VIDEO: 'A fat man flying!'

In Boston in 1773, Molly Far saw a horrifying vision:

From the Pasadena Tea Party Patriots and, in case you didn't recognize the actress playing Molly, it's SNL alumna Victoria Jackson. Molly's prophetic vision of the bounteous land of fruit turned into a barren wilderness on account of a smelt is, alas, all too real.

Tea Party Express official says liberal media used TPM's 'totally bogus story'

E-mail from Joe Wierzbicki of the Tea Party Express:

What's disgusting about the TPM Muckracker hit on us is that it's a totally bogus story - and the author knows it.
The $800,000 they cite was NOT paid to Russo Marsh + Associates. The vast majority of that money was to reimburse Russo Marsh + Associates for the efforts where we fronted the money in our capacity as the organizers of the Tea Party Express. . . .
And then Rachel Maddow of MSNBC last night (and the CBS blog, and dozens of other liberal blogs) have run with the story. I'm not sure how much these people in the secondary chain of this viral promotion understand that their advancing a bogus story. Maybe some of them do and they don't care.
What seems obvious is that the only reason someone would advance a bogus story like this if they knew it to be bogus, would solely be to try to take a shot at the tea party movement in general, and smear the Tea Party Express in particular. . . .

Read the rest at The American Spectator.

Tea Party Leadership

by Smitty

Warner Todd Huston at Big Government is worried about the leadership question, emphasis mine:

The nature of the Tea Party movement was unusual at the outset. Regardless of what the half-wits on the extreme left said about them — whackjobs like your Keith Olbermanns or Rachel Maddows — the Tea Party movement was not orchestrated behind the scenes by some grand, right-wing conspiracy. They happened spontaneously spearheaded by all sorts of different groups, hundreds of them in fact. And to use the hackneyed old expression, trying to organize them into a single, national power will be like herding cats.

And therein lies the soon to be revealed mistake. Unless we are able to foresee this limitation of the Tea Party movement and take concrete measures to prevent it we will see the passion and engagement of these millions of Americans frittered away until just cynicism is left.

Passion about politics is great and likely the fervor of Tea Party participants will help fuel a 2010 resurgence of Republicans in the midterm elections. But what after that? In fact, what during it?

Here’s the problem and, as I see it, it’s a problem that is actually sort of built right into the Tea Party movement from its inception. That would be its essentially leaderless nature. Certainly this leaderless nature has suited the tastes of those suspicious of government, tired of failed party machinations, and the preternaturally aloof folks that populated them. Perhaps the gatherings could have occurred no other way and are born of this peculiar instant of political sensibility. Nonetheless Tea Parties have been disparate, unfocused, leaderless, and might prove to be pointless in the end.

There was no unifying single goal of the Tea Partiers and no agency or party directing them. This means that the raw power behind them just might go untapped because there will be no way to translate the passion to power. Every transformative movement has been led by a single man and his small group of powerful adherents but the Tea Party movement has no such leader and might just find that its passion will dissipate until there is nothing left but disgruntled followers.

Don’t get me wrong, I love the passion and was thrilled by the hundreds of Tea Parties with their millions of participants as it happened across this land in 2009. I was heartened that so many Americans were standing up to the anti-American left like that. But how do we channel that passion into something that can lead to positive change?

Without question powerful change needs a leader. Unfortunately, unless a leader steps forward that can gather all those many Tea Party strings into a single strong rope, it is likely that the whole thing will just pass away and be left a footnote in history. And what will this do to those yearning for change? What else could it do but cause them to become even more cynical going out than when they came in, leaving them thinking that nothing can be done and that we are doomed? This could lead to even worse societal strife down the road as frustrations build.

Considering history, I'd offer two things:

1. Human nature is constant, favoring hierarchy.
2. Technology is variable, with a positive slope, and has no affection for hierarchy.

Huston's argument favors (1), and I'll agree with him substantially. But pay attention to (2). Contrasting the Tea Party movement of today with that of the 1700s, bloggers are the pamphleteers. Sure, a George Washington wound up as the general in charge, courageously leading the army, serving as President, and scoring the accolades.

George Washington had decades of buildup, and the support of a variety of people. The Revolution was not about "George Washington", but the 2008 election was all about "Barack Obama".

Technology ought to be about de-emphasis of the individual in the government. Yes, somebody has to sign the legislation. Sure, there must be a name on the ballot. As with George Washington, let the person and the magic squiggle on the paper be more about the historical necessity than the personal ego.

Ways to bring about the destruction of the Tea Party spirit from within:

• Put a libertarian extremist in charge. No matter how much you like small government ideas, anything workable has to solve the "Y'all can't get there from here" problem. Declaring entitlements un-Constitutional does nothing about the millions of people and the decades spent growing these fiscal dragons. Slay them, sure, but ensure a good plan for butchering the dragon carcass.
• Put a Progressive in charge. Someone who will advocate that we swap out the current slate of degenerates for more of same. Continue to treat the Constitution as a historical relic, a navigation hazard around which to maneuver with fine verbal ballet.
• Put an apparatchik in charge, who, despite making all of the proper anti-Washington noises, knows who the backers are and where the political correctness lines are drawn.

I'd contend that the final threat is the worst. The line between invariant principles and areas where reasonable people can disagree agreeably is the among the more challenging aspects of discussion.

Jumping in Pools says "The battering and blaming of the Republicans has to stop." Mr. Kat, when those GOP windbags threaten the invariant principles in, for example, the Constitution, then they are a tumor, albeit a benign one. The most you're buying from a RINO is time. The RINO's non-command of principles will feed the Progressive decline, albeit more slowly than a Democrat's. In a way, the Democrat is more admirable, because he's not blowing any sunshine up the public bottom about his task.

