Irish Times Tea Party Article

veritable

Money trail highlights Tea Party's roots

A few US billionaires are using their wealth to fund the movement’s right-wing agenda, writes TONY KINSELLA

SOME OF the lobbyists behind the populist right-wing Tea Party movement in the United States made their way to Europe last week, spreading the gospel at a gathering of the UK Taxpayers’ Alliance.
They would like to be seen as a spontaneous grassroots protest movement. But are they really? The best way to find an answer is to follow the money.
In August 1963, about a quarter of a million people joined the “March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom” to hear Martin Luther King deliver his famous “I have a dream” speech.
At the end of last month, some 100,000 people gathered at the same spot for the “Restoring Honour” rally, led by Fox News pundit Glenn Beck, and featuring special guest Sarah Palin.
The 1963 demonstrators were predominantly young, and about two-thirds of them were African-American. The Tea Party rally, by contrast, was overwhelmingly white and significantly middle-aged.
The two meetings sought to achieve diametrically opposite results. The civil rights demonstrators demanded government action. The 2010 gathering sought a libertarian society, regulating itself through the application of selected religious principles, with minimal government.
Anyone who has ever tried to organise their fellow humans knows just how fraught a process it can be. It takes time, experience, logistics and resources. Organising a national rally in a country as vast as the USA requires massive preparation, effort and resources.
Martin Luther King’s “Jobs and Freedom” march was organised through a number of experienced organisations. These included his own Southern Christian Leadership Conference, other civil rights organisations, trade unions such as the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, and student bodies like the Student Nonviolent Co-ordinating Committee.
Officials and activists from these bodies had, over years, learned their organisational skills in America’s prisons, pulpits and picket lines – skills that would help make the 1963 march the epoch-changing success it became.
No similar network of seasoned organisations featured in the organisation of the Tea Party bash. Glenn Beck is a talented, if abrasive, broadcaster and writer. His Glenn Beck programme is syndicated on radio stations across the US while his television show on the Fox News channel draws considerable audiences.
His personal voyage from the Catholic to the Mormon church and his struggle with substance abuse have undoubtedly left him with a wealth of experiences. But mass organisation is not one of them.
Sarah Palin’s organisational experience as mayor of Wasilla and its 10,000 inhabitants, and later as governor of Alaska for a couple of years, is hardly the stuff of national rallies either.
This begs the practical question of just how the “Restoring Honor” rally was organised. Who reached out to those who travelled from all across the US? Who booked the hotels and sound systems? Who printed the badges and organised the security?
Since there was no seasoned organisational structure, that effort had to come from competent professionals. Such a use of professionals leads to the twin questions of who paid and why?
Dig a little and you find resources and ideas flowing from bodies such as the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, Patients United Now, the Institute for Justice, the Institute for Humane Studies, the Bill of Rights Institute, the Independent Women’s Forum, the Mercatus Centre at George Mason University, Virginia, the Heritage Foundation, the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, and many others.
A little further research into these bodies and their funding and certain wealthy American family names start to appear regularly. The Olins, the Mellons, and most generously of all the Koch brothers, Charles (74) and David (72).
The Koch conglomerate is involved in oil, chemicals, wood, paper and a host of other sectors and is, in the words of David Koch, “the largest company that you’ve never heard of”. Their combined fortune of $35 billion (€27.5 billion) puts them in third place in the personal wealth stakes behind Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.
As Jane Mayer explained recently in the New Yorker , the Koch brothers have very quietly spent over $250 million on right-wing political campaigns during the last 10 years. No wonder President Obama’s senior adviser David Axelrod commented acerbically on “a grassroots citizens’ movement brought to you by a bunch of oil billionaires”. Knowing who has paid the piper often helps you understand the tune.

Did anybody else read this article?

I am sick of the garbage printed each day in the Irish media about anything not leftwing in the US.
I read this article over my breakfast yesterday morning and it put me in a mood for the day. (read it online because I refuse to pay money for the Irish Times trash.)
No wonder the Irish have such a miserable view of the right. The right constantly has its position undermined in the Irish media while the left is put on a pedastol.

Denerick

I bought the Times yesterday and skipped this article. The Irish Times is the best Irish paper, but this article just looked annoying.

