Finance Report for Fake Local Control: How A Right-Wing Idealogue Pays Off Local "Democrats"

Now that the Mayor's office and right-wing multimillionaire Rex Sinquefield have thrown local control activists under the bus and are pushing for a new ballot initiative that would actually decrease accountability and transparency, it might be worth taking a closer look at some of the campaign finance reports for Rex's front group, A Safer Missouri. Rex, if you recall, wants to gut state government and shift the tax burden to the poor, and local "Democrats" who get paid by him conveniently stay quiet on these disastrous ideas, just like they did when Rex pushed a statewide ballot initiative to get rid of the earnings tax. How many local "Democrats" need to be on the payroll of a right-wing ideologue with crazy ideas before St. Louis residents start to worry about our City's future?

First things first for documenting the atrocities: the astroturf local control group is called A Safer Missouri. Only one person has ever donated to the group: Rex Sinquefield.


And who benefits from the amazing generosity of Rex, who graciously took time out of his busy schedule of trying to privatize everything in Missouri to magically start caring about this issue last year? Why, St. Louis "Democrats" of course! One of the biggest beneficiaries was Martin Casas, former President of the St. Louis Young Dems and a current candidate for the Missouri House of Representatives. Casas, if you recall, previously said that he had no position on the disastrous Everything Tax, which should be enough to disqualify anyone from calling themselves a Democrat, asked people to sign a petition from the right-wing front group United for Missouri while working for Rex, and also claimed that he had "no idea" if signing up for A Safer Missouri would help build Rex's email list:


In light of how much Casas was paid by Rex, it's pretty hard to believe this claim was true. And how much was that? Casas got close to a cool $20,000 from Rex Sinquefield in 2011 according to the most recent campaign report:

And this is all in addition to the fact that Casas's wife is also on Rex's payroll, through a different organization.

Another local principled "Democrat" who benefited from Sinquefield's kindheartedness was Gregg Christian, Democratic Committeeman in the 15th Ward. Here's A Safer Missouri's payment to Christian's company Gladius Communications for "graphic design:"

Was Gladius responsible for this beautiful logo? Cause I'd say that's worth about $4,000 just by itself:

Another local Democrat paid off in this campaign is Nancy Rice, but she's paid by Rex for a lot of things (she works for Pelopidas) so I won't bother to document the cash for this situation.

Every politician who has ever taken money from ideologues has claimed that the money has *nothing* to do with their future votes. Yet we know our democracy is broken because the uber-wealthy have far too much influence on our laws via their donations. If St. Louisans are really worried about Democracy being for sale, we're going to have to start paying better attention to what's happening locally. Having "Democrats" in office isn't any better than Republicans, if they're all getting paid by the same people.

Momentum!

Question: if you are an organization created by a multimillionaire for the sole purpose of doing that multimillionaire's bidding, does it really count as "momentum" when that guy gives you more money? Apparently it does according the the Let Voters Decide "coalition", who received a donation from Rex Sinquefield, the only guy in the state who actually believes it'd be a good idea to gut state government and shift the tax burden to the poor and middle class by eliminating income tax and shifting exclusively to a sales tax. Check out this hilarious headline from the "coalition" referring to Rex's new donations of $1.2 million dollars:


In light of this genius idea, I've decided to start off every day with some extra "momentum" by giving myself $20. Look out world! I've got momentum!

Suprise! Another Member of Tea Party Splinter Group Actually Working for the Establishment...Against the Tea Party

As was previously noted, the St. Louis Tea Party split because of infighting between supporters of tea party candidate Ed Martin and those of establishment candidate Ann Wagner in the GOP primary for Missouri's Second District. Unsurprisingly, Adam Sharp of Sharp Elbows is in the "completely without actual principles" camp and sided with the new splinter group GIGLI. But what I didn't realize is that Sharp was already working on behalf of the establishment even before this whole kerfuffle started.

I've previously noted that there's a strong tea party challenger to GOP establishment Senator Dick Lugar. Lugar has repeatedly insulted the tea party during his campaign. Ann Wagner, unsurprisingly, is supporting Lugar and even hosted a fundraiser for him. And, coincidence of coincidences, it just so happens that Adam Sharp was sent to do a hit piece on Lugar's tea party challenger Richard Mourdock.