In summary, the Tea Party will shake itself out just fine. Keep the pamphleteering up on the blogs. Keep emailing the blog posts to those who don't read the blogs. The Tea Parties will produce a name for the ballot. However, by focusing on the invariant principles at stake, and letting the technology drive the communication, the name that lands on the ballot will understand that (s)he is blessed to serve an informed electorate, and steer the ship of state on a less perilous course.

Political moralism and the self-defeating impulse toward totalitarian 'purity'

Carl Milsted on a meaningful distinction:

Liberty. Some love it because it provides wealth, opportunity, and other good things. Others declare that any denial of liberty is unacceptably evil, that liberty is a fundamental right of man. Both call themselves libertarians, and so they gather together at political conventions, seminars, and blog forums -- to call each other nasty names and do battle over the meaning of a word.

Read the rest, which is from the December issue of Liberty, which has been advertising on the sidebar for a couple of weeks.

Milsted makes a distinction between what he calls "consequential" libertarians and "moralist" libertarians, a distinction that replicates itself everywhere in politics. Some people are just natural-born fanatics who turn to politics in a search for totalitarian purity.

Fanatical demands for ideological purity in politics represent a totalitarian impulse, and are the bane of any really practical program for political action in a democratic system. To gain an effective governing majority requires the building of a coalition organized on fundamental principles and shared interests.

Zealous fanaticism can be useful in politics, boiling issues down to their stark fundamentals. I still remember the evening in 1995 when, having slipped the moorings of my Democratic upbringing, I sat down to dinner with a Republican Party official and the conversation turned to abortion. I mentioned my (small-L) libertarian opposition to taxpayer-funded abortion -- why should Catholics, for example, be taxed to pay for what is contrary to their expressed doctrine? -- and my host responded bluntly: "Abortion is murder and it ought to be against the law."

The Litmus-Test Trap
That statement has the virtue of simplicity, and has radical implications. Those who agree with it have a clear mandate for political involvement and it is thus scarcely surprising that pro-lifers remain the unbreakable backbone of the GOP today. Nothing makes me more furious than those "sophisticated" Republicans who sneer at pro-lifers. Without hard-core pro-lifers, there might never have been a Reagan presidency or a 1994 "Republican Revolution."

Yet the tendency toward fanaticism -- the radical certainty of the True Believer -- can have disastrous consequences in politics. There are many pro-lifers who make that issue a litmus test in such a way that it compels them to vote for bad politicians.

A perfect example of this problem is Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, the "pro-life" Democrat whose sellout cinched the Senate vote for ObamaCare. Many pro-lifers in Nebraska told themselves they could vote for Nelson because his partisan allegiance was negated by his declared pro-life principles.

Of course, many Republicans elected on the strength of their pro-life bona fides have proved incompetent, corrupt or politically untrustworty, which creates the environment within which the election of pro-life Democrats becomes likely. And it is the single-issue litmus-test approach of the True Believers that is both cause and effect in such a scenario: They elect a bad Republican because he's "right" on their single issue and then, when he disappoints them, they replace him with a Democrat who is clever enough to position himself as pro-life. Whether this pattern ever actually results in the enactment of pro-life policies . . . well, that's an interesting question, isn't it?

'Anarchy Next Wednesday'
Let us return, now, to Carl Milsted's attempt to deal with libertarian fanatics, in which he describes a platform fight at the 2006 Libertarian Party convention:

At the time I was leading a major effort to reform the LP (the Libertarian Reform Caucus) to widen the LP's definition of "libertarian" so as to include a large fraction of voters who say they support both personal liberties and economic liberties, and to soften the party's platform away from its call for anarchy next Wednesday.

If you've ever attended a Libertarian Party gathering, you either smile at that description or become enraged by it. There are some Libertarians who oppose even the mildest concesion to pragmatism. They want an LP that is fanatically pure and, as an inevitable result, politically impotent.

Purity is one of those ideas that have consequences and I made a reference to LP fanatics when describing those consequences after the November 2008 election:

LGF -- which lately has been trying to purge Pam Geller as a Nazi (!) sympathizer -- doesn't mind saying "we blew it." And I agree: You blew it. And in fact, you still blow. Purge-happy partisan fanatics! Purge the Buchananites! Purge the libertarians! Purge the creationists! Purge the pro-lifers! Bobby Jindal is "political suicide!"
Purge, purge, purge, until the Republican Party is only you, and then maybe people will understand that this was your objective from the very beginning, you intolerant assholes. I am reminded of Bob Barr's description of the more fanatical Libertarian purists -- they don't want to belong to the Libertarian Party, they want to belong to the Libertarian Club.
Let these purging purists have their way, and you can plan to hold the 2012 Republican convention in Charles Johnson's living room. And I'll vote Libertarian again.

In the end, of course, CJ purged himself, but the fundamental point remains. It's this "club" mentality, the desire to act as membership chairmans of an exclusive sect composed entirely of one's fellow True Believers, that makes the fanatical quest for purity such a disastrous impulse in politics.

Big Boobs and Big Tents
Successful politics requires a gregarious attitude, what we might call the Sheila Mosely Principle. In fall 1976, Sheila was a candidate for homecoming queen at Lithia Springs (Ga.) High School. Sheila was a popular cheerleader with an impressive C-cup rack, but there were other popular cheerleaders running for homecoming queen, one of whom was at least a D-cup.

So one day a couple weeks before homecoming, I was walking down the hall and encountered Sheila, who flashed a friendly smile and said, "Hi, Stacy." Maybe that wasn't the first time Sheila had ever spoken to me, but it was certainly the friendliest she'd ever been, and it made an impression.

Of course, I knew this unexpected gesture was politically motivated, but it was nonethless impressive that Sheila had condescended to solicit the support of a stoner hoodlum like me. Impressive -- more impressive even than Kim Cantrell's D-cups -- and therefore Sheila got my vote.

