Tag Archives: tea parties

Tea Partiers Boycott MSNBC Advertisers Over ‘Slanderous’ Documentary

Some Tea Party leaders are calling for conservatives to boycott MSNBC’s advertisers, after the network ran a documentary on June 16 that they say unfairly slandered the movement. Two of the Tea Party leaders interviewed in the Chris Matthews-narrated documentary are asking supporters to write, call and fax the offices of Dawn and its parent company Proctor and Gamble and request that they cease giving advertising dollars to Matthews’ “Hardball” program on MSNBC. FreedomWorks chairman Dick Armey and Kitchen Table Patriots member Ana Puig jointly called the documentary a “propaganda piece” and urged Tea Party groups around the country to boycott Dawn products. “The program ‘Rise of the New Right’ was low-ball journalism at its worst,” said the Kitchen Table Patriots in a statement released today. “Chris Matthews and his Hardball program slandered the Tea Party movement, and misled the American people by distorting facts about the Tea Party movement, its motivations and its history.” Brendan Steinhauser, a grassroots director at FreedomWorks, noted that other groups like the American Grassroots Coalition, the National Tea Party Federation, Tea Party Nation and Liberty Central have also signed on to the boycott. Critics say that Matthews’ documentary smeared Tea Partiers as “violent,” “conspiracy theorists,” and “racists” by relying heavily on insinuations, heavily edited sound bites, and allegations from left-wing activist groups. The introduction of the video splices back-to-back shots of militia members firing guns with Tea Party protesters holding up signs criticizing President Obama’s policies, as ominous music droned in the background. In one segment, Matthews appeared to insinuate that FreedomWorks leader Armey is supportive of “birthers,” a group of fringe conspiracy theorists who believe President Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. “While not embracing birthers, many conservative leaders refuse to separate from them,” said Matthews in a voiceover that led in to an interview Matthews held with Armey. “Barack Obama’s citizenship, is that a real case or not?” asks Matthews. “There’s a venue for that. Probably in the courts,” Armey replied. But Steinhauser, who organizes FreedomWorks’ national events, says that any suggestion that Armey sympathizes with birthers is “just ridiculous.” “[The documentary] obviously didn’t give his full answer,” said Steinhauser. “At our events we’ve been approached by just about every birther in the book. We kept [birthers] Allan Keyes [and] Orly Taitz as far as possible from our big September 12 event. I told them ‘that’s not who we are – go have your own rally.’ The movement out and out rejects that.” And other facts presented in the documentary don’t appear to stand up to scrutiny. At one point in the video, Mark Potok, a director at the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) warned Matthews’ that “we’ve gone from numbers like, you know, 170 militias to well over 500.” But the SPLC’s most recent report on right-wing groups released in Spring 2010 claimed that it only defines 127 organizations in the U.S. as “militias.” Steinhauser said that getting the message out about the boycott is just the first step in the campaign. “This is just the beginning stages. We’ve got some other things planned down the road in the days and weeks to come,” he said. For further analysis of Matthews’ documentary, see Lachlan Markey’s Newsbusters report .

Original post:
Tea Partiers Boycott MSNBC Advertisers Over ‘Slanderous’ Documentary

Chris Matthews Crams Year’s Worth of Anti-Tea Party Cliches into One Hour Special