The video is the usual whining and declarations of being the world's biggest victim from Sharp, but what's hilarious is that he's using these tactics to attack fellow tea partiers. He goes to the event in a different state specifically for the purpose of harassing the candidate, interrupts their program, and then acts offended when people don't want to talk to him. It's great comedy.

Here's the video:


Sharp, by the way, is close friends with Chip Gerdes, whom the St. Louis Tea Party accused of writing a hit piece on Ed Martin for Breitbart's site.

Related: A RINO's Guide to Wooing Cranky Breitbart Editors

Conservatives of America 2.0, Or Failed Conservative Online Project Number 3,452,297

In December of 2009, Dana Loesch announced a new project:

Jamie and I unveiled our new project, along with Bill Murphy, this morning. Introducing the conservative version of MoveOn.org: Conservatives of America.com.

I’ve spoken with so many people who have expressed a desire for better, tighter organization, an umbrella under which all our conservative groups could network and fellowship. Until now, no one had stepped up to take on this massive task.

Times are a’changin.

Conservatives of America asked gullible conservatives to pay $25 of their hard earned cash in order to become "members" of the site. The only thing that's known about where the money went is that it decidedly did not go anywhere that would help the conservative movement. Not only did the site not become the "conservative MoveOn," it didn't even become the conservative Chess Club of Greater Niagra Valley. It was a complete, unmitigated failure.

Now Loesch is back with a totally hip site that's the newfangled thing in happening conservationism. Will it be able to organize a rally with more than 50 people? Will it be like the St. Louis Blogger's Guild and the Tea Party: initially used as a platform to promote Loesch then sabotaged as soon as it no longer serves that purpose? And of course the biggest question: how long before they start asking gullible conservatives to throw away their money?

In One Month, Occupy St. Louis Surges Ahead of Tea Party On Facebook

Recently, the Occupy St. Louis Facebook Group passed the 6,000 "likes" mark on facebook, after only being in existence for a month. This puts them well ahead of the St. Louis Tea Party, which has been in existence for several years.

It's also worth noting that unlike the Tea Party, the Occupy facebook group grew by true grassroots support. The tea party facebook group's growth was based on a big facebook ad buy, so broadly targeted that even I (an unlikely target) saw ads for several months. On the other hand, the Occupy group grew by word of mouth and sharing.

So it's nice to know that when it comes to astroturf vs grassroots, money can buy you some people, but it can't quite buy enough people to outpace an actual grassroots movement.

Dana Loesch Lies About Voting For Romney In 2008

I don't like much about CNN's Dana Loesch but I have to give her credit for one thing: she's done a great job of "branding" herself as a rebellious tea party outsider independent from the mainstream Republican Party. After all, why would gullible news outlets like CNN want to hire just another person repeating the same old tired Republican talking points? But, like pretty much everything else that's come from the St. Louis Tea Party, Loesch's image as a rebellious outsider was deliberately constructed and almost entirely false.

After supporting both Roy Blunt and Ed Martin over more conservative challengers in the 2010 election, Loesch has been seeking attention lately by bashing GOP front-runner Mitt Romney. A few weeks ago she said she'd never support him:



Today, now that flavor-of-the-week Perry has self-destructed and it's become more likely that Romney will be the nominee, she backed off a little and said that she didn't want to think of the "nightmare" of Romney vs. Obama.

But even more importantly, she claimed that she "was against Romney last election" and wouldn't support him this time.

Unfortunately for Loesch, even if she easily forgets, those wacky internets don't. A friend DM'd me a link to the Way Back Machine that showed that, guess what? Dana Loesch voted for Mitt Romney in the Republican primary in 2008 as the "candidate of change":

Team Loesch went to the polls this morning and cast two votes for Mitt Romney. I think he's the best candidate of change and more qualified than McCain.

Here's a screen shot:


And guess what else? "RomneyCare" was enacted back in 2006, so I guess that means that Dana Loesch actually was a fan of RomneyCare *and* thought it was constitutional. How about that?

But it's not really a big deal, since the folks at CNN seem to like having Loesch lie to their faces.

