Archive for February, 2010
PJM: Does Sarah Palin Lead The Tea Party Movement?
Wednesday, February 10th, 2010
There’s a lot of talk about who is and is not in charge of the Tea Party movement. Most of what passes for insight from the mainstream media is utterly bogus. They simply cannot comprehend the phenomenon or the motivations of those involved.
I write about it for Pajamas today. Here’s a snippet:
People who talk about a tea party leader have no experience with tea parties. If they did, they’d realize the notion of a tea party leader or someone “hijacking the movement” would be absurd.
Tea party participants aren’t as recalcitrant and generally grumpy as Ron Paul followers, but they’re close. And while less conspiratorial than the Paul followers, they’re certainly more ticked off.
Jim Geraghty summed it up on Twitter this week: “Trying to direct & control the tea party movement is like trying to unionize the hitmen in Grosse Pointe Blank.”
Also from Pajamas, Bill Whittle produces the single best explanation for the movement yet. It’s excellent and well worth the 9 minute watch time.
Who does lead the Tea Party movement?
Armano: You Are The Media. Do You Trust You? Me: Trust Is Topical
Tuesday, February 9th, 2010David Armano a Twitter friend (we’ve never met, but I value his perspective and suspect I’d like him in person) has a must-read piece about trust in the media. And since we are all media now, who do we trust? His whole piece is worth reading, so please go look at the research, and then come back here for my thoughts.
It’s simple, really. We trust those who we respect, but we respect different people depending on the circumstances.
So, when I ask an opinion about guns on Twitter, I listen to the recommendations given by former military, current CHL instructors who are police chiefs. I could listen to my brother, and I do, he has some valuable insight, but I more heavily weight the expert.
The same is true for nearly every topic. I have a friend who I call when I have a economics questions. I have a friend who knows everything about Texas tax policy. Then there’s the local blogger who knows every dirty nook and cranny of Houston politics.
My brain doesn’t have enough room for all this information. It doesn’t need to have it. I have trusted advisers everywhere who can help me.
When it comes to social media growth, development and research, I trust David Armano. His advice and information over the time I’ve been on Twitter has been solid. Had he flaked out at some point, I’d discard his advice. So far, he’s still reliable.
There are an infinite number of “experts” who are regular people just like me but who have expertise in a slice of information. They become my friends. I value their perspective even more.
Or not. There are some people I don’t particularly like, but they have extraordinary insight in an area and I respect that.
With social media, who qualifies as an expert is fluid. People can observe another’s intellectual implosion online and a once-valued expert becomes a former expert in short order.
Where my opinion conflicts with David’s perspective is this: I may have a couple thousand friends on Facebook and Twitter (which I do) but I won’t trust them just because they give me an opinion. Human interaction is far more nuanced than that.
Just one example: I asked my followers on Twitter to recommend a cake company in Washington, D.C. Five people recommended the same place. But one of my friends recommended that place plus a place that was even better that was near her home. In addition, she said she’d help me pick up the cake. So I Googled both cake shops, called both cake shops, got stellar service from the out-of-the-way place and called in assistance from my friend.
Did I trust all the recommendations? Yes. Absolutely. But I also made my purchase decision based on intangibles and finally, the old business stand-by–customer service.
Social media is a tricky thing to study. It’s not like Google, where every metric can be broken down. It’s more human, more fickle, but the data a user gathers can be infinitely more helpful and accurate. I choose Twitter and Facebook over Google every day. Or rather, I get their recommendations and then Google the filtered information.
I trust my friends. I also verify. And an “expert” is all in the eye of the beholder.
The Dicey Search For A GOP Savior: The Case Of Paul Ryan
Tuesday, February 9th, 2010
Desperate for an articulate spokesman, many in the GOP seem willing to accept nearly any Republican politician as long as he meets these criteria:
1. Good looking
2. Well-spoken
3. Likable
While these traits are certainly nice, they’re not going to necessarily change governance much unless the inside of the person has some core conservative values.
Supporting a candidate or politicians with only these traits leads some to believe that the Republican party has no core values–that they’re still operating from a foundation of expedience.
