Gateway Astroturf Initiative Badmouthing Tea Party To Other Conservative Groups, Claiming They Have "Alchohol Problems"

Jen Ennenbach, one of the co-founders of the new Gateway Astroturf Initiative (aka GIGLI), previously wrote the following about the St. Louis Tea Party:

For a movement that screams ”transparency, transparency, transparency!!!!” I certainly see none here. I see: Executive Director who was recently seated to the Board which stroked her ego; an unemployed lawyer, Benjamin Smith Williams (aka Ben Evans), who holds his Bar in New York, not Missouri, but still likes to act as legal counsel here; a loose cannon, John Burns who has been out of the Tea Party movement for over a year; another huge-headed blogger who likes to distort truth and is too chickenshit to put his name to half of what he publishes (Darin Morely); Co-founder Bill Hennessy, standing by silently, but driving this all behind the scenes.

But it looks like what she's saying about them behind their backs is even worse. Here's a message from Ennenbach to C. Steven Tucker, a leader of the Chicago Tea Party:


So very classy of Loesch's group to publicly pretend to be staying above the fray while privately smearing their former friends.

Former Tea Party Spokesperson Says Tea Party Was Co-Opted By Ed Martin!

Jen Ennenbach, who for a long period of time was described as the "tea party's spokesperson," said on Twitter that the St. Louis Tea Party has been "hijacked" and "co-opted" by Ed Martin operatives with over-inflated egos:

As much as my natural inclinations tempt me to believe this is true, it doesn't entirely make sense. The tea party members criticizing Ann Wagner and others have not been speaking on behalf of the group, but have been making clear they're only speaking for themselves. Is Ennenbach criticizing them just for expressing their own opinions?

Dan Riehl Responds to St. Louis Tea Party Allegations

As I noted previously, members of the St. Louis Tea Party alleged that political consultant Chip Gerdes ghost wrote a blog post for blogger Dan Riehl on Big Government attacking congressional candidate Ed Martin. Here's what they wrote:

As mentioned at the top, Hoft was quoted in the first hit piece against Ed Martin that came out last August on Big Government. That piece, supposedly written by Dan Riehl, sparked a firestorm among Tea Party conservatives in Missouri. Upon questioning, Chip Gerdes, another paid political consultant, stated that he wrote the piece as a “warning shot” to Ed Martin because of comments that Martin made on a Christian AM radio station. If Gerdes is writing hit pieces for Ann Wagner and publishing them under Dan Riehl’s name, what else has he written?

I asked Riehl on Twitter how many of his posts had been written by political consultants and this is how he responded:

I then pointed out that I was merely quoting the tea party:

His response:

So Riehl is on record denying the claims by Burns, Moore, and Evans that political consultant Chip Gerdes wrote a blog post for him. It seems like the burden is now on them to provide evidence to back up their claims; otherwise there's no particular reason to take their word over anyone else's.

St. Louis Tea Party Leaders Slam Gateway Pundit!

Obviously, I have no love for Ed Martin. And I'm on record as being critical of the St. Louis Tea Party for claiming to be principled while supporting Roy Blunt over Chuck Purgason and Ed Martin over John Wayne Tucker. But I have to say I actually do have some sympathy for the core group that, unlike Dana Loesch and Jim Hoft, is at least attempting to move forward by holding true to their ideals and opposing the GOP establishment. Though I think they're wrong in believing that Ed Martin is a principled conservative, it is at least clear that they felt like voting for Blunt was merely an imperfect step towards their ultimate goal, and that they would have to try to more actively oppose the crony capitalism of the modern Republican party in the future if they really wanted to live up to their ideals.