What do Tea Partiers, Truthers, birthers, Birchers, militias, Pat Buchanan, Jerry Falwell, Barry Goldwater, Joe McCarthy, Father Coughlin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Ronald Reagan, Strom Thurmond, Rand Paul, Alex Jones, Orly Taitz, and Oklahoma City bomber Tim McVeigh all have in common? Approximately nothing, but don’t tell Chris Matthews. The MSNBC “Hardball” host spent the better part of an hour last night trying to associate all of these characters with one other. Of course he did not provide a shred of evidence beyond, ironically, a McCarthyite notion that all favor smaller government, and are therefore in league, whether they know it or not, to overthrow the government. Together, by Matthews’s account, they comprise or have given rise to the “New Right.” The special was less a history of the Tea Party movement than a history of leftist distortions of the Tea Party movement. As such, it tried — without offering any evidence, mind you — to paint the movement as potentially violent. Hence, after Matthews tried his hardest to link all of these characters, he went on to paint them all as supporting, inciting, or actually committing violence. Matthews trotted out Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center to claim that “one spark” could set the militia movement off into a violent frenzy. But Matthews used the statement not to indict the militias Potok was discussing, but rather as evidence that the Tea Party movement at-large is a violent one. Set aside for a moment the fact that Potok is nothing but a partisan hack with a pathetic track record of predicting violence, the B-roll footage while the thoroughly-discredited Potok was making these predictions was footage of the 9/12 Tea Party rally in Washington. This is what Matthews did throughout the special: splice together clips of militias firing weapons with Tea Party protesters in order to create a mental association between the groups. That there is no evidence whatsoever linking Tea Parties to militia groups, nor incidents of violence occurring at rallies, did not dissuade the former Jimmy Carter staffer. Matthews simply chose the unseemly route of trying to associate the numerous characters in his special without any evidence to back up his claims. The only connection that Matthews managed to legitimately draw between the Tea Party and militia groups — indeed, between any of the long list of characters mentioned above– is their aversion to government intervention in their daily lives. That’s right, in the same segment in which Matthews ragged against the late Joe McCarthy, he associated Tea Parties with the Hutaree Militia because both have a distaste for big government (the latter much stronger than the other, obviously). By Matthews’s logic, every American who has qualms with some element of capitalism is complicit in, and supports, openly or not, radical anarcho-socialist violence perpetrated at the G-8, or any other incident of leftist violence (and there have been many of late). Matthews himself has touted the wonders of the ” social state .” So he must support, or at least acknowledge the justifiability of folks who wish to violently overthrow the government and impose a socialist system. That is the only logical conclusion, if we accept Matthews’s premises. Such hypocrisy is rife in the special: if folks associated with the Tea Party use words like “revolution,” they must be literally advocating violence, whereas when mainstream leftists literally advocate violence , they are not worth mentioning. The special’s rank hypocrisy continues right through Matthews’s final monologue. “Words have consequences,” he states. “You cannot call a president’s policies ‘un-American,’ as Sarah Palin has done,” he claims. Or, Matthews forgot to add, as Salon Editor Joan Walsh and Time columnist Joe Klein have done, the former on Matthews’s show and the latter on another MSNBC program. You can’t “refer to the elected government as a ‘regime'” by Matthews’s account, unless, presumably, you are Chris Matthews or a host of other MSNBC personalities , in which case it is permissible. Given that the special really offered no new insight into the Tea Party movement — just the same cliches the Left has regurgitated since the fall of last year — it is hardly surprising, though worth mentioning, that neither Matthews nor any of his cohorts seem to remember their total lack of concern over the potential for anti-government violence during the Bush administration. A movie depicting the assassination of George W. Bush , the plethora of signs at anti-war rallies calling for his death , the litany of incidents of violence committed by leftist groups in the recent past — none of these things were particularly worrisome for the Left throughout Bush’s term. In all of these ways, the “Rise of the New Right” special was just more of the same.

Read the original here:
Chris Matthews Crams Year’s Worth of Anti-Tea Party Cliches into One Hour Special

November Election Already ‘Mightily Out of Control’ for G.O.P., Says Front-Page Blurb in NY Times