Enter Paul Ryan. Matt Lewis has a piece up about the love affair with Paul Ryan and says this:
Though he talks like Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, some of Ryan’s most high-profile votes seem closer to Keynes than to Adam Smith. For example, in the span of about a year, Ryan committed fiscal conservative apostasy on three high-profile votes: The Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP (whereby the government purchased assets and equity from financial institutions), the auto-bailout (which essentially implied he agrees car companies – especially the ones with an auto plant in his district—are too big to fail), and for a confiscatory tax on CEO bonuses (which essentially says the government has the right to take away private property—if it doesn’t like you).
While Ryan’s overall voting record is very conservative, the problem with casting these high-profile votes is that they demonstrate he is willing to fundamentally reject conservatism when the heat is on.
Because it is impossible to believe the highly intelligent and well read Rep. Ryan was unfamiliar with conservative economic principles, one must conclude he either 1). Doesn’t really believe in free market economics, or 2). Was willing to cast bad votes for purely political purposes.
From my standpoint, ignorance can be forgiven and overcome; the other explanations, however, seem to be disqualifiers for higher office.
Should a guy like Paul Ryan be encouraged? I have called him a “rising star” myself.
Does the Republican party risk losing good leaders if they’re “imperfect”?
Well, it seems to me that fiscal conservatism should be a baseline for any Republican. Paul Ryan’s votes from here on out need to be examined. Yes, he’s a nice looking, well-spoken, charismatic politician. He also needs to be part of the change Washington needs to fiscal restraint.
This Is Rich: The Obama Administration Says Some Critics “Serving The Goals Of Al Qaeda”
Tuesday, February 9th, 2010From the USA Today, an op-ed by John Brennan where he concludes:
Cries to try terrorists only in military courts lack foundation. There have been three convictions of terrorists in the military tribunal system since 9/11, and hundreds in the criminal justice system — including high-profile terrorists such as Reid and 9/11 plotter Zacarius Moussaoui.
This administration’s efforts have disrupted dozens of terrorist plots against the homeland and been responsible for killing and capturing hundreds of hard-core terrorists, including senior leaders in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and beyond — far more than in 2008. We need no lectures about the fact that this nation is at war.
Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda. Terrorists are not 100-feet tall. Nor do they deserve the abject fear they seek to instill. They will, however, be dismantled and destroyed, by our military, our intelligence services and our law enforcement community. And the notion that America’s counterterrorism professionals and America’s system of justice are unable to handle these murderous miscreants is absurd.
I actually agree: Politics have no place in national security.
But this admonishment is nigh unto guffaw-worthy coming from an administration that got elected on the politically charged platform of closing Guantanemo, stopping “torture” (the military does not and never has tortured), and “gaining respect” in the world again–implying that President Bush diminished respect.
In fact, President Obama cannot stop blaming President Bush, who managed to keep America safe after 9/11.
A year ago, when President Obama gave his Egypt speech and then softened his stance to terrorism and used the language of appeasement, I wrote that he would pay an inordinately high political price should America get attacked.
Well, America has been attacked…and not just one time. And when America has been attacked, the administration has bumbled around both rhetorically and policy-wise. They don’t know what they’re doing. It’s obvious.
And the administration has used political theater to try to win points with the public and their greater audience the world, by bringing the Khalid Sheik Mohammed trial to New York City. The only problem is that no one wants the trial there, including the very liberal New Yorkers who voted for Obama. Oops! Wrong use of politics!
So, while the Obama administration is coming around to Bush-style terrorism approaches, they don’t want politics used against them. Well, the American people aren’t interested in fighting fair. They’re interested in their commander-in-chief having a spine.
When President Obama is perceived as weak, it doesn’t matter if every single policy is the same as the Bush administration–it’s not, but for the sake of argument. The American people won’t forgive harm in the face of weakness.
I submit that President Bush would have gotten more of a pass had another attack happened because people perceived that he was doing everything within his power to fight terrorism. And he didn’t wince when he talked about evil jihadists.
Jake Tapper has more.
Pro-Life Groups In Wisconsin Illegally Investigated By Government And Police
Tuesday, February 9th, 2010Remember when Janet Napolitano included Pro-Life groups in her terrorist lists? Yeah, well, looks like her talk resulted in illegal government action. From Lifenews:
In response to an open records request by the Alliance Defense Fund and Pro-Life Wisconsin, the Middleton Police Department and the Wisconsin Department of Justice, along with the Department of Homeland Security all refused on February 4 to release copies of the threat assessment.
Pro-Life Wisconsin officials told LifeNews.com that the assessment was “inappropriately shared” and should never have targeted pro-life groups.