We don't need the media to tell us that teapartiers are nutjobs, they do a good job about that all by themselves.

veritable

Denerick wrote: »

I bought the Times yesterday and skipped this article. The Irish Times is the best Irish paper, but this article just looked annoying.

We don't need the media to tell us that teapartiers are nutjobs, they do a good job about that all by themselves.

Why are they nutjobs?

Denerick

veritable wrote: »

Why are they nutjobs?

Because a gigantic mass of middle class privilege are protesting furiously, immune to reasonable discussion, lap up everything a few radio and TV demagogues throw at them, admire the imbecile Glenn Beck, think Obama is a secret Muslim, think Obama is a Marxist Leninist, etc. etc.

They are quite similar to the nativists and know nothings of the 19th century. Already they are viewed as retards and imbeciles, historians will have a great time writing about them in 50 years time.

reprazant

Denerick wrote: »

think Obama is a Marxist Leninist, etc. etc.

Just like Hitler was as well seemingly..

veritable

Denerick wrote: »

Because a gigantic mass of middle class privilege are protesting furiously, immune to reasonable discussion, lap up everything a few radio and TV demagogues throw at them, admire the imbecile Glenn Beck, think Obama is a secret Muslim, think Obama is a Marxist Leninist, etc. etc.

They are quite similar to the nativists and know nothings of the 19th century. Already they are viewed as retards and imbeciles, historians will have a great time writing about them in 50 years time.

You are completely wrong. You may be trying to describe some of the fringe members but you shouldn't pretend that they are all like that.

Denerick

veritable wrote: »

You are completely wrong. You may be trying to describe some of the fringe members but you shouldn't pretend that they are all like that.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Gijoe

veritable wrote: »

you shouldn't pretend that they are all like that.

They are ALL like that. Neo-Right wing, Foxnews watching, no-nothing about the world outside my own town, nutjobs

veritable

Gijoe wrote: »

They are ALL like that. Neo-Right wing, Foxnews watching, no-nothing about the world outside my own town, nutjobs

Have you ever talked to one or met one?

Gijoe

I hope I never meet anyone who would voluntarily go and see Glenn Beck/Sarah Palin speaking

veritable

Gijoe wrote: »

I hope I never meet anyone who would voluntarily go and see Glenn Beck/Sarah Palin speaking

That comes across as being a bit prejudicial. Beck or Palin may be dramatic but you still haven't provided evidence of their supposed evil?

20Cent

veritable wrote: »

Did anybody else read this article?

I am sick of the garbage printed each day in the Irish media about anything not leftwing in the US.
I read this article over my breakfast yesterday morning and it put me in a mood for the day. (read it online because I refuse to pay money for the Irish Times trash.)
No wonder the Irish have such a miserable view of the right. The right constantly has its position undermined in the Irish media while the left is put on a pedastol.

What is incorrect about it?

Red Hand

Where's the native born Randian hiding?:D

veritable

20Cent wrote: »

What is incorrect about it?

I don't claim that anything is incorrect about it. My point is that it is a clear attack on the movement without engaging with the actual aims of the movement - an ad hominem at the Tea party. I resent the image the author is trying to create of the tea party. I resent the way the movement is denigrated in the media.

I also was pointing to the fact that you never read about the money behind left wing groups even though they are funded in the same manner as the tea party movement.

The author talks about how there are fewer blacks in the tea party than in the civil rights marches in the 1960s. What has race got to do with it? Why is race always brought in by the left?

Mjollnir

veritable wrote: »

I don't claim that anything is incorrect about it. My point is that it is a clear attack on the movement without engaging with the actual aims of the movement - an ad hominem at the Tea party. I resent the image the author is trying to create of the tea party. I resent the way the movement is denigrated in the media.

Please. Describing members, funding sources, etc... of an organization w/out mentioning the goals does not magically equate to an ad-hominem.

I also was pointing to the fact that you never read about the money behind left wing groups even though they are funded in the same manner as the tea party movement.

Perhaps you've never read about it, but that doesn't mean such material isn't out there.

The author talks about how there are fewer blacks in the tea party than in the civil rights marches in the 1960s. What has race got to do with it? Why is race always brought in by the left?

