Right-Wing Bloggers Gloriously Prove They Have No Idea How Elections Work

We all know the tea party used to go to great lengths to exaggerate the size of crowds at their events.  But even so, they were at least capable of drawing something that could legitimately be called a crowd.  That no longer seems to be the case.  Mike Flynn, a co-founder of Breitbart, ran a "campaign" for disgraced Republican Congressman Aaron Schock's vacated seat, and one of his big events was a "Flags and Fun" rally featuring Jim Hoft in the same Quincy Illinois park that had hosted several large tea party events in the past.  This time around, they couldn't even draw 50 people:

What's more, the right-wing blogosphere went all in for Flynn.  Breitbart.com, of course, wrote numerous articles attacking his primary opponent LaHood (often, unsurprisingly, without noting the conflict of interest), but that was just the tip of the iceberg.  Many (most?) rightwing bloggers billed this as an epic battle between the "grassroots" and the establishment.  And guess what?  The establishment, aka LaHood, won the primary by over 40% of the vote.  It was an absolute landslide.  It was almost as if conservative bloggers were trying to prove that they are completely beholden to the whims of the establishment GOP.  When they're not being actively propped up by Americans for Prosperity, or Fox News, or the health insurance or coal industries, they really have no ability to make much of a difference in elections, even in deep red districts like Illinois 18.

Guy Who Said Conservatives Should "Kill The Claire Bear" Can't Figure Out Why Democrats Think Akin's Views Are Outside the Mainstream

When we last heard from St. Louis-based tea party activist Scott Boston, he was telling a Missouri tea party audience the following about Senator McCaskill:

“She walks around like she’s some sort of Rainbow Brite Care Bear or something but really she’s an evil monster.” “We have to kill the Claire Bear,” he added.

This prompted additional security at Senator McCaskill's events and a harsh rebuke from the Post-Dispatch.

Today, as you can see from the above tweet, Boston is absolutely shocked about a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee email that stated the following:

From his record to his rhetoric, everything about Todd Akin’s Tea Party policies are outside of the mainstream and dangerous for Missouri families.

Noting first that the email was referring to Todd Akin's policies, rather than "conservatives," why would anyone think that Akin's policies are "dangerous" and "outside the mainstream"?  Well, aside from the fact that Akin refused to condemn Boston's "kill the Claire Bear" comments, here are a few reasons:

• The Hill: Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) voted against the creation of a national sex offender registry and against reauthorizing a program that assists runaway and homeless children.
• On CSPAN: In March 2011, Akin said he doesn't like Social Security. "Now, Social Security through the years, for many, many people, has been a terrible investment. It's really a tax, that's all it is. Social Security is a tax. The government has taken the tax. There's been more money coming in than going out. And we spend it. That's not been responsible. I don't like it. I didn't design Social Security. It actually came from Bismarck, FDR put it in place." [CSPAN Washington Journal]
• Fired Up Missouri: ...when giving an interview to Greg Knapp on KCMO, republican extremist Todd Akin stated that he would ban emergency contraception because he "believes it is abortion," and he would ban it for everyone, with no exceptions.
• The Washington Post: In 2012, Akin was one of 24 to vote against the Training and Research for Autism Improvements Nationwide Act; 147 Republicans voted for it. A GOP press release described this as an effort to “advance training and education for autism service providers” so that “autistic children and adults can lead fuller, happier and healthier lives.”
• And: In 2010, Akin was one of only 13 to vote No on a motion “expressing the support of the House of Representatives for the goals and ideals of the National School Lunch Program.” 155 Republicans voted for it.
• And: In 2009, Akin was one of 11 to vote against a measure “expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that providing breakfast in schools through the National School Breakfast Program has a positive impact on classroom performance.” 152 Republicans voted for it.
• Buzzfeed: Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin drew fire from fellow Republicans in the '90s for praising a private militia group associated with extreme anti-abortion actions, according to a 2000 St. Louis Post-Dispatch article.
• Mediaite: Rep. Akin, a veteran and father of three Marines, clues us in about his confusion on the issue with very inarticulate language:

  There is a misunderstanding. If people are gay, they can serve in the military now. It’s just that they can’t allow their ‘gayness’ to get in the way of getting the mission done.