On the other hand, Dana Loesch, who voted for Mitt Romney in the 2008 primary and explicitly said that she liked RomneyCare before realizing that it was more profitable to be a "tea party spokesperson" on national television, is unsurprisingly abandoning Ed Martin in favor of Roy Blunt's 2010 campaign manager, GOP insider Ann Wagner. And Jim "Gateway Pundit" Hoft, writing on Loesch's website Big Journalism, also recently launched an attack on Ed Martin. However, members of the St. Louis tea party leadership Michelle Moore, John Burns, and Ben Evans wrote a recent post dismantling Hoft's attacks on Martin. You can read the full post here, but I'll share a few highlights:

• First, they point out that Martin didn't turn the race ugly; he was actually the target of an attack from Dan Riehl earlier in the year on Breitbart's Big sites (where Loesch is an editor).
• They reiterate Darin Morley's point that it was ridiculous for Hoft to try to imply that Ed Martin is more connected to Roy Blunt than is Ann Wagner.
• They criticized Hoft's attempts to pretend that Wagner's husband is no longer involved in advocating on behalf of Enterprise Rent-a-Car:

  As everyone in the Tea Party knows Ray delisted himself in preparation for Ann’s campaign; however, he is still Enterprise's Government & Public Affairs Vice-President. In that capacity, he oversees Enterprise's lobbying and he helps determine where their campaign funds go. Again, Jim knows this, but deliberately ignores it in the post.

• They point out that Chip Gerdes, a familiar creepy scuzzbucket for readers of this blog, said that he wrote Dan Riehl's original attack on Ed Martin as a "warning shot:"

  As mentioned at the top, Hoft was quoted in the first hit piece against Ed Martin that came out last August on Big Government. That piece, supposedly written by Dan Riehl, sparked a firestorm among Tea Party conservatives in Missouri. Upon questioning, Chip Gerdes, another paid political consultant, stated that he wrote the piece as a “warning shot” to Ed Martin because of comments that Martin made on a Christian AM radio station.

• They also question where Hoft got his data and whether he even did his own writing:

  If Gerdes is writing hit pieces for Ann Wagner and publishing them under Dan Riehl’s name, what else has he written?...We ask: Where did those figures come from? Dan Riehl and Dana Loesch have written on Twitter and in Tea Party emails that hundreds of thousands of dollars were given to Ed Martin by Ann Wagner’s Enterprise connections. This has been proven false. Who gave Jim the data and where is it? Let’s see some research.

The biggest criticism of the tea party, though, is that Hoft attributed their research to Ed Martin, even though he should have known better. St. Louis Tea Party founder Bill Hennessy, who wasn't one of the authors of the post, suggests that Hoft "intentionally deceived his readers" in the comments:

I, too, am disappointed by Jim Hoft's inconsistency and deception.

Inconsistency: Jim approved of Dan Riehl's Big Government hit piece on Ed Martin some months ago--the one that rehashed old Carnahan distortions that 24th State shot down in 2010.

Deception: Jim knows that St. Louis Tea Party researchers, not the Ed Martin campaign, performed the research and supplied it to Daily Caller. I was present when Jim was told. By pretending otherwise, Jim seems to intentionally deceive Gateway Pundit readers.

Cordially,
Bill Hennessy

So, there are a lot of questions there, but my biggest one is this: will Hoft even acknowledge the criticisms? We all know he ignores arguments from almost anyone who disagrees with him, but will he be equally afraid of debate with his fellow members of the tea party? They also suggest that Loesch should give them a platform on her radio show or on Big Journalism to respond, and I think they have a strong point.

MO-02: Ed Martin and Ann Wagner Attack Each Other Though Discredited Right-Wing Blogs

This is too funny. Ed Martin and Ann Wagner are all nicey nicey when they participate in debates and campaign events related to the GOP primary in Missouri's Second Congressional District. Martin, if you recall, even asked Wagner to sign a pledge to avoid personal attacks and focus on the issues. Of course, what that means for Martin is to use anonymous attacks and smears from supportive bloggers to attack his opponents, which is what he would do anyway.