One of the New York Times’s favorite themes is the ever-impending Republican civil war that will ruin the party’s chances in whatever election that’s coming up. Former chief political reporter Adam Nagourne y is a past master, but he’s now covering the West Coast. Luckily, Times contributor Matt Bai was there to fill the gap Thursday, explaining how the Republicans may blow a great opportunity through ruinous infighting in the primaries. The assumption behind Bai’s “Political Times” piece ” For Republicans, Sorting Out Candidates Gets a Bit Messy ” is that a crowded field of candidates in the Republican primaries is a bad thing. A front-page, above-the-fold teaser distorted one of Bai’s already premature judgements, leaving out his qualifier to suggest Republican prospects are already sunk: ” Some critics are already asking Republican leaders how they managed to let a promising election season get so mightily out of control .” Bai wrote: Primaries are a wonderful thing — or at least that’s the standard line among Republican leaders these days. “Primary campaigns can be healthy,” said Ken Spain, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, “because they prepare the eventual nominee for how to aggressively campaign in November and provide the candidate with an opportunity to familiarize himself or herself with the electorate.” What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger! Let democracy flower! Of course, Republicans have little choice but to see it this way, since nearly every nonincumbent Republican running for Congress this year has had to endure a primary, often with enough candidates to field a softball team. This disorderly sorting out of candidates, a process that in many cases features establishment types with good hair against ideologues in search of a Bastille to storm, will not matter much if Republicans can regain a majority in at least one chamber in November. If they do not, however, Republican leaders will have to answer the question some critics are already asking, which is how they managed to let a promising election season get so mightily out of control . A front-page, above-the-fold teaser distorted Bai’s already premature judgement by leaving out his qualifier: ” Some critics are already asking Republican leaders how they managed to let a promising election season get so mightily out of control .” By last summer, though, public meetings on health care were erupting in fury and the phrase “Tea Party” was entering the political lexicon. Suddenly, more conservatives were jostling for a chance to challenge incumbent Democrats and their own party, and to promote ideological purity. Stunned Republicans in Washington were reluctant to rescind their tacit endorsements of what they saw as electable candidates, but the last thing they wanted was to square off against newly energized Tea Party types. Instead, the party basically tried to slink off to the sidelines, which only emboldened more primary challengers. A lot of establishment candidates, meanwhile, ended up in the worst of all worlds, branded as instruments of the party but running without much practical help from Washington. Focused on potential Republican problems, Bai didn’t even mention the  bloodbath in Tuesday’s Arkansas Senate primary pitting supporters of center-left sitting Sen. Blanche Lincoln and Bill Halter, backed by the far-left and national unions.

More:
November Election Already ‘Mightily Out of Control’ for G.O.P., Says Front-Page Blurb in NY Times

Matthews Perverts Tea Party Movement: Participants View Federal Government as British Occupiers

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews’s ratings lag  far behind those of his competition, Fox News’ Glenn Beck, on a regular basis . So is he perhaps trying to become the anti-Glenn Beck to bolster his stature in the cable news world? On MSNBC’s June 9 “Andrea Mitchell Reports,” Matthews commented on the Gadsden flag , as if it represented an attitude that viewed the federal government as a occupying force, comparable to pre-Revolutionary War America. “You know that Gadsden flag, the ‘Don’t Tread on Me Flag’ with a rattlesnake is so important,” Matthews said. “They believe, a lot of people in the right – that the federal government has replaced the British as the occupying force in North America and they have to be ready to fight it. It’s serious business.” But the scary thing, according to Matthews, is these people he has caricatured have guns. “Some have the guns, some don’t,” Matthews said. “Some have the Tea Party aspect. But it’s always that flag, ‘Don’t Tread on Me.’ They believe Washington is London.” And while it has been documented that the media have repeatedly – and unsuccessfully – tried to correlate violence with the Tea Party movement, Matthews continued to play the “scary business” card – that this movement was trying to circumvent the role of the Supreme Court as prescribed by the U.S. Constitution. “The scary part of this is, do they really believe in self-government in the end – self-government?” Matthews said. “Or is the government always going to be the enemy? And the other scary part is the Supreme Court doesn’t get the right to determine what’s constitutional. They do. And they’ve got guns. Serious business.”