St. Louis Public Radio Report Attacks Minimum Wage Based on Info From A Restaurant Lobbyist Front Group

Several times throughout the day, St. Louis Public Radio aired a report about high unemployment among the young. The report claimed that it was harder for teenagers to find jobs because of, among other things, "rising employment costs" caused by a "higher minimum wage." The segment focused entirely on an interview with Michael Saltsman, a research fellow at the Employment Policies Institute (EPI). Unfortunately, St. Louis public radio failed to note that EPI is actually a front group for a guy who lobbies on behalf of restaurant and hotel industries which, you know, just might have a vested interest in criticizing the minimum wage. From Source Watch:

The Employment Policies Institute (EPI) is one of several front groups created by Berman & Co., a Washington, DC public affairs firm owned by Rick Berman, who lobbies for the restaurant, hotel, alcoholic beverage and tobacco industries.

In addition to being ideologically opposed to the minimum wage, EPI also apparently ran advertisements against ACORN and lobbied against health care reform. Oh, and they also love the honorable tobacco industry:

The Employment Policies Institute, in a 1994 R.J. Reynolds-drafted press release, predicted the loss of 2-3 million jobs if the Clinton Healthcare plan was enacted. The Clinton plan was to be funded through an additional federal tax on cigarettes.

A 1997 internal Philip Morris presentation called indicates PM planned to "sponsor and participate" in the Employment Policies Institute to gain the organization's help in promoting PM's Accommodation Program, a strategy the company designed to fight smoking bans and preserve smoking in public places

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty disappointed that our public radio station willingly legitimates a front group for lobbyists without even noting the group's conflict of interest.

Akin Staffer Goes to Work for Americans For Prosperity

KMOX is reporting that Todd Akin's St. Louis District Director, Patrick Werner, is going to become the state director of Americans for Prosperity in Missouri. Americans for Prosperity, if you recall, is the astroturf group bankrolled by the billionaire oil-refinery magnates David and Charles Koch.

Of course there's really nothing to see here, because I'm sure that AFP won't be spending all of their time and money attacking McCaskill in the upcoming election....right?

Tea Party Tells Blunt "We Will Not Back Down"...Then Backs Down

From two days ago:
But since Roy Blunt publicly defended his stance on earmarks yesterday morning, there has basically been complete silence from the St. Louis Tea Party on the issue. In fact, since yesterday, the tea party has attacked Claire McCaskill, who supports earmark reform, multiple times and not said anything critical of Blunt. Ennenbach hasn't said anything critical of Blunt. Hennessy hasn't said anything critical of Blunt. So basically, they completely backed down.

But the real question is, will they be held responsible? The media gave them coverage for their so-called "pressure" on Blunt (BTW, while national groups encouraged people to call Blunt about earmarks, the St. Louis tea party did not). So shouldn't they also cover it if the tea party completely backs away from their threats?

Roy Blunt Brushes Aside Tea Party Nonsense

As was pointed out both here and at FiredUp Missouri, the St. Louis tea party's claim that they were somehow surprised by Roy Blunt's support of earmarks was nothing short of laughable. Blunt had always supported earmarks, and did nothing to suggest otherwise during the campaign. However, the tea partiers tried to pretend that Roy Blunt signing the "tea party treaty," which said nothing whatsoever about earmarks, was somehow an agreement by Blunt to no longer be the Washington D.C. wheeler-dealer that he's always been.

Well, Roy Blunt put that nonsense to rest today. During an interview with KZRG, Blunt points out (what was obvious to all) that he's never made any secret about his views:


So will the tea party continue to pretend that they didn't know who Blunt was before the election despite his long history in Congress? Or will they finally admit that their decision to not support Chuck Purgason put someone in office who stands for absolutely none of their stated principles.

Tea Party Claims They Were Funded By "A Contribution Box in the Office"

The St. Louis tea party spent a fair amount of money working on the last election. A few examples:

They paid rent and utilities for an office for at least three months for an office.

They paid for a billboard in the southern part of Missouri's 3rd congressional district.

They ran extensive facebook advertisements.

They ran google advertisements and other ads that linked to endorsements of Ed Martin.