Sheila understood that every vote counts. She wasn't going to let my stoner hoodlum status be an obstacle to her quest for homecoming queen. And that gregarious impulse, that willingness to solicit support from outside one's own social or political niche, was what made Ronald Reagan such an unequaled success in politics.

Reagan's "Big Tent" approach has been misunderstood and misapplied by many of his would-be successors, who have used it as an excuse for Clintonesque "triangulation," the politics of pre-emptive compromise. But Reagan was an unapologetic conservative, who did not feel the need to talk about being "kinder and gentler" or employ defensive modifiers like "compassionate."

From C-Cups to Tea Parties
Never renouncing his firm belief that liberalism was wrong -- a sound fundamental principle -- Reagan could nonetheless work with liberals and solicit their support for his agenda (rather than cooperating in a "kinder gentler" pursuit of the liberal agenda) because he had the same kind of winning self-confidence that permitted Sheila Moseley to smile and say "hi" to a hoodlum stoner.

The problem of fanatics who insist on purity is that their intolerance of dissent betrays a lack of confidence. If your ideas are so self-evidently true, what explains your totalitarian impulse to purge the impure?

Winners understand teamwork, and thus exhibit a cooperative, gregarious tendency in politics that rightly ought to be called populism. When I see intellectual idiots denouncing the Tea Party movement as "populist," I understand that they mean the term as a pejorative, a synonym for angry ignorance. But while Tea Party crowds are indeed angry about the current direction of policy in Washington, as individuals they are some of the most cheerful, friendly people you'd ever want to meet -- and certainly far less ignorant than their critics would have you believe.

Furthermore, the Tea Party people exhibit a very Reaganesque "Big Tent" attitude. Go to these rallies, and you'll find hard-core evangelical pro-lifers and libertarian bikers in happy coexistence, united by opposition to the big-government menace of Leviathan-on-the-Potomac. This is what I've called "Libertarian Populism" and -- despite the dismissive snobbery of Julian Sanchez -- it is wrong to suppose that such hostility toward the elite is mere ressentiment., when a two-decade bipartisan succession of Ivy-educated White House occupants (Yale, Yale Law, Yale/Harvard MBA, Columbia/Harvard Law) have led the nation to its current predicament.

If elitists can get over their fears of the populist mob, and if libertarians can get over their purist demand for "anarchy next Wednesday," there is a glimmer of hope for a real breakthrough. But we're not going to get there unless people start thinking like Sheila Mosely, whose friendly smile was enough to triumph even over a D-cup rack.

P.S.: Don't forget to visit Liberty magazine. If they're smart enough to advertise here, they must be geniuses!

CBS totally objective about 'teabaggers'

In the sense that Andrew Sullivan is totally objective about Sarah Palin's uterus, I mean. And I'm not complaining about getting linked by a major news organization, but see if you can guess CBSNews.com editor Charles Cooper's agenda:

All through the spring and summer of 2009, Tea Party media hands portrayed their anti-government - and anti-Obama - protests as the voice of a genuine grass roots movement. Now it's clear that any retelling of that story also must include a discussion of the Republican operatives who were whispering play calls behind the scenes. What with so many folks out and about for the holidays, this TPM Muckraker piece failed to garner wider attention.

That would be the same TPM article I linked earlier, the one which asserted that because the Tea Party Express PAC paid $800,000 to the public relations firm which organized the tour, something foul was afoot. Anyway, Cooper linked my post, and it wasn't hard to discover that he was also the author of this August headline:

Teabaggers Shout Down Tampa Bay Town Hall

OK, it's free country, and Cooper is free to seek readers from the HuffPo/MSNBC axis. But I've covered the Tea Party movement pretty extensively and actually met Sal Russo, the former Reagan campaign aide who is accused by Cooper of "whispering play calls," whatever that means.

As a matter of fact, my good friend Barbara Espinosa interviewed Sal Russo in Orlando. Far from being a furtive, nefarious figure, he's a nice guy. I'm sure his skills -- organizing, fundraising, communication, management -- were very helpful to the Tea Party movement.

Why is Russo's involvement being used to insinuate that the protests are not "a genuine grass roots movement"? I've heard the same argument made about FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity, Campaign for Liberty and various other free-market organizations that have supported the Tea Party movement.

The Left and Democrats coordinate their activities through scores of individuals and organizations (George Soros, ACORN, SEIU, NARAL, GLSEN, etc.) and any conservative who sees a pattern there is denounced as a conspiracy-theory kook. But let mainstream political organizations on the Right become involved in . . . uh, mainstream politics, and liberals insist there must be something shady going on.

Anyway, thanks for the link, Charles Cooper. If CBS News ever decides to hire anyone who isn't a liberal, please send me a press release. That would be a huge story!

The Tea Party Express non-scandal

Zachary Roth of liberal TPM tries to make the relationship between the Tea Party Express and its organizers look sleazy:

The political action committee behind the Tea Party Express (TPE) -- which already has been slammed as inauthentic and corporate-controlled by rival factions in the Tea Party movement -- directed almost two thirds of its spending during a recent reporting period back to the Republican consulting firm that created the PAC in the first place.
Our Country Deserves Better (OCDB) spent around $1.33 million from July through November, according to FEC filings examined by TPMmuckraker. Of that sum, a total of $857,122 went to Sacramento-based GOP political consulting firm Russo, Marsh, and Associates, or people associated with it. . . .

Well, duh. All this means is that the consulting firm used its own personnel, and paid the bills, to organize the Tea Party Express tour -- which, BTW, was a huge success. The people who worked on the tour got a paycheck from Russo Marsh, which functioned somewhat in the same role that the promoter of a rock-music concert tour would do.

There is no scandal here. No crime is alleged, and there is nothing fraudulent or shady involved. TPM is being disingenuous to insinuate otherwise.