Try reading the article, near the top, and get back to us.

Denerick

You keep on going on about how the 'media' is denigrating the political right wing in America. The fact is that the political right wing denigrates itself by taking pride in ignorance and stupidity, by being hysterically fervent and exaggerating every iniative of central government.

You should be asking why the American right wing is constantly looking for excuses and bogeymen figures in the media and public life, and why they don't engage in introspection, or ever appear to be afflicted by self doubt. The tea partiers are essentially a religious cult.

veritable

Denerick wrote: »

You keep on going on about how the 'media' is denigrating the political right wing in America. The fact is that the political right wing denigrates itself by taking pride in ignorance and stupidity, by being hysterically fervent and exaggerating every iniative of central government.

You should be asking why the American right wing is constantly looking for excuses and bogeymen figures in the media and public life, and why they don't engage in introspection, or ever appear to be afflicted by self doubt. The tea partiers are essentially a religious cult.

I spent some months in the States recently and I have first hand experience of the tea party. the image that is created of them in the media here is not an accurate reflection. obviously nothing i say here is going to change your preformed opinion.

Denerick

veritable wrote: »

I spent some months in the States recently and I have first hand experience of the tea party. the image that is created of them in the media here is not an accurate reflection. obviously nothing i say here is going to change your preformed opinion.

The image of what? Hundreds of thousands of incoherent rabble going on about 'socialist nazi Obama' trying to introduce a communist system?

They denigrate themselves, they don't need the help of the media.

veritable

Denerick wrote: »

The image of what? Hundreds of thousands of incoherent rabble going on about 'socialist nazi Obama' trying to introduce a communist system?

They denigrate themselves, they don't need the help of the media.

You have no idea. That is not what the tea party is about - certain fringe members yes but these are not representative. Your ignorance is too obvious for me to continue this. I don't mean this as a slight against you but rather a reflection of your above posts.:)

Denerick

veritable wrote: »

You have no idea. That is not what the tea party is about - certain fringe members yes but these are not representative. Your ignorance is too obvious for me to continue this. I don't mean this as a slight against you but rather a reflection of your above posts.:)

As I said, whatever helps you sleep at night. Denying reality doesn't make it go away.

veritable

Denerick wrote: »

As I said, whatever helps you sleep at night. Denying reality doesn't make it go away.

You mean your reality. Because if you knew what you were talking about you wouldnt be talking about these people like you have.:o

Denerick

veritable wrote: »

You mean your reality. Because if you knew what you were talking about you wouldnt be talking about these people like you have.:o

Are people like me the new tea partier bogeymen?

I suppose if it wasn't for nasty people on the internet the world would see these people the way they are - reasonable, peaceful, intelligent and compassionate tea loving Americans?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

wes

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Its seems to me that in some ways, the more moderate (for lack of a better term) right have abdicated there position to the extremes, who now for better or worse represent the right.

Denerick

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I regret using the 'political right' as shorthand for the tea party circus, as you call them. I'm aware of the many figures of the moderate and Libertarian right who are thoughtful and intelligent. The late William Buckley being one example.

g5fd6ow0hseima

veritable wrote: »

You have no idea. That is not what the tea party is about - certain fringe members yes but these are not representative. Your ignorance is too obvious for me to continue this.

What is it about?

veritable

it's about small govt, personal and fiscal responsibility and civil liberty.

veritable

Malani Mammoth Professor wrote: »

What is it about?

for an unbiased first hand on the tea party watch this video of a recent rally. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u47WQwRUXHQ&feature=sub

I think it will provide a clearer insight than my words.

Eliot Rosewater

veritable wrote: »

it's about small govt, personal and fiscal responsibility and civil liberty.

But it's not really, is it? Many of the members of the Tea Party seem to be American conservatives who, despite shouting all day about the government taking over their lives, see no problem is using the government to outlaw gay marriage or enforce subjective morality. There is an inherent hypocrisy in the American conservative mindset, from what I can see.

veritable

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

But it's not really, is it? Many of the members of the Tea Party seem to be American conservatives who, despite shouting all day about the government taking over their lives, see no problem is using the government to outlaw gay marriage or enforce subjective morality. There is an inherent hypocrisy in the American conservative mindset, from what I can see.