I could go on, but life is too short.

So yeah, even if you don't think that conservatives are "dangerous" and "outside the mainstream" you certainly have reasons for thinking that Akin's policies are.

Tea Party County Executive Sued for Allegedly Firing Prosecutor for "Not Protecting Him Politically"

The new County Executive in Jefferson County, Ken Waller, is being sued by former county municipal prosecutor Daniel James, who claims that Waller fired him because Waller was afraid that James "wouldn't protect him politically." Waller, who's a member of the Jefferson County Tea Party and who spoke at one of their rallies while he was running for office, reportedly told James that his decision to fire him "had nothing to do with what James did or did not do while James had been County Municipal Court Prosecutor but that Waller needed someone in office who would protect him politically." However, according to the County Charter, the position is a "merit position," which means that James should not have been fired without just cause, and in particular can not be fired because of his well-known affiliation with the Democratic Party.

Furthermore, James was not given a hearing before being fired, which again goes specifically against the language of the Merit System outlined in the County Charter.

Thanks to Nicholas Phillips at the RFT, you can read the lawsuit here:
James v Waller et al

Ann Wagner Defends Dick Lugar From Tea Party Attacks

Jo Mannies at the Beacon reported that Ann Wagner will be co-hosting a fundraiser for Dick Lugar, who's trying to fend off a likely primary challenge from tea party favorite Richard Mourdock:

Some of the region's most prominent Republican activists -- including Sam Fox, Roy Pfautch and possible U.S. Senate candidate Ann Wagner -- are co-hosting a fundraising event later this month to aid veteran U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., who's facing a stiff primary challenge in 2012.

It continues:

Fox's letter goes on to warn that Lugar is expected "to face a formidable competitor" in 2012. What it doesn't mention is that the rival, for the moment, is a prominent fellow Republican: Indiana state Treasurer Richard Mourdock, who is apparently close to the Tea Party movement in his state.

In fact, the Washington publication The Hill reports this week that some Indiana GOP members of Congress, including Mike Pence, are declining to endorse Lugar's re-election, choosing instead to remain neutral.

Earlier in the year, Lugar told the tea party to "get real" because of their opposition to the START treaty.

Tea Party Performance Was Worse Than We Thought

Michael Bersin at Show Me Progress posted some photos from the dueling rallies yesterday and, wow, it was even worse than I realized for the tea party. From the photos, it looks like they have 40-50 people tops, while the pro-union side has many, many more.

Obama Captures Essence of Tea Party in Bill O'Reilly interview

By now most of you know how President Obama took Bill O'Reilly to the woodshed, in his pre-Superbowl interview. O'Reilly, long accustomed to intimidating and dominating his guests, found it difficult to dent Obama's Teflon demeanor. I'm not an expert but O'Reilly looked intimidated and frightened by the President's poise. Aside from the aesthetics, Obama made a point I think ought to be repeated. When O'Reilly asked the President whether he was disturbed that "people hated him" he answered in this way:

OBAMA:The truth is, the people and--and I'm sure previous presidents would say the same thing--The people who dislike you don't know you...

O'REILLY: But they hate you.

OBAMA: The folks who hate you don't know you--

O'REILLY: That's true--

OBAMA:What they hate is whatever fun house mirror image of you that's out there. They don't hate you, and so you don't take it personally.

The "they" that O'Reilly was probably referring to, includes the Tea Party cohort and the Republican rank-and-file. Their personal disapproval animates much of the emotional and visceral reaction this faction of the country has towards Obama. Obama's answer accurately captures the Tea Party; though they claim they want to put an end to "big government," "tax and spend liberalism," and socialized medicine," much of this is just a rhetorical cover: government spending increased dramatically under Republican President George Bush, and no Tea Parties sprout up. Taxes are at there lowest point in 50 years, and the Obama Health care plan is roughly the same as the policy implemented by Mitt Romney (R-MA) in Massachusetts, and one endorsed by Bob Dole the 1996 Republican Presidential Nominee. None of these policies spawned the raucous opposition Obama faces today, although the people opposing him cite the very proposals Republicans supported in the past.