'Trust the people'

"We who live in free market societies believe that growth, prosperity and ultimately human fulfillment, are created from the bottom up, not the government down. Only when the human spirit is allowed to invent and create, only when individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and benefiting from their success -- only then can societies remain economically alive, dynamic, progressive, and free. Trust the people. This is the one irrefutable lesson of the entire postwar period contradicting the notion that rigid government controls are essential to economic development."
-- Ronald Reagan, Sept. 29, 1981

Thanks to Noel for reminding us of Reagan's words in a comment on "Don't Fear the People," about the Tea Party movement and the rise of the populist "tsunami" at the new WordPress version of the site.

Populist tsunami: Don't fear the people

Pundette highlights this quote from Peter Wehner:

The populist, anti-Washington wave out there, which is already quite large, will only grow, and grow, and grow.

Peter Wehner. Does that name ring a bell? If you're a Glenn Beck fan, it certainly should. When a well-connected Bush administration insider like Wehner starts celebrating a populist "wave" that he and his Beltway GOP cronies had nothing to do with, it's time to remember how this all got started, and who made it happen:

The thing about a populist wave is that anybody can ride it, even the snobs who sneer at the people who made the tsunami happen. And I don't mean famous people like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. I mean Donna Scala of Beaver Falls, Pa., and Kell Gringa of Charlotte, N.C. I mean Rhonda Lee Welsch of New Smyrna Beach, Fla., Jenny Beth Martin of Atlanta, Ga., and Andrea Shea King of Cape Canaveral, Fla.
These are just a few of the Ordinary Americans I’ve met during the course of my travels over the past few months, people whose individual activism helped turn widespread public discontent into an organized movement that even Beltway Establishment elitists like Peter Wehner can no longer ignore. There are hundreds of thousands of you out there, far more numerous -- and ultimately far more important -- than the Washington insiders who look down their well-connected noses at you. . . .

That's posted over at RSMcCain.com, the new WordPress version of the blog that Smitty and I are trying to get ready for launch next month. The current sucky look of the new site is temporary, but the true history of this populist tsunami is something we need to make permanent, so please read the whole thing.

Merry Christmas to everyone, especially the people who hit the tip jar during this holiday season!

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin was stuck in an airport when the Senate finally passed ObamaCare, but appeared last night on Fox News to talk about how this swindle of the American taxpayers is part of the Culture of Corruption:

Michelle has consistently sided with the people against the bipartisan Big Government trend and she gets prominent mention in the "tsunami" post, so once more, please read the whole thing.

It is so friggin' ON!

by Smitty

Westwood Tea Party hosts: "It's Time For a Second Declaration of Independence!"

Calling all red blooded, Patriotic Americans!

It's time for another march on Washington DC.

On the date of the State of the Union address, January 20, 2010.

On this day, a joint session of Congress, the President of the United States, his entire cabinet, the Supreme Court and the Joint Chiefs of Staff...plus distinguished guests will be in attendance.

You want media coverage? All major broadcast and cable networks will be there to broadcast the event.

This is the most strategically advantageous opportunity for Patriotic Americans to hold a demonstration against an out of control government that's trashing our Constitution.

This march needs to dwarf the size of the crowd that showed up on 9/12/2009. We need to surround the Capitol Building.

Who's sick and tired of being ignored?

It's time for a second Declaration of Independence!

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

It's time for us to tell these Marxist bastards that we don't consent to what they're doing, and we therefore no longer recognize them as the legitimate government of We the People!

I'd further suggest that people make their own signs just saying "YOU LIE".

A specific goal of this outing could be to have a "you lie" chant during the speech that is sufficiently loud to be heard inside the Capitol during the SOU.

Might take a bunch of seriously irate Americans to achieve such a feat. I wonder if this is possible.

Repeal the 17th Amendment. Nuke the Federal Reserve.

by Smitty (h/t Patriot Room)

The 17th Amendment's short-circuit of the chain of command, combined with the Federal Reserve's Cosmic Credit Card, are ruinous:

At first, Mr. Nelson defended his Medicaid buy-off as a service to his constituents, two-thirds of whom tell pollsters they oppose the overall bill. But the lucre was denounced by Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman and Republican Senator Mike Johanns.

"Nebraskans don't want a special deal," said Mr. Johanns. "The special deal for Nevada was wrong, the carve-outs for Louisiana, Vermont, and Massachusetts are wrong, and the same applies to the backroom deal for Nebraska. All of the special deals should be removed. If the bill cannot pass without carve-outs, what further evidence is needed that it is bad policy?"

The Senator should represent the interests of the individual State, and the funding for entitlements should be derived from a level of government exhibiting fiscal sobriety.

Entitlement programs that are not funded from a balanced budget are simply theft. It's a game of musical chairs where the participants, across time, stand still and rip the chair from the hands of the next generation.

This is an not an argument that there would be less corruption without Amendment 17. No, if you could measure it, the net corruption would be equal. However, instead of a positive feedback loop:

And, sure enough, Mr. Nelson admitted yesterday amid a defensive near-meltdown on the Senate floor that "Three Senators came up to me just now on the [Senate] floor and said, 'Now we understand what you did. We'll be seeking this funding too.'" Mr. Nelson now says "it's not a special deal for Nebraska. It is in fact an opportunity to get rid of an unfunded federal mandate."

...keeping the corruption at a State level would spare 95% of the country from outbursts of Nelsonism, and, possibly, allow federal oversight to review processes.

The vampire that is the Federal Reserve desperately needs a stake in the heart. However, the combination of the 17th Amendment and the Federal Reserve has us on the ropes. The Federal debt alcoholic will not give up the bottle. It will just keep chugging until the public liver explodes.