See original here:
Matthews Perverts Tea Party Movement: Participants View Federal Government as British Occupiers

Matthews On Ark. Dem Runoff: ‘Gets Back to the Old Days of the Democratic Party Trying to Make Sure There’s a White Candidate’

The more Chris Matthews is on live television within a 24-hour period, the likelihood of him saying something completely strange increases dramatically as each moment passes. On MSNBC’s June 8 special coverage of electoral primaries around the country, Matthews, the host of MSNBC’s “Hardball,” expressed his views on the Arkansas Democratic primary runoff, which incumbent Sen. Blanche Lincoln narrowly defeated Bill Halter . (h/t @francesmartel ) “The fact that this might be a close race tonight tells you that neither of the candidates has a mandate coming out of this,” Matthews said. “The idea of a runoff is to get a mandate.” However, Matthews admitted he wasn’t a fan of the runoff and suggested it had ulterior racial motives dating back to “the old days of the Democratic Party,” [emphasis added] “I don’t even like these run-offs, do you?” Matthews asked. “I don’t know why they have them. It gets back to the old days of the Democratic Party trying to make sure there’s a white candidate or whatever. I don’t know what the gizmo in this whole thing is. But why do they have to have run-offs? I guess it was back when they were a one-party state. They were all Democrats. They wanted to have someone with something like a mandate for the general. I don’t get it.”

See the article here:
Matthews On Ark. Dem Runoff: ‘Gets Back to the Old Days of the Democratic Party Trying to Make Sure There’s a White Candidate’

Stephanopoulos Cites Tea Party ‘Losing Steam,’ But Skips Obama’s Plummeting Numbers

On Tuesday’s World News, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos touted how “we’ve got a new poll out tonight that shows the Tea Party may be losing steam nationwide” as its unfavorable rating has “gone up eleven points in the last couple of months to 50 percent. Their favorable rating has gone down.” Stephanopoulos and ABC, however, didn’t find time, in multiple stories on the oil leak, to inform viewers how the same ABC News/Washington Post survey, released Tuesday morning, found that by 49 to 44 percent the public disapproves of President Obama’s handling of the disaster. In addition, “the number of Americans who think the President ‘understands the problems of people like you,’ at 51 percent, is down from 56 percent in a Washington Post poll in late March; and at 57 percent his rating as a strong leader is down from 65 percent in March.” ( PDF of poll results ) Stephanopoulos raised the Tea Party’s standing in a preview of Tuesday’s primary elections. Anchor Diane Sawyer wondered: “And what does this mean, the outsider momentum for the Tea Party? Does it roll straight to November?” Stephanopoulos answered: Not entirely clear. We’ve got a new poll out tonight that shows the Tea Party may be losing steam nationwide. Look at the unfavorable rating. It’s gone up eleven points in the last couple of months to 50 percent [from 39]. Their favorable rating has gone down [41 to 36]. So the Tea Party still has enough juice to win these primaries, but they may be putting their party in a position of making it harder to win those seats in November.

Originally posted here:
Stephanopoulos Cites Tea Party ‘Losing Steam,’ But Skips Obama’s Plummeting Numbers

The Best Fake Teabagger Signs at the Boston Common Tea Party

Fake Teabaggers (sane/normal people) have begun infiltrating tea parties with their own signs. Here are the best signs from yesterday's rally in Boston. The Best Links: Via iTripped42 And Qwrrty View

Kamikaze Tax Rebel Joe Stack: Libtard or Wingnut?