They appeared to have several paid employees managing the office and get out the vote efforts.

They produced a lot of political schwag, such as the stickers they placed on Taxpayers for Ed Martin yard signs.

All of these combined, of course, cost a fair amount of money. And given that in previous campaigns they were not even able to raise $1,000 from their membership, despite repeated requests from Hennessy, Durbin, and Hoft, I was left wondering just where they got their income for these elections. In a recent St. Louis Beacon article, Jo Mannies apparently asked that question, and here's what she got in response:

Ennenbach said the St. Louis Tea Party's operations this fall, such as rent, were funded by contributions. "We have a contribution box in the office," she said.

Hmmm, really? A "contribution box" is supposed to explain their donations? I for one find it extremely implausible that they were previously terrible at raising money for campaigns but then magically raised multiple thousands of dollars from people dropping cash in a box in their office. Given their apparent violations of their 501(c)4 status, and their longstanding support of GOP insiders like Roy Blunt and Ed Martin, I hope someone can get to the bottom of just where these donations were coming from.

Roy Being Roy

Bill Hennessy, co-founder of the St. Louis Tea Party, was shocked, shocked he tells you, to find out that Roy Blunt supports earmarks:

When you vote for a candidate for high office, sometimes you do so with fingers crossed. You just don’t know how they’ll handle the new responsibilities. Will they succumb to pressure and influence? Or will they remain true?

It's hard to even keep track of how many things are wrong with Hennessy's opening paragraph.

You have to cross your fingers? You just don't know how "they'll" handle new responsibilities? Actually, Roy Blunt has been in Congress since 1997 and was a member of the House leadership, so it was quite easy to know how he views earmarks. He views earmarks the same way he always has, and nothing about the campaign suggested otherwise.

"Will they succumb to pressure and influence?" Technically, it's impossible for Roy Blunt to succumb to pressure and influence, considering that he's been doing the bidding of the powerful and influential throughout his career. That's who he is: there's nothing to succumb to.

Will they remain true? Of course. He remains true to who he always was. Again, there was never any reason to suspect otherwise.

It's truly remarkable to see Hennessy write about Blunt as if he is some unknown entity just entering the national stage. However, I suppose that's the only position the St. Louis tea party can take to try to salvage their dignity after the elections. The reality is that they lost to Russ Carnahan, lost the Charlie Dooley, and lost in their opposition to Prop B. The only tangible effect they had on the election was the fact that they prevented Chuck Purgason, someone who actually exemplifies tea party values, from winning the Republican primary against Roy Blunt, a classic Republican insider. So, in order to simultanously claim that they are both (1) influential and (2) something other than an astroturf group that supports the same old establishment Republican Party, they have to thread the needle by pretending that they had reason to believe that Roy Blunt the Senator who somehow legislate fundamentally differently than the way Roy Blunt has always legislated. It, of course, defies credulity, but that's hardly anything new for the St. Louis tea party.

Conservatives Respond To Dana Loesch's Attacks (AUDIO)

In our last installment of the Astroturf Tea Party:

The St. Louis tea party leadership has been freaking out, blaming third party candidates for Ed Martin's loss to Congressman Russ Carnahan. Dana Loesch said she was "infuriated at third party foils." Bill Hennessy wrote the following about third party candidates:

In an election when America needed everyone to subdue personal ambition for the greater good, two egomaniacs ran against Ed Martin. These selfish people put themselves and their egos above the country. They are not American patriots; they’re weasels.

However, it seems to me that the election results tell a very clear story. In the Republican primary, corrupt Republican insider Ed Martin was running against a true grassroots conservative named John Wayne Tucker. But the AstroTurf St. Louis tea party was in the bag for Martin from the beginning, blacklisting Tucker from their events and even personally attacking him. Dana Loesch, who's husband's business Shock City Studios was paid $5,000 by Ed Martin, went on a Twitter tirade against Tucker, despite never mentioning him previously while having Martin on as a guest multiple times.

Now for the interesting part: in the Republican primary, Ed Martin only won 63% of the vote, and John Wayne Tucker, despite being ignored by the St. Louis tea party, received 5,379 votes. Rusty Wallace, another Republican challenger, received 7478 votes. In that election, constitution party candidate Nicholas Ivanovich only received 277 votes, and Libertarian candidate Steven Hendrick only got 418. However, in the election yesterday, Hendrick got 5,757 votes and Ivanovich got 3,151.