These facts have been thoroughly documented but I feel the need to repeat them because Democrats are operating under the idea that they should strive to find middle ground with the conservative base or politicians beholden to it. Recent moves to the "center" by Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), and articles like this one in the Washington Post, on the demise of the corporatist (though self styled centrist) Democratic Leadership Council are in part based on the idea that liberal overreach has caused Democrats to lose. And Per-Digby Democrats clearly believe that their losses in the midterms are cause because they were too liberal and hope governing from the "Center" will bring them victory.

Obviously from a progressive perspective politicians McCaskill are far superior to their right-wing alternatives. But Democrats who feel that taking up "centrist" positions on issues like the budget, or trying to find common ground on abortion will somehow generate goodwill from Republicans have miscalculated. To repeat Obama "What they hate is what ever fun house mirror image of you is out there." Obama, McCaskill, and other Democrats generate intense personal dislike from conservatives simply by virtue of being Democrats. And no matter how much Democrats "Move to the Center" the Republican base will still oppose them viciously.

Furthermore terms like Centrism and Moderate are constantly changing. Tea Party outrage made policies that Bush, Romney, and Dole endorsed in the past suddenly radical Marxist ideas. Rather than simply allowing the goalposts to shift, and meekly give in to the "fun house" personalization of their policies Democrats should articulate and seriously fight for the progressive policies they claim to believe in.

Democratic Party leaders have historically let themselves and their policies be caricatured as the epitome of evil, and unfortunately for them, desperately flailing toward the "Center" has not mitigated this caricature. President Clinton's famed "triangulation" didn't stop him from being impeached. And in 2010 most of the Democrats who voted against health care reform went down in defeat (including Ike Skelton D-Missouri). None of this is to say that the Democratic Party should attempt to shut out conservatives. But the party spent most of the last two years watering down legislation to appeal to Republicans and work out compromises, and for Republicans compromise is only possible if their positions are adopted whole sale (re:Bush Tax Cut extensions). I hope President Obama and Democrats reflect on the fact that the conservative bases' intense disapproval of them is premised on a "fun house mirror image" created in part by the Right wing media. Aborting, or not articulating progressive policies will not appease them.

Olbermann's Special Comment

If the Tea Party Wins, America Loses:

Brain Nieves Refers to Assault Rifle as "The Nancy Pelosi Special"

Republican State Representative Brian Nieves, known for extremist antics and alleged to have assaulted the staffer for his Republican Primary rival (pulling a gun on the staffer Sean Bell, slapping and head-butting Bell while claiming he was going to kill him, forcing him to strip and lie and the floor, and using the n-word repeatedly) earlier in the year referred to an assault rifle as "the Nancy Pelosi Special" on his radio program "The Patriot Enclave." Nieves was discussing the fact that FiredUp Missouri had earlier posted a clip of him when he was discussing an assault rifle, which he referred to as "the Nancy Pelosi special," and suggested that FiredUp had referred to him as an "extremist." Here's the new video where he uses the term "Nancy Pelosi Special":




Other highlights from the full video of Nieves' radio show:

Nieves repeatedly referred to a different gun as "the preferred gun for assassins" (0:20) and said you can, "put like three rounds in someone's head before they realize they've been shot," (10:00).

Nieves defended (29:30) the use of the term "assault rifle," saying, "I understand what an assault rifle is for . . . that gun was and is designed specifically for the elimination of bad guys."

Now I can't speak for FiredUp, but I'm going to out on a limb here and say that, yes, Brian Nieves is pretty clearly an extremist.