The Progressive Left seems to think this situation all jolly good. The Progressive Right joins in mute support of the problem. I would like to see Senator DeMint speak out for something along the lines of the Federalism Amendment. The status quo is an unsustainable crock of compost. While I applaud and support the tactical efforts with the Congress at hand, the strategic vacuum grows depressing.

Progressivism will wait, undead totalitarian zombie that it is, until the Tea Parties run out of gas, and just continue the economic warfare of using debt to kill this country. If the Tea Parties don't gel around reform ideas that remove the systemic drivers that have put us in this full Nelson, then the signs and the yelling and the blog posts and the slogans were all fun, but really just so many dying gasps of democracy.

Update: Blogprof, "We are now functioning under a parliamentary form of government"

Update II: Andy McCarthy says it well:

The Dems have already factored in that likelihood and are betting — over the long haul — that even if the GOP cuts deeply into Dem majorities or takes over Congress (and even takes over the White House in 2012), Republicans will lack the commitment (and perhaps the numbers) to roll back what the Left is accomplishing now.

That is, our guys are focused myopically on a battle the Democrats have already figured they can afford to lose. The real battle is: What do you do when you get back in power? Do you have a plan for how to undo what is being done? Do you frame the coming elections in a way that converts victory into a mandate not only to stop what Obama is doing but to undo what he has done?

I'm hearing a lot from our side about making big gains in the upcoming elections. That's not strategy or victory. You have to have a plan for what those gains would translate into. Democrats, by contrast, have a real plan for how what they're doing today will sustain Big Government, and themselves, over the long term, regardless of occasional electoral losses.

No kidding. Swapping out names is moot. If you haven't explained the strategy for restoring the three-branch/three-tier government, you haven't explained much. The Progressive GOP must destroy itself to preserve itself.

Failing that, let's just have a national Prozac entitlement. This 'Brave New World' is not why I have served my country these years.

Update III: Having said all that, Moe Lane rocks.

What are we on about for the State of the Union on 20Jan?

by Smitty

Yeah, yeah: Christmas/Hanukkah/Quonset. I know. However, That's Right just tweeted me about the National Strike being called, concurrent with the State of the Union on 20Jan.

Also, not to put her on the spot or anything, but I've contacted another infamous "right wing extremist" sort of person who was at the Kill the Bill rally before the Cash for Cloture vote, to see if she's cooking up any sort of group love note for the good POTUS.

I, for one, think a few thousand patriots on the Mall with hand made signs all saying "YOU LIE" would be a message simple enough for even a slack-jawed Lefty.

ASIDE: the Wordpress changeover is in progress. Apologies in advance if some comments get orphaned. This blog's XML download is fat enough to be mistaken for...nah, picking on a woman whose name rhymes with Nosy Modonell would be beneath the dignity of this blog. We're waaay to classy for that sort of cheap shot, except on days ending in the letter 'y'.

Update: Insta-lanch
If you're needing a belly laugh, try:

• OediPOTUS Wrecks


• Waiting for O-Dough


• Czar d'Oz

Battle Cry: If Not Now, When?

Erick Erickson urges Senate Republicans to fight ObamaCare with every parliamentary means available:

Some might argue that Republicans should not look "obstructionist." But they are wrong -- the vast majority of Americans don't like this bill and don't want it to pass. The Tea Party movement was the upheaval of millions of ordinary Americans who are scared and angry about the out-of-control growth of the federal government, federal spending, and the national debt. They want to see the Republicans obstructing passage of this bill and if they think the Republicans are not fighting with every tool they have at their disposal, then any advantage that the Republicans think they will get in next year's elections from such a bill being passed will evaporate.

Erick makes reference to the Doug Hoffman campaign in NY23, which is the subject of my 1,400-word article in the December-January issue of The American Spectator:

Yates Walker ate breakfast in the Blue Moon Café on Main Street in Saranac Lake, New York, on the morning of November 4, and delivered an after-action report on the battle that had just been fought in the upstate 23rd District.
"We took a CPA from 9 percent to 46 percent in two and a half weeks," said Walker, a young veteran of the 82nd Airborne Division who had been hired 18 days earlier to work on Doug Hoffman's congressional campaign staff. "I couldn't be prouder." . . .
Hoffman's surprising surge in the closing weeks of the three-way special election in upstate New York had, in Walker's words, turned the bespectacled accountant into "an electric symbol of conservatism." . . .

You can read the whole thing. That article was written in the Buffalo airport, where I had these thoughts:

As I was lashing together my article, it seemed to me that the tipping-point of the Hoffmania momentum shift was Oct. 16, when the Siena poll showed Hoffman surging while Scozzafava had fallen behind the Democrat. That was the same day Michelle Malkin's column called Scozzafava "An ACORN-Friendly, Big Labor-Backing, Tax-and-Spend Radical in GOP Clothing."
Two weeks later, the final Siena poll confirmed what the Hoffman people had known for some time: Dede was heading for a weak third-place finish. So the RINO quit and repaid the GOP Establishment by endorsing Democrat Bill Owens. Exposing RINOs as untrustworthy creatures was worth whatever damage might be suffered by having Owens in Congress -- until next year, when the freshman Democrat will face a re-energized GOP grassroots in NY23.
Go back and read my "Memo to the Grassroots." I didn't know it at the time, but that Hot Air Green Room post was written the same day that Yates Walker decided to hire on as manager of the Plattsburgh office of the Hoffman campaign. Yates was just one of several people who helped turn the Hoffman campaign into such a stunning dynamo of grassroots energy. . . .