Martin's campaign apparently sent an attack over to Tucker's Carlson's trashy site, The Daily Caller, claiming that Enterprise Rent-a-Car is trying to buy a seat in Congress via Wagner. The Caller claims that Wagner's husband, Raymond, is, "Enterprise’s government and public affairs vice president and a registered lobbyist." They further point out that Wagner has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars from Enterprise or Enterprise-related employees. Finally, for added effect, the author of the Daily Caller post linked to a Wall Street Journal article claiming Enterprise was among different rental car groups that had specifically asked for a bailout from the government.

In response to the Daily Caller carrying out a Team Martin hit job, Team Wagner responded with a post from Jim "Gateway Pundit" Hoft on the equally disreputable blog Big Journalism. Shockingly, for perhaps the first time in his long career, Hoft manages to locate a couple of actual facts to support his case. It turns out that the day after the Wall Street Journal article came out, the Post-Dispatch reported that Enterprise did not want any bailout money, specifically citing the WSJ report as incorrect. So, once again, we see an apparent example of Ed Martin's campaign pushing bogus charges to smear his opponents.

As for the other stuff, Team Martin might have a point. It's true, as Hoft says, that Wagner's husband resigned from being a registered lobbyist for Enterprise when her campaign started. But that technicality means very little; our government is full of examples of revolving door politics where lobbyists quit their day jobs to work for the government crafting rules to promote the industries they just left. So it's hard to imagine that Wagner would not do the bidding of Enterprise in congress, given her fundraising network through the company and her husband's close connections, at least if she follows the example of most other congresspeople.

Also, this has seemingly turned into a battle between the tea party members who have been successful (in publicity terms) and those that haven't. Jim Hoft and Dana Loesch have apparently taken sides with Wagner, and appear to be hoping to increase their influence on the national Republican party by abandoning Ed Martin and cozying up to a very connected fundraiser and political player. On the other hand, tea partiers who have comparatively not been very successful (Jonathan Burns, Ben Evans, Darin Morley, Bill Hennessy) are sticking with Martin out of loyalty and a false belief that Martin actually represents conservative values. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Clarification

A silly blog post at 24th State is claiming that the UMSL students we interviewed about an incident last Saturday were "bearing false witness." Here's what the post had to say:

Up first was an anonymous woman who used charged language to assert that Sharp tried to violently enter the classroom, but was held back by Giljum, who was trying to protect his students.

They then claim that Adam Sharp's video proves the student wrong. Actually, the description of the student's claims from the 24th state blogger (probably Ben Evans) was false. What the student actually said is the following:

I heard this commotion in the hall, and I looked over to a fellow student and the fellow student asked me "did you see what happened?" and I said "No, what is going on?" He said "it sounds like a fight's out there," and that's when Don came in and what trying to keep the man out...now this man appeared to be crazy because he was trying to come through the door. Don was trying to keep the man out of the classroom and was shouting at the man "Stay out!" And the man tried to come through the door, the man put his hands up like he was going to try to block the door to keep it open while he had a camera in his hand and he was taking pictures of us. And at that point I was just so shocked at what was going on... that this crazy man was trying to get into the classroom...Don was trying to protect the students and keep this crazy man out of the classroom and we were just all in such shock that finally Don got the door slammed. He came in and said they're trying to get in...and thats when Judy, I guess, a police officer came into their room...

Now if the student had said that Sharp "tried to violently enter the room," as 24thstate suggests, then I could see why they'd say that the video shows that the claim was false. However, what she said was that Sharp tried to enter the room, looked crazy, and held a hand up like he was going to try to block the door from closing, and there's nothing in his video that shows that any of those claims are false. In addition, his own video shows that he did film students inside the classroom and posted the video on youtube without their permission. So 24th state is, as usual, clearly wrong.