In other words, it sure looks like the Tucker and Wallace supporters marginalized and insulted by the St. Louis Tea Party are precisely the people who decided that they would rather vote for a third party candidate than the Republican. Only 700 people voted for Ivanovich and Hendrick in the primary: nearly 9,000 voted for them over Ed Martin in the general election.

I think there are a couple of lessons to draw from this. First, the St. Louis tea party shot themselves in the foot by pretending to be a grassroots movement while supporting corrupt GOP operatives like Ed Martin and Roy Blunt. They turned off true conservatives by pretending to be one thing while actively working towards another. In a year where Russ Feingold and Ike Skelton lost, it's possible that a genuine conservative candidate would have outperformed sleaze-bag Martin at the polls. But the St. Louis tea party never let that happen, instead shutting down dissent in the primary.

Second, the tea party's personal attacks on anyone who disagreed with them likely pushed away voters who might otherwise have voted for the Republican candidate. Probably some people who were uncomfortable with Ed Martin's scandalous history might nevertheless have been willing to bite the bullet and vote for him, except for the fact that they were repeatedly insulted by the self-appointed leaders of the tea party. The tea party does not tolerate dissent, especially from other conservatives.

Recently, a local conservative on Twitter criticized Loesch for attacking third parties. Loesch responded by claiming that he didn't know what he was talking about, and that he should listen to her radio show before he said anything. Here's the conversation (in reverse chronological order):

But I actually did listen to the radio show, and it was clear that Loesch was attacking third parties and blaming them for the loss. She called them "ballot decorations" and used a whiny voice to represent them. And, of course, she fails to mention that the St. Louis tea party actively blacklisted Ed Martin's primary challenger. Here are some highlights of her comments on that topic from the show:


Last week, several conservatives responded to Loesch's comments. The author of the blog Wading Across, disagreed with Loesch's claims that third parties lost the election for Martin and made this comment on my post:

Some of the points you make are precisely why I have not become a "member" of any Tea Party. What started out as truly grassroots quickly got co-opted into something else as it organized. I don't know whether they're truly being run by bigger Republican/Conservative organizations and individuals.

Bungalow Bill, another conservative, criticized Loesch for blindly supporting a "joke" like Ed Martin:

I first heard Dana Loesch speak at the Branson Tea Party earlier in April. I was inspired by her passion, but today I am conflicted with her blind enthusiasm for a GOP that also turned its back on the Constitution. Totally ignoring what a joke Ed Martin was claiming to be Constitutional conservative, Loesh blames the Constitution and Libertarian parties for Russ Carnahan's win.

He quotes Loesch as saying the following:

Good job constitution partry and libertarian party candidates. How does it feel to be solely responsible, along with massive fraud, in possibly handing a victory to a Carnahan? Livid at these foilers. LIVID. Your strategy sucks. You wanted liberty and you got socialism because you have no idea how the hell to win.

And then Bill responds:

It's no wonder the Tea Parties on a path to fail. They would rather compromise with a GOP guilty of killing the Constitution than take a real stand. I know I won't be attending another Tea Party in which Dana Loesch speaks at. It's just like Tera Sukman over at the Tea Party Patriot HQ who doesn't even have the clarity to see the sins of the GOP as she labels Roy Blunt as a Constitutional conservative.

God bless you Libertarians and Constitutional Party members for doing something most Americans don't have the guts enough to do. Vote against both parties which have violated our Constitution. I know I did this year and it felt great to break the shackles of the Republican Party. Screw Dana Loesch and her ignorant comments!

And even Dana's fellow 97.1 radio host, Jamie Allman, said that Loesch and Hennessy should "cease and desist" from attacking the people who voted for the Libertarian or Constitution Party, calling it one of the most awful things he's seen of late:


Loesch and Hennessy have been using the tea party from the beginning to further their own careers. What remains to be seen is whether their incessant self-promotion has actually done anything to advance the causes the tea party is supposed to stand for.