Tea Party Redux

First, I'd like to thank Adam for letting me post. I've never written for a group blog before, and on my personal blog I occasionally dabble in politics but really, just as often, I write about buying new shoes. So we'll see how this goes.

Do you know what's happening in downtown St. Louis on April 15? The St. Louis Tea Party. This is an anti-tax protest organized by two radio personalities from the local Fox News Radio affiliate, 97.1 FM. It's actually a repeat of the first tea party protest in St. Louis, which took place on February 27 and turned up gems like this protest sign: "Let's Keep the Tea, Dump the Politicions." The protest was largely in response to the passage of the stimulus bill- you can read the Post-Dispatch article here. The P-D also ran an editorial a few days later, suggesting that it might be counterproductive to dump tea into the Mississippi River when a lot of people in our community are struggling to buy food. According to the editorial, one in six Missourians is eligible for federal nutritional assistance. Of course, people on food stamps probably qualify as free loaders, right?

The tea party protests aren't confined to St. Louis, this is actually a nationwide movement. The national website, Tax Day Tea Party, explains that the protests are a response to CNBC's Rick Santelli and his attempts to "expose the bankrupt liberal agenda of the White House and Congress." I've read the "About" sections on both the national and local protest websites, and looked through photos from the February 27 protest in St. Louis in order to read the signs and placards of the protesters, and I'm still not 100% clear on what is being protested. Here are some possibilities:

1) "Big government," which seems to mean a government that spends money in any way with which you disagree.

2) As seen in the above-linked photo, free loaders. Unclear who qualifies. My student loans are subsidized through federal programs, am I a free loader? Probably.

3) People who don't have jobs. See here.

4) Income tax and payroll tax. No, really.

5) The Congressional habit of passing legislation without actually reading it. This is actually a really valid argument, and CBS has a nice article outlining the problem. Pushing through legislation without adequate time for review is how we ended up with the USA PATRIOT Act. But I don't think tossing some tea into the river will do much to implement what is, in the end, a massive reform of Congressional practice.

6) National health care.

7) I actually have no idea what this man is protesting, but he's definitely upset. About something.

8) Socialism. This is an oldie but a goodie. I know it's become a reflexive argument for a lot of people on the right, but it's also really lazy, and it makes it clear that they have zero understanding of differing economic theories. Socialism is not the same as communism, nor is it the same as Marxism, nor is it the same as liberalism. This article is a useful breakdown of liberalism v. socialism. I know it's not very fun, it doesn't make for snappy slogans to put on your protest signs, but it really is important to understand the evolution of economic thought and the ways in which different schools of economic thought continue to shape the policies of our country and others. Robert L. Heilbroner wrote an excellent primer on economic theories, The Worldly Philosophers: The Lives, Times and Ideas of the Great Economic Thinkers. The book ranges from Smith to Malthus and Ricardo, covering the utopian socialists and then on to Marx and Veblen and Keynes. Maybe that guy should read it.

In the end, I have to agree with Steve Benen at The Washington Monthly:

I suspect one of the problems with the Tea Parties is that it's not altogether clear what they're rallying for. They're conservatives who don't like the Democratic domestic policy agenda; this much is clear. But usually there's some kind of point to organized political events, and the Tea Parties are still a little vague.

I take it they don't like the economic stimulus package, but that's already passed. They don't like budget deficits, unless they're run by Republican presidents. They don't want their taxes to go up, but Obama has already passed a significant middle-class tax cut, which by most measures, is the largest tax cut ever signed by a U.S. president.

So, angry, right-wing activists are going to get together to demand ... what exactly? A 36% top rate instead of a 39.6% top rate? A $3.1 trillion federal budget instead of a $3.5 trillion budget? It's hardly the stuff of a credible and coherent political movement.

It will be interesting to see what happens at the April 15 protests, here and around the country. Keep an eye out for the protesters if you're downtown- the St. Louis protest site has details. Maybe there will be a more coherent articulation of their demands, maybe not. Either way I bet there'll be more fun stuff like this- yeah, it's juvenile. But c'mon, that's funny.