Those of you who followed my coverage of the NY23 campaign may remember Yates Walker from this video:

The meaning of NY23 has been twisted beyond recognition by the MSM, as I explain in the Spectator article:

Op-ed pundits and TV talking heads portrayed the battle in the North Country as evidence of an intraparty schism, a Republican "civil war," but in fact the ideological factor of right vs. center was less important than the uprising of the party's rank and file against a GOP establishment that grassroots activists consider out of touch, politically inept, and hamstrung by favor-swapping among well-connected Republican insiders. . . .
One GOP Internet operative of libertarian leaning saw the lesson of the NY23 fight as a training exercise for the bigger battle in the 2010 midterm elections, comparing it to the way Web-savvy liberals lined up behind Howard Dean during the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries. "Right now, we're where the Democrats were with Dean in 2003," the Republican operative said, remarking on the left's online advantage that the GOP has struggled to overcome. "We're getting there, but we're not there yet."

Perhaps the most important lesson of NY23 is the value of time. That wild three-week Hoffman surge that began in mid-October produced spectacular results, but it was just a little too late.

Had more conservatives jumped onto the Hoffman bandwagon in August -- when Erick Erickson did -- maybe Scozzafava could have been driven out of the race a couple of weeks earlier. Instead, she got about $1 million from the RNC and NRCC and hung in until the last weekend before Election Day, then endorsed Bill Owens, making just enough difference to elect the Democrat by a margin that, in the end, amounted to about 3,200 votes.

A similar situation exists with ObamaCare, where the White House and Harry Reid (whose poll numbers are in the toilet) want to hurry the bill through the Senate during the holidays, when most people aren't paying attention. Erick Erikson is urging Republicans to fight now -- delay the bill, at risk of being called "obstructionist" -- to give the grassroots more time to put heat on the issue. He quotes Winston Churchill:

If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival.

The odds still favor opponents of ObamaCare, and the National Taxpayers Union is calling for Tea Party people to attend a Code Red Rally at the Capitol on Tuesday with Laura Ingraham.

Where will you be Tuesday? Are you ready to fight? If not now, when?

(Cross-posted at Right Wing News.)

Apaches at the Tea Party

Writing at the American Spectator:

A few weeks ago, I had a long conversation with a liberal journalist who asked me, "Who do you see as the leader of the conservative movement?" I didn't have an answer, but Richard Viguerie is onto something when he emphasizes the "leaderless" quality of the Tea Party grassroots, quoting a historical study of the Apaches: "You wanted to follow Geronimo? You followed Geronimo. You didn't want to follow him? Then you didn't. The power lay with each individual." . . .

Read the rest at the Spectator, and also read Viguerie's thought-provoking article at the American Thinker.

Is Baldilocks onto something?

"LGF is gone. Charles Johnson is gone. Face it. He was never ours. How about we let him take his delusions and slanders and paranoias and obsessions and falsehoods with him?"
-- Baldilocks (Juliette Ochieng)

Juliette certainly is not alone in seeing recent blogospheric rumblings as a belated denouement of the LGF meltdown.

The 2001-2005 period, when the Global War On Terror (GWOT) coincided with the rise of the political blogosphere, was also the apogee of what might be called the Karl Rove Center-Right Strategy.

Seeking to maintain maximum support for President Bush and the Republican Party, the Rove strategy involved "triangulation" to neuter Democratic Party arguments on domestic issues. No Child Left Behind, Medicare rescription drug benefits, the 2006-07 push to grant amnesty or guest-worker status to illegal aliens -- these were typical policy initiatives of the Rove strategy.

Especially after the 9/11 attacks, this "center-right" approach was mirrored in the rhetoric of much of the conservative blogosphere. Many GOP-aligned bloggers were understandably eager to elicit the support of liberals, or members of traditional Democratic constituencies, for the administration's foreign policy:

"Oh, look, this person is gay (or black, or feminist, or Joe Lieberman) and yet is strongly in favor of winning the Iraq war."

Which was all fine and good, in terms of the immediate goal of rallying support for the GOP and the Bush administration. Yet by focusing narrowly on a short-term foreign-policy consensus, the Rove center-right approach sowed the seeds of its own destruction.

The Great Unraveling
Once the war became unpopular, and once Democrats were able to shift the political focus to GOP vulnerabilities -- the Mark Foley and Jack Abramoff scandals in 2006, the economy in 2008 -- the Republican electoral coalition that had triumphed in the 2002 and 2004 elections unraveled with astonishing suddenness.

By attempting to unite disparate constituencies without any general agreement on political principles -- except that the U.S. response to terrorism should be forceful and comprehensive -- the Republican Party under Rove's direction had in some sense replicated LBJ's Vietnam-era debacle.

The Democratic hawks who were so key to the Cold War consensus in the U.S. had believed that popular support for fighting communism abroad could be purchased by enactment of liberal domestic policies. And in LBJ's 1964 landslide win over Barry Goldwater, these Democrats believed they had seen the vindication of that strategy.

Yet by 1968, the bloody prolongation of the Vietnam war and the upsurge of domestic chaos -- urban riots and campus protests -- splintered that victorious 1964 coalition so badly that, at one point, polls indicated that Hubert Humphrey might finish third behind Richard Nixon and George Wallace in the 1968 presidential election. (An anti-Wallace campaign led by the AFL-CIO helped prevent that scenario.)

From Values Voters to Obama Nation
For similar reasons, the Republican electoral coalition that seemed so formidable in the wake of the 2004 election -- remember the liberal panic over the "moral values" exit-poll question? -- has proven less durable than advocates of the Rove Center-Right Strategy hoped. Like the Democrats of 1964, the Rove-era Republicans assembled a coalition fraught with unreconciled conflicts.

We should not be surprised that what has transpired in electoral politics has been mirrored in the political blogosphere. Andrew Sullivan was one of the first to leap off the Bush bandwagon, screaming "homophobia" as he went. More recently we've seen Charles Johnson take his leave from the post-Bush Right, screaming "ultranational neofascist theocratic extremism" as he goes.

It is easy to shrug and to dismiss these developments with two words: "Batshit crazy."