Update: Sounds like Loesch was a little more conciliatory on Thursday after being scolded by Allman. But the fact remains that she attacked third parties and blamed them on Wednesday's show.

Video Shows Carl Bearden Reporting to Billionaire David Koch

(Carl Bearden speaking at the town hall meeting he set up with Senator McCaskill's staff)

The Post-Dispatch wrote an excellent editorial last week documenting the astroturf activities of Carl Bearden, the former director of Missouri's Americans for Prosperity and someone who played a crucial role in starting the St. Louis tea party. Bearden organized a rally outside of Senator McCaskill's office where the tea party falsely claimed that someone from McCaskill's office "gave them the finger" (in fact, it was someone from an adjoining office who was upset that the tea party was banging on their windows). McCaskill, in typical weak-kneed Democrat fashion, apologized anyway and agreed with Bearden to hold a meeting that was covered by Fox News and largely kicked off the tea party's summer of angry, obnoxious, town halls. So Bearden played a crucial role in a pivotal "birthing" moment for the St. Louis tea party, and likely played a big role in turnout efforts for their other events. He also organized some of the original tea party events in other parts of Missouri.

Americans for Prosperity is funded by the billionaire right-wing idealogue David Koch. Koch has denied being involved, saying at one point, ""I've never been to a tea-party event. No one representing the tea party has ever even approached me." And later:

In addition, no funding has been provided by Koch companies, the Koch foundations, Charles Koch or David Koch specifically to support the tea parties.

However, a new video released today from the documentary Astroturf Wars, in the words of Huffington Post columnist Kevin Grandia, shows Americans for Prosperity employees reporting back to David Koch about the tea parties at their annual meeting. Carl Bearden is in the video. At the 1:50 mark, you can see Bearden saying, "keep your hands off my healthcare:"


This "movement" was started for one reason and one reason only: to promote the interests of an exclusive group of the wealthiest Americans. The ideologues in charge already get more breaks and take advantage of more loopholes than everyone else, but they're still not satisfied.

h/t Brian Matthews for the link.

Astroturf St. Louis Tea Party Absolves Roy Blunt From 7 Congressional Terms

Roy Blunt has been a representative in Congress for 14 years. In that time period, there has been no evidence whatsoever that Blunt had any genuine inclination towards fiscal responsibility or earmark reform, or any of the other things the St. Louis tea party claims to care about. In fact, an almost countless number of Republicans have criticized the huge spending, creation of massive deficits, and generally corrupt behavior that took place while Roy Blunt was in the leadership of House GOP, including Eric Cantor, Michael Steele, Fox News host Chris Wallace, and basically the whole of the Republican party.

But the St. Louis tea party leadership, astroturf from the very beginning, has decided that Blunt, in spite of his 14-year record, is now a "tea party candidate" because he signed a piece of paper saying so. Because really, what are you going to believe? Someone's actual record from 7 congressional terms, or the fact that they spent 10 minutes to sign a piece of paper? Further adding to the irony is that Darin Morley, who claims to be in favor of term limits, was the guy tasked with "spreading the good news" that the tea party would now officially be ignoring Roy Blunt's actual record.

Astroturf Hennessy Pretends to Be Anti-Castle

At a time when tea parties were defeating Republican candidates around the country who only talked the talk on fiscal responsibility, Bill Hennessy convinced the St. Louis Tea Party to support Roy Blunt over conservative challenger Chuck Purgason. That's Roy Blunt, the guy who voted for a $700 billion dollar bank bailout, supported Cash for Clunkers, and ran up huge deficits while in the leadership of the GOP.

In this same time period, Hennessy also supported former Matt Blunt Chief of Staff Ed Martin, who represents the exact opposite of transparency in government (allegedly part of the tea party's platform). Martin was fired from his job and cost the state of Missouri over $2 million dollars for illegally firing and smearing a fresh-out-of-law-school conservative who had the audacity to ask the Blunt administration to follow the law. Even though Blunt sent the man, Scott Eckersley, an apology for the false smears, Ed Martin continues to smear Eckersley to this day.

In fact, Bill Hennessy is so astroturf, he asked Ed Martin and another political insider, Gina Loudon (wife of a former Republican State Senator and owner of a Republican PR firm), to be on the original tea party steering committee.