That is undoubtedly true for some in the tea party. In my experience, the majority are not like this. They are small govt libertarians, like myself, who believe that people should be free to what they want, when they want, as long as they don't interfere with others. So whether you're for gay marriage or whatever, it's nobody's biz to tell you that you can't do that.

As i pointed out earlier, the impression people have in Ireland of the tea party is like the one described by you and the others above. It's not an accurate impression. The media is distorting the image and i think it's grossly unfair. If we in Ireland followed the tea party's small govt free market libertarian way of thinking, maybe all our lives would be freer and less restricted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Overheal

veritable wrote: »

That is undoubtedly true for some in the tea party. In my experience, the majority are not like this. They are small govt libertarians, like myself, who believe that people should be free to what they want, when they want, as long as they don't interfere with others. So whether you're for gay marriage or whatever, it's nobody's biz to tell you that you can't do that.

As i pointed out earlier, the impression people have in Ireland of the tea party is like the one described by you and the others above. It's not an accurate impression. The media is distorting the image and i think it's grossly unfair. If we in Ireland followed the tea party's small govt free market libertarian way of thinking, maybe all our lives would be freer and less restricted.

I really don't thin the media is. I think the Tea Party is. I don't exactly see the movement clearing up any of it's stances on Gay Rights, for instance. That leaves it up to interpretation. Now if the movement actually came out [...] And took a stance on the issue, that would be something. You'd think by now that a movement that claims to be so hellbent on libertarianism would have no problem just saying 'Gays should be allowed to have these freedoms'.

As an example you didn't see any doublespeak from Bloomberg recently. He supported the Mosque's legal rights to build where it planned to, and under the very same principles he agreed that Pastor Jones had every right to burn a pile of Korans down south.

But no sir, I view that the Tea Party is too involved with Christianity; it's a Libertarian movement tied into religion, a bit of an au contraire with the First Amendment. They want to be Libertarian but they also want to be Christian. So when someone asks the Tea Party about it's stance on Gay Rights and Abortion, the Tea Party from what I can see has remained [officially] mum. So you'll forgive the media if they're as bemused as I am at the ubiquity in the movement.

veritable

I don't think there was ever a chance of conservatives/libertarians/anarachists etc ever agreeing on absolutely everything. But there are definite things they have in common - small govt, fiscal responsibilty, personal liberty, etc.

The tea party is definitely right wing. but how is right wing defined? it is those beliefs that are not left-wing. The left is concerned with socialism/communism while the right is the opposite of the left, if you can say that. while the left can be easily defined, the right, being anything non left, is a mixed bag of beliefs. of course, as mentioned above they have things in common.

the tea party is a reflection of this variety in non-left views. some of them are anti-gay, pro-god, whatever etc. in my experience they are still mainly people pissed off with washington and over-ridingly (is that a word!) they share the aforementioned core beliefs.

as regards the mosque. they of course believe that the muslim man has a right to build it. they are protesting against the disrespect shown by the muslims in wanting to build it so close to the twin towers. but that is another topic.

my point on the media is not this single article but the continuous unbalanced reporting of the tea party in the Irish media. I have never seen anything debating the aims of the tea party. all the media does is try to undermine it and cast a bad light over it.

I posted a link to a recent Reason TV report from a rally on Sunday on page two of this thread. If you have the time check it out.:)

veritable

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I have seen some of your other posts on different threads and i know you're decent and sensible. I respectfully think you are wrong on this however. The majority are not like this based on my first hand experience.
Limbaugh, Palin and fox are not what the media makes them out to be over here. I'm seriously astounded to read people's opinions of limbaugh, etc on Boards day in day out. In most cases, people will rant about them based on a single youtube clip or newspaper article. I spent a long time in the states and spent a lot of time exposed to them on tv and radio. the opinions Irish people have of them are not accurate reflections of how they really are.

metrovelvet

I learn more about Fox News from Boards than I do from anyone else, including my American compatriots, family and friends. I have the impression now that it has an Irish audience.