Joe Stack , the bass-playing, tax-hating Austin divebomber who murdered at least one person yesterday, left a confusingly post-partisan populist suicide note, making it hard for pundits to assign blame for his actions to their political opponents. But they’re still trying. As soon as Stack’s suicide note was discovered online yesterday, the political calculations began: He hated Bush (so do liberals!). He hated taxes (so do Tea Partiers!). He hated religion, but he also thought we live under a totalitarian regime. He approvingly quoted Karl Marx, but he hated government bureaucrats. That’s quite an incoherent grab-bag of positions, often with mutually exclusive political implications, which isn’t really surprising seeing as how it was issued by someone who set his own house on fire and then piloted an airplane into a building. But since we’ve lately had a rash of sudden and random violence from politically motivated actors, from James von Brunn to Scott Roeder, the de rigeur (and sometimes justified) next step is to associate the murderer’s rantings with other law-abiding political partisans, and begin the laying of blame. Since Stack’s manifesto is so confusing, the initial moves yesterday as the event unfolded were preemptive: He’s not one of ours . Literally minutes after the note was discovered, CNN’s Rick Sanchez was on the air arguing that Stack’s condemnation of “presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies” should be taken with a grain of salt, because Stack also attacked “Obama’s policies” (though that’s not really true—he seems to support health care reform, and nothing about the tax system that Stack rails against is specifically associated with Obama). Time observed that the note “eerily reflected the angry populist sentiments that have swept the country in the past year,” obliquely referring to the teabaggers. Meanwhile, the right-wingers at Newsbusters started complaining that the “liberal media” was deliberately covering up Stack’s shout-out to Marx , which constituted “perhaps the most politically consequential lines in the entire note” and proved conclusively that he was no teabagger. Last night, Laura Ingraham warned Bill O’Reilly that “over the next few days, you will hear from the left and all the crazies that, you know, we talk about other networks and so forth trying to tie CPAC maybe, the Tea Party movement, all of this anger on the right that is out there…. I mean, you’re going to hear that. I don’t think it’s believable. The guy is obviously a total nut.” And this morning. Michelle Malkin launched a screed against the “furious left-wing bloggers” trying to link Stack to right-wing rage, arguing that “no law-abiding Tea Party group would ever condone what he did” (ignoring the question of how the law- breaking Tea Party groups feel about it). It’s all a tiresome little game, really. When someone who hates taxes and the government kills people, he’s a lone nut and anyone who says otherwise is a disingenuous liberal. When a Muslim who hates the war in Afghanistan kills people, he’s part of a sophisticated international terrorist conspiracy and anyone who says otherwise is a traitor . The same people who are so strenuously declaiming that anti-tax rhetoric and ideas had nothing to do with his crime were literally days ago shouting that the Alabama professor who shot up her tenure committee was a “‘ far-left political extremist who was ‘obsessed’ with President Obama ‘”—as though we are at risk of a rash of gun crimes from Harvard-educated lefties. Stack is one in a long, long line of people who have attempted to injure or kill IRS agents . People have hated tax collectors for as long as people have liked money. Honestly, his profile— a bass player in the Austin country-rock scene, graduate of the Milton Hershey School for troubled teens in Pennsylvania, and lover of jazz —doesn’t seem to align too well with the reactionary gun-toting revanchist types that show up at Tea Party rallies. He sounds a little like a hippie. And to the extent that his little screed seemed to take up opposing threads of the contemporary political debate, it’s silly to try to fit him into a caricature of either side. He was motivated by rage at his own failures, for which he blamed faceless bureaucrats. But he did hate the IRS, and he did hate taxes, and he did feel entitled to not have to pay them. Political partisans will always be able to find examples of violent extremism with which to tar their opponents. The balaclava-clad lefties who throw rocks at G5 meetings are ideological cousins of the American left, just as Timothey McVeigh and Eric Rudolph were ideological cousins of the teabaggers. The difference is that the Democratic Party establishment isn’t currently engaged in actively fomenting the sort of rage that motivates the fringe of their party. The problem isn’t that the right wing is creating Joe Stacks, or should be held responsible for inciting them. It’s impossible to know whether Stack would have done what he did absent a current environment of deluded anti-government hysteria on the right wing, but given the facts that his grievances go back to the Reagan era and that he seems to have been squeezed to despair by the recession, it’s likely that his rage transcended the Fox News-driven political dynamic. And there will always be people like him. The problem is that the GOP and Fox News are currently addressing their political messaging to people like him. They’re not creating or inciting the right-wing fringe so much as bringing it in from the cold.

More:
Kamikaze Tax Rebel Joe Stack: Libtard or Wingnut?