However, the batshit craziness is not without cause, and that cause is the failure of Republican leaders -- and prominent conservative communicators -- to articulate consistently the Reaganesque message of freedom.

Last summer, when arguments over the Wall Street bailout were coming to full boil, I used "Libertarian Populism" as the title of an American Spectator column. Nobody's offered me a book contract to elaborate on that "Libertarian Populism" concept, but that idea is exactly what you've seen at work in the past year in the Tea Party movement.

Those Tea Party crowds are responding to a pro-freedom message expressed in populist language, viewing Big Government and Big Business (think: Tim Geithner, AIG, the GM takeover) as corrupt partners in an insider-elite agreement to defraud taxpayers and disempower citizens.

Another 'Time for Choosing'
It was hardly a coincidence that Charles Johnson reacted so harshly to the Tea Party phenomenon. Johnson and his LGF cult have never been libertarian and were "populist" only insofar as that term meant mocking John Kerry and Muslims.

When the political alignment of 2001-04 -- forged by what I've called the Rove Center-Right Strategy -- collapsed in 2006-08, it was inevitable that some supporters of the former Republican coalition would not be part of whatever new coalition emerged to take its place.

Just as the rise of the Reagan coalition resulted in the obsolescence of the liberal Republicans who had been an important part of the Eisenhower coalition, the emerging Tea Party coalition will render obsolete many of those who were part of the G.W. Bush coalition.

As Reagan famously said in 1964, we are at a crossroads, a "Time for Choosing" and I trust that it is with sadness Juliette bids farewell to former friends.

Merry Christmas!

Regular readers here know Barbara Espinosa of American Freedom blog, whom I first met in August at the Right Online conference in Pittsburgh ("Grandma Is an Angry Mob") and who was my hostess for the Orlando trip last month ("Tea Party Nation").

Barbara will probably get angry at being referred to as Mrs. Espinosa. She's a widow, and is very much in the market for a new boyfriend. She has a lively sense of humor and flirts with my 17-year-old son James, teasing me that she's going to be my daughter-in law one of these days.

The trip to Pittsburgh that was the occasion of my meeting Barbara was funded by the generosity of tip-jar hitters, whom I admittedly don't thank often enough. And, as regular readers know, we're now rattling the Pasadena tip jar to send me to cover the Jan. 7 BCS championship game between Alabama and Texas.

Hope everyone will consider this amusing video not only as a well-deserved tribute to Barbara Espinosa, a philanthropist and true patriot, but also as a thanks to all who have supported this blog.

(BTW, in the video you'll notice 17-year-old Bob stroking his chin, trying to call attention to his pathetic adolescent attempt to grow whiskers.)

Tea Parties, Harleys, and the Gipper

My latest column at The American Spectator:

Rhonda Lee Welsch has a vision. "When we go back to Washington next year, there's going be a lot of Harleys," the Florida activist said. "And those Harleys make a lot of noise."
Making noise may not seem like much of a goal to D.C. political strategists, but if thousands of thundering Harleys roll up in front of the White House as part of a national Tea Party march on Washington, Welsch's vision might make more impact than Beltway wizards imagine. . . .
A breakthrough moment, she says, was when she joined the 9/12 March on D.C. and attended a seminar on organizing led by veteran conservative fundraiser Richard Viguerie.
Welsch returned to Florida and went to work on her vision: Bike Week Freedom Rally, scheduled during late February's annual motorcycle gathering in Daytona Beach. . . . .

Please read the whole thing, to figure out how the Gipper fits into that story. You can also follow Rhonda Lee Welsch on Twitter. I met Rhonda last month when I covered the last stop of the Tea Party Express in Orlando -- see "Tea Party Nation" -- where I was the guest of Barbara Espinosa of American Freedom blog.

February in Daytona? Yeah, sounds like an important story I need to cover. But first, there's the BCS Championship game Jan. 7 in Pasadena. Hit the Pasadena tip jar.

Tea Party more popular than Republicans?

From Rasmussen Reports:

Running under the Tea Party brand may be better in congressional races than being a Republican.
In a three-way Generic Ballot test, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds Democrats attracting 36% of the vote. The Tea Party candidate picks up 23%, and Republicans finish third at 18%. Another 22% are undecided. . . .

Read the rest. I think what we're seeing here is a good measure of the "brand damage" problem for the GOP, a legacy of the Bush era. This does not mean that an actual third-party movement would be a viable option for disaffected conservatives. It merely points out how important it is that the Republican Party take seriously the limited-government sensibilities of the Tea Party movement.

On an unrelated note, a friend has asked me to address his concerns raised by Dennis Wheeler's collection, "The Great Southern League Race Debate."

Wheeler was -- and, so far as I know, still is -- a white separatist or white nationalist, call it what you will. In the 1996 e-mail list-server messages he collected, you will see that I argue against Wheeler's insistence that the Southern League (which subsequently became the League of the South) should adopt his own racial views. Others on my side in that debate included George Kalas and Gary Waltrip.

Wheeler's arguments did not prevail; he left the list-server and subsequently posted lengthy excerpts of the colloquy on his own site, without permission of the participants. Wheeler obviously believes himself correct, and considers the 1996 debate a vindication of his own views. It's a free country, and I can't tell him what to think.

However, by republishing the debate, Wheeler has furnished materials for me to be once again acccused of being a "white supremacist" -- and materials to disprove the accusation. Later today, I will publish a more thorough discussion of this, which will take time to write. I felt it incumbent to append this brief note, just to let my friends know that I am now aware of Patterico's post yesterday, having been informed this morning by a commenter.

P.S.: Remember to hit the tip jar to fund my trip next month to Pasadena to cover Alabama vs. Texas in the BCS championship game.

UPDATE: Fear and Loathing at Patterico.