I wouldnt take any notice of the Irish TImes tbh.

oscarBravo

veritable wrote: »

Limbaugh, Palin and fox are not what the media makes them out to be over here. I'm seriously astounded to read people's opinions of limbaugh, etc on Boards day in day out.

My impressions of Fox News and Glenn Beck are formed from watching them.

Until I have to turn them off because my brain starts to bleed.

Beck and Palin don't need the media to make them look bad.

Overheal

Limbaugh, Palin and fox are not what the media makes them out to be over here. I'm seriously astounded to read people's opinions of limbaugh, etc on Boards day in day out. In most cases, people will rant about them based on a single youtube clip or newspaper article. I spent a long time in the states and spent a lot of time exposed to them on tv and radio. the opinions Irish people have of them are not accurate reflections of how they really are.

That's a bit of a faux pas. It's more like a long string of out-takes and newspaper articles, gold-line scandals, Back-in-Black segments and the outright hypocrisy that usually involves a personality saying one thing on tuesday and the polar opposite on thursday. Thats before you investigate the fact that when my radio is on, it's on Beck or Limbaugh.

Carcharodon

veritable wrote: »

I spent some months in the States recently and I have first hand experience of the tea party. the image that is created of them in the media here is not an accurate reflection. obviously nothing i say here is going to change your preformed opinion.

I live in America and my first hand experience is often a lot worse than that portrayed in the media, not saying that they are all crazy, uneducated, racist, bigoted, hypocritical, corporate, religious nutjobs but there is a large element that are really ill-informed and fixating their anger on the current economic situation on the wrong issues.

Mrmoe

It is in correct to say that the tea party movement are being unfairly portrayed. All you have to do is watch Glenn Beck for an hour everyday and you will begin to realise that the image the tea party has is due mainly to their high profile leaders such as Beck and Palin. I agree with many of the core principles of a Libertarianism. It is therefore torture watching Glenn Beck for an hour. They have corrupted the very founding principles of the tea party movement.

Overheal

I myself enjoy it when Jon Stewart shows Beck's objections at the government interfering with our lives and telling us what to do and how to live... and then follows it up with clips of Beck telling his viewers "Here's what you have to do" "Turn off the TV" "Be an Evangelist" "Call gold line" etc.

Manic Moran

I'm having something of a hard time parsing the common view of the Tea Party as a bunch of nutters with the fact that they do seem to have quite a sizeable proportion of the voting populace. I'd say they're probably the third or fourth biggest 'party' in the US right now, ahead of the Greens, and are giving some of the estabished party candidates a run for their money. Or they would be if they actually were a party as opposed to a somehat decentralised movement.

There are two options. Either the US is filled with a much larger proportion of nutters than I think realistic, or the TP Movment isn't, on a general level, all that far off-base.

NTM

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm having something of a hard time parsing the common view of the Tea Party as a bunch of nutters with the fact that they do seem to have quite a sizeable proportion of the voting populace. I'd say they're probably the third or fourth biggest 'party' in the US right now

The Tea Party is not a party, per se, rather it is a faction of the Republican Party. This is evident from the fact that all the candidates they are supporting in the November 2010 US House and US Senate elections are registered as Republicans. Based upon the list that the Tea Party Movement published earlier this year, I only found one "token" registered Democrat that they supported for US Congress, all the rest were registered Republicans; ergo, they are not a party, but rather a faction of the Republican Party, no matter how they spin it.

It makes you wonder why the so called Tea Party has not become an officially recognized party on the ballot? Ross Perot founded the Reform Party in 1996 as an alternative to the Republican and Democratic parties, and one of their candidates (Jesse Ventura) later won the governor of Minnesota. If the Tea Party in fact was more representative of great numbers of Americans as they claim, why do they only run as registered Republicans in the November 2010 Congressional elections?

Is it because the Tea Party that largely identifies with Republican Sarah Palin, is but a segment of the Republican Party that is employing a very similar marketing spin used effectively by Republican Newt Gingrich during the mid-Clinton era called the Contract with America? This Republican marketing image spin used by Gingrich helped the GOP to gain control of both Houses of Congress. Is the Tea Party the new marketing spin of the GOP?

veritable

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Is the Tea Party the new marketing spin of the GOP?

