Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Astroturf St. Louis Tea Party Attempts to Defend Pandering to Roy Blunt: Other Tea Parties Not Impressed

The St. Louis Tea Party is scrambling to defend their decision not to join with 28 other Missouri Tea Party groups who all spoke out strongly against the idea that Roy Blunt fits with the tea party's professed small-government ideals. Most state tea party groups dislike Blunt because of his votes on issues like the big bank bailout, Cash for Clunkers, and No Child Left Behind, but the St. Louis tea party leadership decided long ago that they were content to be merely a front group for the establishment Republican Party, as long as they could continue to get booked as pundits on CNBC and CNN.

Nevertheless, they were obviously feeling the heat enough to try to defend their decision in multiple venues. First, Bill Hennessy gave a lame excuse that they weren't a group that could endorse or un-endorse, but that excuse made no sense because all the letter from the groups said was that Roy Blunt was not endorsed by the tea party. John Burns, who led the tea party's opposition to public transit, wrote a guest post on Gateway Pundit's blog today claiming that voting for ideological pure conservative candidates would lead to loss in November. Here's a sampling of what he said:
And it may seem highly counter-intuitive, but for this specific election cycle where so much is on the line, we can’t forget that “perfect” ideological candidates (candidates who are “perfect” on all of our issues) aren’t always the best choice at the polls in the primaries.
And later:
Mark this well: nothing is more important this election than preventing Socialists from getting elected. To achieve that end, we need candidates that can win. In that sense, the “perfect” candidate isn’t always the best candidate. It won’t profit us a thing if we have the most perfect ideological candidate in the world who can’t beat the Socialists this November.
This is pretty interesting in relationship to Roy Blunt. It seems to me like a strong argument could be made that Chuck Purgason would have a better chance of winning in November, given Blunt's record of voting for bailouts and a load of other baggage. The only real advantage Blunt has over Purgason is boatloads of money. So, essentially, Burns is saying that you should ditch the better candidate in the primary in favor of the candidate who has the most money (by necessity, the GOP insider). Quite a bizarre philosophy from a guy who previously portrayed himself as so pure that he claimed anyone who supported public transportation was a "socialist," including the Republican Mayor of Chesterfield.

Jim Durbin at 24th State also had a fascinating defense of the St. Louis tea party's decision to pander to the GOP in the primary elections. Here's how it starts:
Some of our friends in the Tea Parties are engaged in primary battles, and in their zeal to win, they are making false statements about the unity of the Tea Party movement behind particular candidates.
He goes on to say that people who wouldn't be motivated to vote for Roy Blunt in the general election have, "a loser's mentality" and are "lashing out." He ends his post by saying:
Respect goes two ways. Please remember that.
Hmmmm, fascinating.

The reaction to the St. Louis tea party's defense of shameless pandering has not been positive.

Here's a sampling of the responses to John Burns post from Gateway Pundit's blog:
American Delight:
I must disagree. Olympia Snowe could be a Democrat-Socialist candidate, but we don’t need a Congress full of Olympia Snowe Republicans. Not to sound like Obama, but that’s the kind of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place.

It sounds like you’ve experienced some pushback from other local tea party leaders, but maybe they legitimately think you’re being too quick to settle/compromise.
I couldn’t disagree more.

Folks, ignore this craven counsel. Vote your conscience. Don’t become complicit with the inside game.

Remember McCain!
When you don’t try to get the best in the Republican party, you get people like Brown who vote down the Democrat line. You need hard-liner Republicans who stand for what America used to stand for – the majority of Americans want this back…..not what those who fail to pay any taxes are clammering for: monies paid to them from the government directly taken from the hard-working Americans.
Blah, blah, blah. This is just more of the same old b.s. that the Republicans must be moderate and compromising with the Dems which by the way is what lost the congress to the dems in the first place. Anyway if most the public are stupid enough to reelect those that are destroying the country, the disposition of the opposition, moderate or otherwise, will make no difference.
Anyone who even SMELLS like McCain – a squishy, pretend conservative who’ll sell us out to further their love of office – will NOT get my vote, nor the votes of millions like me. Why? Because while we know elections have consequences, we also have INTEGRITY. We have to live with ourselves and we’d rather see the Republic finally DIE than help vote in its certain demise by voting for weasels who are merely “good” rather than perfect.
they sure have that “vote for the lesser of two evils”
mentality deeply ingrained in the American psyche..
chuck in st paul:
I REFUSE to vote for another McLame again… ever! In truth I think I only did it because Saracudda was on the ticket and we had a chance to get her into the Whitehouse, perhaps in 8 years. I’m done with that. Forever.
What a DOWNER of a post to lead into jim’s abscence. Such hypocrisy. Posting these kind of insulting LOSER sentiments provoke the very kind of infighting the author claims to fear. Since the end of Reagan the republicans have been a party of co-dependants and enablers in this 20 year rise in socialist tyranny. The way to stop socialism is to stop it NOW and stop is cold. The people are desparate to empower noble republicans who will stand firm to protect the constitution, freedom, liberty, and human rights. Teamwork demands that when the people succeed at placing a potential patriot on a ballot, A person who will be a genuine represetative of the people and not a fraud of lip service , the party give that person everything it has in the way of support. The lack of teamwork comes from the Arlan Specter / Charlie Crist co dependant republcans who disrepect the majority will of the people.

As I’ve written on here before I think it our DUTY to fight the statist cancer afflicting our nation, regardless of what we believe our chances are of succeeding. So I’ll fight regardless, but this post IMHO amounts to a strategizing about how to rearrange the deck chairs. This strikes me as the type of sentiment that an already defeated side would feel the need to express.
This is the 3rd article by Jim Hoft that is way off base. Why is he here?

He is completely wrong. That is nothing more than the old RNC line. Who does that sound like? Jim is your rallying cry really “At least we aren’t as bad as they are” Gosh that sure sounds like “Well the unemployment would have been worse”.

When did the rules becomes 3 candidates D, R and a conservative?
Likewise, when Dana Loesch spoke approvingly of Burns' post on her facebook page, she got pushback from other Missouri tea party members:

And all of this is happening right when the St. Louis tea party is asking other groups from around the midwest to come to St. Louis for a large 9/12 tea party rally (which of course they will take all of the credit for). Interesting times.

1 comment:

  1. I am going to somewhat agree with the Tea Party on this one. In my opinion it is unfortunate that it was necessary to allow the general public to influence the choice of candidates.

    Members of parties have philosophical differences that the general public does not. Choosing candidates who please every one rather than a particular philosophy means that the market place of ideas becomes stagnant.

    Voters deserve clear choices and our system produces mediocrity and disinterest.