“The majority of Americans identify themselves as pro-life, and the Middleton Police Department has shown they are out of touch with this peaceful majority,” said Peggy Hamill, state director of the pro-life group. “Pro-lifers are not a minority of the population, nor are they second-class citizens. We refuse to let our First Amendment rights be silenced.”
A few months later in 2009, the Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights concluded the investigation was an improper use of department resources.
The conclusion said the department inappropriately directed against activities protected by the First Amendment, in which law enforcement inappropriately engaged in “the collection, retention and dissemination of U.S. person information regarding protest groups which posed no threat to homeland security and… violated [DHS] Guidelines.”
Hamill said DHS destroyed its copies of the report, but the Middleton Police Department retained its copy.
In January 2010 the Alliance Defense Fund, on behalf of Wisconsin pro-life advocates, asked the Middleton Police Department for a copy of the report pursuant to Wisconsin’s open records laws.
The Middleton Police Department refused to disclose the report and further said that the DOJ similarly refused to authorize disclosure of the report, despite the fact that DHS had already determined that the report was an improper investigation of freedom of speech activities.
“This move by DHS illustrates the Obama administration’s goal of silencing pro-lifers. It is disturbing that a local police department has apparently tapped into the security apparatus of the federal government to potentially obstruct free speech,” Hamill concluded.
“Last year, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano unjustly included pro-lifers in a report on domestic terrorism, and here we see her words in action,” she said.
It’s almost like an enemies list, isn’t it?
Malcolm & Melissa: The Palin Effect And Has Politics Changed Permanently?
Monday, February 8th, 2010
So excited to announce the new podcast I’ll be doing called Malcolm and Melissa.
Andrew Malcolm of the Los Angeles Times Top of the Ticket blog and I will be doing a weekly podcast to wrap up the previous week and look ahead to the new one. Imagine a Sunday show…that’s actually interesting!
Andrew has been a journalist for years. He’s written 10 books. He’s received numerous awards. He served as a press secretary for both Laura and George W. Bush.
It should be an interesting show–new and old media together.
Listen here.
When I get the feed on iTunes worked out, you can subscribe there, too. Thanks for listening!
Sustainable Development: An Example Of Good Governance…From Canada
Monday, February 8th, 2010UPDATED: The whole Sustainable Development, eco-police Audi advertisement thing. Michelle Malkin covers it.
The old saying “all politics is local” is absolutely true. A local politician affects the quality of life on each and every citizen, often in personal ways.
When the left poo-poos Sarah Palin’s experience as mayor, they reveal themselves in a couple ways. One, they’re statists. That is, they want the state, the Federal government, to control everything, so they diminish the achievements of those who succeed locally. Two, they despise the policies it normally takes to make governance work–like no debt.
However, for Republicans and conservatives to succeed, they have to embrace the mantle of local leadership and extend it to the national scene. That means that development isn’t wrong, per se, it’s how development is conducted that is key. Conservatives and Republicans need to stop ceding local governance issues from the school board to the city council to big-government local overlords.
How to do it once in office? This is how:
Mississauga, Ontario mayor Hazel McCallion demonstrates good governance: She has been re-elected 11 times, served for 31 years, maintains a debt-free city with a 700 million safety net.
Watch this video:
You can also go here for the PDF of the city’s finances.
The great thing for America, is that Barack Obama is demonstrating the limitations of statism. It simply doesn’t work. Michigan has tried it. California has tried it. And even still, in those states, there are pockets of growth and development and that’s likely because the local leaders kept taxes low, attracted jobs and created a civic environment conducive to growth.
A big discussion, too, has been circulating about sustainable development. Some conservatives are balking because of a UN plan to enforce worldwide.
But the argument is more nuanced than that. Sustainable development is a good thing–as long as it’s controlled locally. We want the power to be in the local citizen’s hands not in some corruptocrat’s in New York or Washington.
Conservatives need good development plans and need to help define the argument. Dismissing this issue just gives the Democrats and leftists more power.
Local. Local. Local. The strength and power of community starts there so that’s where conservatives should be.
Sarah Palin’s First Stump Speech: With Rick Perry In Houston, Texas
Monday, February 8th, 2010
Sarah Palin visited my neck of the woods yesterday–Cypress, Texas to be exact, which is about a half hour from where I live–to stump for Texas Governor Rick Perry. Perry is being challenged in the primary by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and Debra Medina. I attended the rally, sat on Bloggers row [more here] and brought my kids with me.