So, with all this baggage, it sure looks like Hennessy might be first in line for the title of Most Astroturf of All Local Tea Party Leaders (I mention local because the lobbyists like Carl Bearden and Dick Armey who head national tea party groups and Americans for Prosperity Chapters are as astroturf as one can get). But hold on! Cause Bill Hennessy's going to show you how much of a rebel conservative he is by attacking Mike Castle, the mainstream Republican who recently lost to Palin-endorsed Christine O'Donnell. Here's what Hennessy tweeted:



And here's the full message:



See that? Bill Hennessy is a total right-wing renegade who doesn't take no guff from G.O.P. insiders. Except, that is, for the minor fact that Hennessy actually supported Mike Castle before the primary, and warned about the dangers of supporting O'Donnell because of "ideological purity:"



Hennessy actually linked to a video of Charles Krauthammer saying that Palin's endorsement of O'Donnell was "destructive and capricious" as well as "self-indulgence." Since it's good fun, I'll post the video here:



So Hennessy supported Castle before the vote. Then, after Castle loses, he talks trash about him. Pretty impressive.

On Daily Kos yesterday, Jed Lewison wrote "teahadists are just embarrassed Republicans." I don't think that's necessarily true for everyone, but it's certainly true about the St. Louis tea party leaders.

Tea Party Plan For The Debate: Loud Zombie Laughter

The St. Louis Tea Party has tipped their hand as to what they're planning on doing for Friday's debate between Congressman Carnahan and the shameless Ed Martin (7 PM at the Forest Park Theater, 5600 Oakland Ave. in St. Louis). They posted today a video of clueless tea party members loudly laughing and yelling whenever Russ Carnahan made true statements about the health care reform plan:


Now, the tea party blog post claimed that they were laughing because Carnahan said that it would be deficit neutral and save money, but that something couldn't both be neutral and save money.

However, this is not really why they were laughing. Here's the actual quote from Carnahan:

The Congressional Budget Office analyzed the current plan and said that it was not only deficit neutral...but also that over 10 years it would create a $6 billion dollar surplus.

Now, it's true that if "deficit neutral" just meant a deficit that was neutral, then it wouldn't correctly refer to a deficit that had a surplus. However, the term "deficit neutral" is a actually a term of art that refers to policies or plans that do not add to the deficit. It is used as a criterion for certian policies under the assumption that creating a deficit, all things being equal, should be avoided. However, since creating a surplus is a good thing (all things being equal), nobody thinks it is a mark against a policy if it is not "deficit neutral" because it creates a surplus. Thus, the term "deficit neutral," as it is used in policy, denotes policies that don't create new deficits, and this is clearly how Carnahan was using the term.

But anyway, none of this is why the tea party members were shouting and laughing. They were shouting and laughing because they were following the mob rule. In fact, this was back in 2009, and they had been given instructions to shout and interrupt, and they were all-too-happy to oblige. And since they are releasing this video the day before the Carnahan/Ed Martin debate, we can assume that they're planning on creating a similar atmosphere for that event. They will laugh and shout at what Carnahan has to say, even if they have no idea if it is true or not, because following the leader in an angry mob is so much easier than engaging in thoughtful reflection.

St. Louis Tea Party Decides To Be Even More Subservient to Roy Blunt

A long while ago, the St. Louis took their shot at being a group that actually fought for the values they claimed to endorse. They held a press conference demanding that Roy Blunt endorse Doug Hoffman in the NY-23 race over Dede Scozzafava. They said that if he didn't, "We will vote you out! We will come at you with so much heat, you won't even know how to handle it!"

Roy Blunt didn't endorse Hoffman. He completely ignored the St. Louis tea party. And that was the moment that any claims the St. Louis tea party had of truly standing for conservative values rather than the same old GOP establishment faded away forever. The St. Louis tea party was broken.

Blunt's primary opponent Chuck Purgason did endorse Hoffman. But that didn't make any difference to the St. Louis tea party leadership. They still supported Roy Bailout Blunt, even as 28 other tea party groups around the state did not (and as, nationally, tea party groups took out Republican incumbents). At yesterday's tea party rally in St. Louis, the St. Louis tea party gave Blunt center stage.