Party Time With Jenny Beth

Jenny Beth Martin of Tea Party Patriots is one of the activists featured in Tea Party: The Documentary, which premiered Tuesday in D.C. She's also featured in my column today at The American Spectator:

Jenny Beth Martin didn't set out to become a movie star. Yet Tuesday night at the Ronald Reagan Center amphitheatre, the mom from Georgia was a celebrity at the big-screen premiere of a new film that features a cast of thousands.
Wait -- better make that "hundreds of thousands." . . .
The amazing growth of the movement is highlighted by one of Martin's earliest on-screen appearances, showing her speaking at a Feb. 27 event in Atlanta, where a small crowd turned out on a cold rainy Friday. Martin subsequently explains that she was one of about 20 organizers on a Feb. 20 conference call that led to that first round of Tea Party gatherings, which followed commodities analyst Rick Santelli's now-famous Feb. 19 rant on the CNBC network.
As the film makes clear, however, Santelli's call for a Tea Party protest tapped into a deep vein of discontent that started growing among grassroots conservatives during the Bush administration. The documentary begins with audio of a Dec. 19, 2008, speech by President Bush advocating a bailout for the auto industry: "If we were to allow the free market to take its course now, it would almost certainly lead to disorderly bankruptcy and liquidation for the automakers."
Indeed, although some have characterized the Tea Party movement as motivated entirely by partisan GOP opposition to President Obama, it was Obama's Republican opponent, Arizona Sen. John McCain, who took the lead in advocating passage of the Wall Street bailout in September 2008. . . .

Please read the whole thing.

UPDATE: It's real. And it's spectacular. And I'm not necessarily talking about Pink Elephant Pundit.

Defamation League

Ronald Reagan Award winner Orit Sklar:

The report recently published by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) titled Rage Grows in America: Anti-Government Conspiracies unwittingly describes itself, rather than the object of its contempt, in its own opening paragraph: "fueled by paranoia and conspiracy theories."
The report has been all the “rage” in the Obama PR machine -- a.k.a. the mainstream media -- which has exhausted any remaining trace of objectivity by spending a summer and fall crudely mocking average Americans who’ve shown up at town halls and tea parties . . . "Group Finds More Anti-Government Sentiment" on the Caucus blog of the New York Times. "Rage Nation 2.0" on CBSNews.com. And "Crossing the Lines" on the Jerusalem Post website. . . .
Let’s be clear. This execrable document is not meant to inform; it is meant to stoke the very fear and paranoia it pretends to abhor. . . .
If rage is growing, it's because Americans are waking up to the threat of a White House and a congressional majority intent on exponentially increasing the power of the state and gashing individual liberty. . . .
Under the cloak of exposing "extremism," ADL is exposing its own antipathy toward limited government and individual liberty, especially the First and Second Amendments. A perfect fellow traveler for an administration working overtime for the same. . . .

You should read the whole thing. You should also follow Orit on Twitter.

UPDATE: Jonathan Tobin of Commentary wrote:

For the ADL, the "rage” is the result of a three-headed monster: "mainstream political attacks," "grass roots hostility," and "anti-government extremists." . . .
[T]he word "mainstream" appears in the report in quotes as if to disparage the notion that such opinions are widespread . . .
[A]ccording to the ADL, one of the "most important" motives for criticism of the stimulus package, ObamaCare, appeasement of Iran, dithering over Afghanistan, and perhaps even the president’s confrontational attitude toward Israel is to lay the groundwork for extremist conspiracy theories!

I wrote about the ADL's shanda on Nov. 18. And, BTW, don't fall for the fearmongering hate-hype:

The director of the Secret Service today disputed widely-reported claims that President Obama is receiving more death threats than previous presidents.
At a congressional hearing into the White House security breach that took place last week, when Tareq and Michaele Salahi "crashed" the White House state dinner, Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan said the current threat level against the president is normal.
"The threats right now ... is the same level as it has been for the previous two presidents at this point in their administrations," Sullivan said.

Hat tip: Old Rebel.

Henry Waxman, meet Jenny Beth Martin

Hot Air's Ed Morrissey notes that Rep. Henry Waxman wants taxpayers to bail out newspapers. Having spent 22 years in the newspaper business, you might think I'd be in favor of such a proposal, but I'm not.

Sad as it is for an old newsman to see the industry circling the drain (especially the worsening woes of the Washington Times) I'd go back to driving a forklift before I'd work for a newspaper dependent on bailout money swindled from the taxpayers.

This "gimme" attitude -- that government has an obligation to support us at the expense of our fellow citizens -- is antithetical to liberty. One of the people who rejects that attitude is Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator of the Tea Party Patriots.

One of the most touching scenes in Tea Party: The Documentary Film shows Jenny Beth and her husband looking at their dream house -- a house they lost to foreclosure last year as the result of a business deal that went bad. But the Martins didn't go looking for a government bailout, and Jenny Beth talked about that in a two-part video interview at last night's premiere:

"When they started talking about the mortgage bailouts, we realized . . . that is not a good thing. If you can't afford your house any longer, you don't need to be in it."

What happened to the Martins -- like what's happening to the newspaper business -- is painful, but it's part of a larger struggle that makes this country great. We are Americans. Maintaining our independence despite adversity is what we do and who we are. As Allen West said, "In life, you're going to get knocked down. The measure of someone's character is what you do after you've been knocked down."

I walked away from the newspaper business nearly two years ago, and spent out my 401(k) to pay the bills while I launched a freelance career online. It hasn't been easy and I haven't gotten rich (yet), but it beats the hell out of sitting around waiting for a government handout.

Want to tell Henry Waxman to shove his newspaper bailout up his notorious nostrils? Just support your favorite bloggers, and we'll make sure he gets the message.

Bailout? We don't need no stinkin' bailout!

Hit the tip jar!