Quite the opposite. The Tea party seeks to reform the Republican party. Just yesterday in Delaware we saw how the tea party candidate beat the repub supported candidate. The tea party wants to get rid of repubs known as RINOs (repub in name only), i.e. the big govt repubs like many in washington now.

Black Swan

veritable wrote: »

Just yesterday in Delaware we saw how the tea party candidate beat the repub supported candidate.

Was the "Tea Party" candidate registered as a Republican? If so, why a registered Republican and not a separate "Tea Party" candidate (for example, like Ross Perot's Reform Party was in fact a separate, official party, not a segment of the GOP)? Tea Party = Republican candidates.

To reiterate:

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

The Tea Party is not a party, per se, rather it is a faction of the Republican Party.

metrovelvet

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Was the "Tea Party" candidate registered as a Republican? If so, why a registered Republican and not a separate "Tea Party" candidate (for example, like Ross Perot's Reform Party was in fact a separate, official party, not a segment of the GOP)? Tea Party = Republicans.

To reiterate:

Because Ross Perot didnt want to play with the Republicans. He wanted his own party independent of that.

It looks to me like the Tea Party want reform of the republican party and to be very much a part of it. This would make sense in an election because to start a whole new official registered party would only split votes.

Don't get too hung up on the term 'party'.

Black Swan

metrovelvet wrote: »

Don't get too hung up on the term 'party'.

The term "party" then is a misnomer (i.e., spin), because it is not an official party on the ballot, rather it is a segment of mostly Republicans that support registered Republican candidates against Democrats in November 2010.

To what extent will the "party" misnomer be used to lure unsuspecting Independents and Democrats to vote for registered Republicans in the 2010 November US Congressional elections?

metrovelvet

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

The term "party" then is a misnomer (i.e., spin), because it is not an official party on the ballot, rather it is a segment of mostly Republicans that support registered Republican candidates against Democrats in November 2010.

To what extent will the "party" misnomer be used to lure unsuspecting Independents and Democrats to vote for registered Republicans in the 2010 November US Congressional elections?

It depends on how pedantic you want to get about it.

It's a wordplay on the Boston Tea Party to conjure up feelings of rebellion and national heritage. I think most Americans would get this. I dont think its going to lure and trap 'unsuspecting Democrats and Independants'. OMG that was so funny. That was the second funniest thing I've ever read on the politics boards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party

Black Swan

metrovelvet wrote: »

It's a wordplay on the Boston Tea Party to conjure up feelings of rebellion and national heritage.

It's a long stretch to draw a relationship between the specific political and economic issues that concerned the Boston Tea Party during colonial times and today's so called Tea Party in the USA; i.e., it's marketing spin: The Tea Party are Republicans in Tea Party clothing.

The Tea Party membership really shows its colours when they host Republican Sarah Palin as a guest speaker and supporter of their Republican registered candidates. They claim to be fiscally conservative, yet Palin supported the "Bridge to Nowhere" until the media disclosed that it was a colossal waste of $400 million in federal highway funds (then she flip-flopped).

veritable

The tea party use the word "party" not as in a political party but rather as a movement.

Palin, et al, are by no means popular with everyone in the movement but she is in favour of fiscal responsibility and small govt. the tea party is not composed of individuals with identical beliefs. Rather, they share certain core beliefs, like i mentioned previously. Apart from their core beliefs, their opinions can be quite diverse.

there is nothing to say that the tea party could not form a separate political party in the future. at this point in time they are using the repub party to gain momentum. they are also trying to force the repub party back to its conservative and libertarian roots. no doubt, should they fail to change the repub party, the tea party will form its own political party.

Brussels Sprout

veritable wrote: »

The tea party is definitely right wing. but how is right wing defined? it is those beliefs that are not left-wing. The left is concerned with socialism/communism while the right is the opposite of the left, if you can say that. while the left can be easily defined, the right, being anything non left, is a mixed bag of beliefs. of course, as mentioned above they have things in common.

You've taken an extreme view and slandered the entire political left with it in order to make the right look good by contrast. It's like saying "Well, the political right is concerned with fascism, while the left is the opposite of the right".

Permabear

This post has been deleted.