Image credit: Jo Mannies at the Beacon.

But even more telling is that in a recent interview, Bill Hennessy is lamenting that the tea party doesn't grovel enough to Roy Blunt. Here's what Hennessy had to say:

Talking to Roy Blunt, he said, “It’s so rare when I or my colleagues does something that’s not popular to hear you, Bill, come out and say, “Hey, get off his back, he did the right thing. You may applaud quietly or write something nice about the legislation overall on your blog, but rarely do you step out and say, ‘No, we’re with him.’ But when we vote the way you don’t like, we sure as hell hear from you.”

He’s right. And I’d never thought of it….we want to change that…

Awww, how sad! So you see conservatives, next time someone says that Roy Blunt isn't actually a fiscal conservative and didn't actually balance the budget, you need to respond that it's all because the tea party just wasn't nice enough to him. That is, until Bill Hennessy came along.

Unintentional Irony Alert: The Astroturf St. Louis Tea Party

Dana Loesch was angry about the fact that singer Kim Massie backed out of the 9/12 tea party rally because she didn't want to be used as a political pawn, and had the following to say on her blog:

Something to note: Massie was invited by the Lt. Governor of Missouri and was reportedly excited to debut her song about 9/11 at the 9/12 event. It was never marketed as anything but a tea party event.

Sad that the left is so uncomfortable with the idea of a huge grassroots movement which isn’t under the sway of a political party.

So Loesch says that the tea party "isn't under the sway of a political party," just two sentences after noting that the Republican Lt. Governor was helping to book guests for the rally! When Republican politicians are scheduling your guests for you, yes you are under the sway of a political party!

This might be surprising to some, but hopefully not to readers of this blog since I've been documenting the astroturf nature of the St. Louis tea party for a while now, culminating in the fact that the St. Louis tea party was one of the few (in fact, maybe the only) tea party group(s) in the state to refuse to sign on to a letter stating that they had not endorsed Roy Blunt in the Republican primary. Loesch reinforced their astroturf credentials yesterday by tweeting the following:


Now we know that the St. Louis tea party leaders love them some attention, but what was odd is that Loesch complimented an article by Jake Wagman that questions whether the tea party is a tool of the Republican Party:

Support for Blunt may fuel criticism that the Tea Party is a thinly veiled extension of the GOP. Yet the November election will offer an insight into the strengths — and shortcomings — of the insurgent movement.

The St. Louis tea party has been astroturf from the very start, and their support of Republican insiders like Roy Blunt and Ed Martin only reinforces that fact.

Dana Loesch to Rest of World: If You Want Me to Notice You, You'll Have to Pay Me Like Ed Martin Does

Dana Loesch wrote a post a few days ago on "marketers, PR, and women bloggers" informing them that she, as someone who gets "40 press releases a day," does not have time "to fake desire to perform a function for you, for free, that most people with two brain cells to rub together either a) request payment for or b) offer some sort of reimbursement." She goes on to clarify:

Basically, don't send me your press releases or expect me to do anything other than hit DELETE unless you do two of these three things, a) being non-negotiable:

a) Realize that I'm a capitalist. I work hard to sustain myself and my family. If you expect me to take more than a fleeting glance of a moment away from my family for the sake of your product you best make it worth my while and while you're at it, have the same consideration for the copious amount of other women bloggers as well.

She also adds:

Also, big government be damned. I've disclosed in the past, a couple years ago when I still did a rare product mention, without Uncle Sam getting all up in my bidness.

As if to illustrate her point, Loesch was the only person this week who mindlessly passed on Ed Martin's dishonest press release pretending he had set up debates with Congressman Russ Carnahan without any comment. And this fits perfectly with Loesch's stated philosophy, given that Martin had paid her husband's business $2,500 in the last year. See, Ed Martin knows how to make it "worth her while", and she in return will pretend that he's a candidate that stands for government transparency despite the fact that he avoided state sunshine laws and abused his power as chief of staff by firing someone who actually did follow the sunshine laws. For the right price, even hiding Big Government operations from the public view can be totally Tea Party, dude.