Texans love Sarah Palin.
The folks who came to hear Perry and Palin speak, on a Superbowl Sunday, no less, roared their approval for Sarah. She got bigger cheers than did Perry–though he got lots of crowd-love, too.
I live-tweeted both her Saturday-night address to the Tea Party convention and her address here in Texas. Her Texas speech, an official political speech, was better. She was was funny, authentic, gently teased Texans and just seemed to be enjoying herself more.
She dressed unconventionally: furry, wrap-dress and thigh-high purple suede boots. She looked wintery and cute. She had daughter Piper in tow who stood for an impressive half hour listening to her mom and Rick Perry speak.
Why did I go to the stump speech?
Because I am curious. It’s clear to me that both Sarah Palin and Rick Perry have designs on national office. They are good friends and share many political philosophies. I wonder if they’d like to be on the same ticket. Who’d be the top of the ticket? I don’t know. Sarah Palin strikes me as pretty alpha. I have a hard time seeing her play second fiddle again.
Rick Perry doesn’t seem to mind basking in her glow, though.
I found myself musing on their collective experience running two big, energy-producing, economically solvent states. Their small-government drive is looking pretty smart right now.
Texas is a mecca for business which creates jobs. The state enjoys lower unemployment numbers, thus more tax payers, thus less need for out-of-work benefits. It’s a cycle that is good for state fiscal success.
Now, the left hates these two candidates. But it’s hard to argue with their executive experience and proven results.
Pictures here and here. Perry made Sarah Palin an honorary Texan.
Here’s Sarah Palin’s and Rick Perry’s Houston, Texas speech:
Here’s Sarah Palin’s Tea Party speech the night before, in full:
Andrew Malcolm noted these two points in the speech:
Two lines that stuck out in particular:
We need a commander-in-chief, not a professor of law standing at a lectern.
Gee, wonder if she had anyone in particular in mind.
In praise of the grassroots Tea Party activists, she said:
You don’t need an office or a title to make a difference.
Gee, wonder if she had anyone specific in mind.
The anti-DC sentiment was a common thread between the two speeches. She delivered the message better in Texas where she could make a contrast to the policies of Texas.
Presidential aspirations for these two? Absolutely.
Press Release From Tennessee Tea Party Coaltion
Saturday, February 6th, 2010Just In:
Tennessee Tea Party Coalition
Open Press Conference
Nashville, TN – (February 5, 2010) In response to the recent announcement of the Ensuring Liberty PAC from the Tea Party Nation National Convention, the Tennessee Tea Party Coalition (TNTPC) would like to make clear that the tea party movement within the state of Tennessee is unified. On January 23, 2010, Tea Party groups from across the state of Tennessee formed the Tennessee Tea Party Coalition. Fifty-eight delegates representing thirty-four active Tennessee Tea Party groups with a collective membership totaling more than eighteen thousand concerned citizens have formed the coalition.
The Tennessee Tea Party Coalition will hold a press conference Saturday February 6, 2010 at 1:00pm CST in the Presidential Pre-Function Lobby of the Opryland Hotel and Convention Center. We will address what the tea party movement in Tennessee has been able to accomplish at the grassroots level and how we see that the Peoples movement will progress going forward.
Coalition members will be available for questions concerning the work done here to date in Tennessee, and to provide contrast to the attempts by others to seize the will of We Te People.
The Tennessee Tea Party Coalition, www.tntpc.us is a non-partisan, user driven organization for all tea party groups and concerned Tennesseans looking for a place to network and engage with other like-minded individuals and groups. It is both a reference and resource entity geared at educating citizens and it is a social network to facilitate communication among its membership.
The Tennessee Tea Party Coalition website is also hosting an online interactive town hall forum with numerous candidates for elected office in the upcoming 2010 midterm elections participating. The town hall can be accessed at www.tntownhall.com .
No, Judson Phillips does NOT represent the Tea Party movement. He represents himself.
And now, Sarah Palin is going to have to defend the moronic decision to invite Joseph Farrah who waxed eloquent about the Birther nonsense.
The Tea Party Movement, Tea Party Nation & Judson Phillips: A Round-Up
Friday, February 5th, 2010Well, this is the big weekend. I’m seeing tweets coming from the gathering. Nothing splashy yet–just lots of pictures of a very up-scale hotel.