At Activist Hub, we have described Sharp's behavior in various ways, based on what we heard from the interviews. At times, we've said that he tried to get into the classroom or tried to "barge in" on the class. Again, the video seems consistent with these claims: Sharp appears to be following Giljim into the classroom until Giljim slams the door. On the other hand, the suggestion that Sharp tried to "break in" to the room does at least seem to be inconsistent with the video, although even this claim might be true if he was holding his hand out like he was trying to stop Giljim from closing the door. Anyway, the main points remain the same:

Sharp went to the UMSL campus specifically to pester the instructor and students. In fact, the public announcements all stated that Giljim was not even going to be in class.

Sharp was trespassing on the UMSL campus in a building that's supposed to be restricted to students, faculty, and staff.

Sharp appeared to be trying to follow Giljim into the classroom.

Sharp filmed students in the classroom.

Sharp pestered students as they left the classroom.

Sharp's friend Ben Evans dared students to "take a swing" at him as they were waiting outside the police station to see what happened.

All pretty clear examples of obnoxious behavior from the tea party, after they were already caught lying about the content of the course.

It's the St. Louis Tea Party's Birthday and All They Got Was This Crappy Blog Post

Two years ago, the St. Louis tea party kicked off with a rally at the Arch grounds. They've had larger rallies since then (though never nearly as large as they claim they are), and last year held an anniversary rally at the Arch with roughly the same amount of people as the first one. Ironically, the rally one year ago might have been the start of their decline, with the leaders of the tea party pushing an anti-public transit agenda that didn't resonate with their membership. As the past year has gone on, it's become more and more clear that the leadership of the St. Louis tea party has not been interested in listening to their membership, but rather has been pushing their own careers and names often at the expense of their "movement."

After they failed to elect their hand-picked candidate Ed Martin in a Republican wave election, they have shown basically no signs of still being a viable group. They held a rally a few weeks ago outside of Senator McCaskill's office that attracted only 20 people. Their excuse was that it was snowing, but of course 100,000 rallied yesterday in Wisconsin in the snow. Then, when Ed Martin held an "Obamacare" meeting, his supporters were massively outnumbered by healthcare reform supporters (update: looks like the tea party did worse than even what was originally reported). Yesterday, the tea parties across the state were out-organized in Jefferson City by MoveOn.org while unions were busy working in St. Louis and Kansas City. The St. Louis tea party leadership recently picked a fight with absurd attacks on the Missouri Republican leadership over issues that have nothing to do with the core tea party principles, and then weren't even able to fight their own battles, instead running crying to their surrogate mother, Mike Flynn at Big Government. And now, on the anniversary of the St. Louis tea party, we see that they didn't even have the capacity to organize a rally for their anniversary. All they could do was try to flood Twitter with misinformation and selectively edited videos.

I've been saying for a long time that the tea party leadership is disconnected from their base, and has been cynically using them rather than actually focusing on issues that would improve people's lives. Ironically, I don't think my writing has had much to do with the shift: the tea party has been busy burning their own bridges with allies for quite some time now.

How Sad Are They? Tea Party Leaders Lie About Restore Sanity Rally

I'm not sure how empty your life would have to be to think this is a good idea.

Leaders of the St. Louis Tea Party, including Bill Hennessy, Jim Hoft, Darin Morley, and Ben Evans, went to the arch grounds after the main Restore Sanity satellite rally was over to take pictures pretending that the crowd size was small. Here's a picture Hennessy took with the caption: "tens rally for democrats on steps of the arch:"



The St. Louis tea party official Twitter account also posted this picture with the caption"Restoring Sanity 10 people at a time"



Except that, unfortunately for the tea party, the Post-Dispatch was there during the actual rally, and they reported that 1,000 people were there:


(image credit: Post-Dispatch. BTW, this crowd is roughly half of what the tea party had when they hosted a rally for the entire middle third of the country)

For the life of me, I don't even understand why they would care about a comedy rally. Isn't it obvious that their best option would be to focus on Get Out the Vote efforts and simply ignore Stewart and Colbert? I think they look incredibly petty by getting so upset about a rally by a couple of Comedy Central comedians (however great those comedians are) asking for sanity in political discourse.