Reclaim the Dream” of Martin Luther King, Jr.
On the other, we find the Plump Pasty Weasel of Faux Conservatism, Glenn Beck . . . doing the very same thing.
Hmmm . . . American lefties and righties both claiming the legacy of MLK, Jr.? Both lefties and righties meeting at the shrine to out-of-control big government, the Lincoln Memorial? The League of the South will pass on this deal.
Just how are these two groups different? George Wallace was of course right, and because of the failed polices of both the lefties and righties a dime today buys only a fraction of what it did during George’s day.
For sixteen years The League of The South has stated there is virtually no real difference between mainstream conservatives and liberals or between Republicans and Democrats. This latest little exhibition demonstrates that false dichotomy. Yes, both Al Sharpton and Glenn Beck have a dream as did their heroes Lincoln and King. But their dreams do not match and are at odds with the dream of the Southern people – to Restore the Principles of Our Founding Fathers!
Just another example to show that the mainstream brand of conservatism served up by Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin doesn’t really conserve anything except socialist gains from previous generations. Their talk of belief in “limited government” and “Constitutional government” is insincere and hypocritical when they pay homage to the man who drove the nails in the coffin of our Constitutional Republic. The Beck-Palin movement will lure many well-meaning but gullible conservatives to the same place the marching band ended up in the homecoming parade in the movie “Animal House”–down a blind, dead-end alley.
If Beck-Palin conservatism doesn’t appeal to you and you really don’t think you belong in a milquetoast organization such as the GOP, then consider The League of the South. We think you might like our uncompromising stand for the principles upon which our country was founded and for a real solution to our problems–Southern independence.
Michael Hill and Mike Crane,
for The League of the South Board of Directors
87,000 showed up at the Lincoln Memorial for Beck’s rally:
Forty-seven years after Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his “I Have a Dream Speech,” Fox News host Glenn Beck stood Saturday close to the spot at the Lincoln Memorial where the civil rights leader called for racial equality, urging the nation to return to “faith, hope and charity.”
Now let me get this straight — Beck stands at a monument that deifies the man who transformed the voluntary union of States into a centralized behemoth, and invokes the legacy of a man tied closely to communists — for the purpose of restoring liberty and small government?
One of us is realllllly missing something.
I love picking on Erick Erickson. Partially because he is a local (to me) boy, and partially because he is just the sort of faux radical who is really an Establishment water carrier who is so much a part of the problem.
Erick intends to instruct us all on how to take America back, couched in angry rhetoric no doubt, but his actions belie his words. Erick is fresh off endorsing the moderate RINO in the Georgia Republican gubernatorial primary, and he famously banned supporters of the most truly r[3vol]utionary Presidential candidate from his RedState blog. So how does this strategy work? Erick needs to explain to us all how he intends to “take America back” when he is so squeamish about actually challenging the ruling Establishment.
The nomination of Nikki Haley is a mixed blessing from a paleo perspective. She may be weak on immigration. There is good reason to believe she is. But on the other hand, immigration wasn’t really an issue in the Governor’s race, and Haley was the identified candidate of the TEA Party movement (with some justification) and therefore her victory is a very public victory for the TEA Party. And it was a public repudiation of Gresham Barrett for his vote for the bailout.
That said, I fear that South Carolina conservatives may come to regret that they so vigorously rallied to her defense against the allegations of extra-marital affairs and so cavalierly turned a blind eye to them. How should a supporter of a candidate respond when these types of allegations arise? Here is my take in the replies to this post from Quin Hillyer at AmSpec. Mr. Hillyer seems to have some of the same reservations I do.
… an allegation is not untrue because we politically support the accused. Allegations must be judged on their merits just as you would if the allegations were against someone you were disinterested in. To automatically defend someone against a charge because you support him/her politically risks winding up with an enormous amount of egg on your face. Hasn’t experience taught us that these types of allegations are often true (Clinton, Foley, etc. etc. etc.)? Just ask Lanny Davis what it is like to defend someone based on political sympathy later to find out they were guilty.
I have a hard time believing that Folks, who has much credibility to lose, would just completely make something like this up. On its face, the allegation is at least as likely true as not. I won’t believe anyone in this mess for sure unless they volunteer to take and pass a polygraph. In fact, the fact that Haley didn’t DEMAND to take a lie detector test when the allegations first arose inclines me to believe they are either true or have some element of truth to them. What would you do if you were publicly accused of something you were totally innocent of? I know what I would do. I would take an army to keep me away from a lie detector. (This is the same logic I use when I conclude there is likely something fishy about Obama’s long form birth certificate or else he would release it to silence his skeptics.)
Last I read, Haley’s second accuser (the less credible one in my original estimation) volunteered to take a polygraph test and Haley, who was asked publicly, refused. (She didn’t exactly refuse. She gave a very fishy non answer.)
Here is Haley refusing.
Here are Marchant’s results.
I am afraid that the conservative voters in SC reacted in sympathy to Mrs. Haley, but they may be sorry if this ends up blowing up in their face before the general.
Marchant’s results were “inconclusive” but more positive than not. Read the link for an explanation.
It must be difficult to be a centrist. They seem to live with an ever present fear that the country is on the verge of falling into the hand’s of extremists (if only) unless reasonable centrists heads save the day by dragging us back from the brink.
Consider that oh so reasonable and thoughtful bastion of centrist opinion making, E. J. Dionne. He is all “disturbed” that the Tea Party right is growing dangerously anti-government, what with all those sinister references to the Constitution and Founding Fathers they keep making.
Daniel McCarthy has an excellent analysis of the Dionne article here. Daniel is entirely correct that once “their party” is in power the established GOP elite will co-opt the Tea Partiers, but I point out in the comment section another dynamic involved here.
“Dionne and his ilk’s,” (described beautifully by Mr. Grigg as the “custodians of acceptable opinion”) professed concern about the TEA Party movement is less about some particular new development on the right than it is a generalized centrist fear of some imagined ever-present emerging “extremism.” Just as there is an enduring GOP elite, there is an equally enduring centrist elite (sometimes one and the same) that reacts with predictable hysteria at any whiff of “extremism.” The centrist whining about polarization, hyper-partisanship, overheated rhetoric, the poor underrepresented center, extremism, blah, blah, blah is with us every election cycle.
What is ironic about all this centrist hand-wringing is how unnecessary it is. They have managed to create a political culture that couldn’t be any more pristinely centrist if they drew up a blueprint. Surely they recognize this. These periodic outbursts of concern about rising extremism from the keepers of conventional opinion are just one more tool for maintaining the centrism they so dearly love and that has served them so well. So Mr. Dionne can spare me his feigned concern. I’m not buying it.