Luke Obrien of AOLNews has a fascinating exposé on Phillips. Here’s a snippet:
Phillips’ big idea was a social network for conservatives. It would eventually be called Tea Party Nation. In Phillips’ mind, it could be bigger than Facebook. And it would be his. But he couldn’t build it on his own. Over the course of 2009, he cajoled others into volunteering hundreds of hours of their time to help. Most thought they were giving structure to the broader, inchoate movement.
The first sign that something was amiss was the donation box on the Tea Party Nation Web site. Smith says he felt uncomfortable linking the box directly to Sherry Phillips’ PayPal account, but that Judson assured him the arrangement was temporary. It wasn’t. More than $4,000 in donations came in while Smith was helping Phillips. “We don’t know what happened to it,” Smith says. “We still don’t know.”
Indeed, the Phillipses have refused to fully account for the money that continues to flow into their personal coffers. When Phillips registered Tea Party Nation as a for-profit company, Smith walked out. Other volunteers were alienated as well. But Phillips bulled forward, persuading a new crop to help him take Tea Party Nation to a bigger audience. “I thought he was very kind, a real sweet guy,” Kilmarx says. “Maybe that’s the charm of a viper.”
As Phillips jockeyed for supremacy in the Tea Party movement in Tennessee, he undermined people he saw as rivals and lashed out at those who challenged his decisions, most notably through the forums of the Tea Party Nation Web site. Phillips deleted posts when people disagreed with him over candidate picks. He banned people when they questioned the direction he was taking the organization. The more outspoken dissenters received bilious e-mails threatening legal action.
More here.
For Sarah Palin’s part, Andrew Malcolm believes she’s forging her own, new political path. Palin explains her reasons for going to the Tea Party Convention here.
Sarah Palin will also be at other events. I’m going to be reporting from the Perry-Palin gathering here in Houston, February 7 (for free, I might add).
And what of the Tea Party movement, generally? Can it get its act together? Does it need to? From Newsweek:
Though tea-party activists still tend to look askance at political professionals and the Republican Party as an institution, such veterans have provided strategic leadership, even on the grassroots level. In a movement that prides itself for being “leaderless,” groups like the Nationwide Tea Party Coalition have drafted 28 local activists to form a “national leadership team” to sift through the noise. The group is spearheaded by Michael Patrick Leahy, a former delegate to the Republican Convention who had last agitated to elect Romney in 2008.
The group’s habitual conference calls, however, have produced neither a set of Republican talking points nor a singular national agenda, but rather an opportunity for certain messages and calls to action to become amplified on a larger scale. “We have a healthy distrust of political folks, whether they’re Republican or not—we tend to trust fellow tea-party organizers,” says Hennessy. “It’s like neighbors talking over a fence.”
The Tea Party movement is evolving. Some parts are more productive. In fact, many groups growing out of the movement aren’t using the “Tea Party” name, but infusing new political activism with Tea Party ideals.
Some groups are doing great works in the Tea Party name.
And some groups exploit the whole idea for personal gain.
This outcome is really kinda predictable. There are bad actors, good actors who are stupid, and then there are good actors who manage to lead with inclusion.
Tea Party people aren’t thrilled with overlords and some Tea Party self-proclaimed leaders are notoriously tyrannical–something they vehemently oppose in their own leaders. This irony is not lost on their followers.
In this movement, though, there are some very good fruits being borne of the energy and ideals of the people. Very talented folks who had remained anonymous and behind-the-scenes are getting involved and contributing.
The Tea Party energy is classically different than the Obama enthusiasm. Tea Partiers are less personality-driven and more policy-driven.
They are looking for people to reflect their values rather than a person on whom they can project their values. They have also shown themselves to be pragmatic. Many of these people are the people contributing to a New England Republican like Scott Brown. People know he’ll be better than Ted Kennedy or Martha Coakley. That’s obvious.
But there are limitations, too, but this sort of thing takes time to experience. There are many opinions and no one voice is going to represent such a diverse group of people.
The liberals and media would like to paint the movement with a broad brush, but that’s just not possible.
The Tea Parties are just getting started. It’s only been one year. A year ago, politicians and pundits alike scoffed at the whole notion. No one is laughing now.
The movement may have hiccups as it grows, but it is a big mistake to underestimate its power to change the political scene. And that’s a very good thing.
