Cenk Uyger has a very good point about the lack of…er, anything coming out of the tea parties in the wake of Wall Street’s excesses:
If you remember, the Tea Parties were originally formed to protest the bailouts. They were so mad at the Wall Street bankers who destroyed the economy and then took our hard earned money for their efforts.
So, they will take this opportunity, of course, to launch their own protest of Wall Street. They will protest the TARP money, the easy credit, the lack of regulation, the wild risk taking and the excessive bonuses paid with taxpayer money. They’re really going to take the fight to them.
Just kidding. They’re not going to do anything. They’re going to sit out this fight on financial reform and put absolutely no pressure on Wall Street at all. Because they are tools easily manipulated by right-wing organizations funded by corporate America.
Cenk chalks it up to the fact that Americans for Prosperity and Freedomworks didn’t arrange any corporate-sponsored bus rides against Goldman Sachs. Which is probably true — tea partiers tend to “demonstrate on command.”
But as the CBS News poll indicates, the profile of the tea partiers is now almost identical to that of the Fox News demographic: old, white, male and Republican. There’s nothing independent about them. When Fox made a huge rebranding effort for the GOP last year and broadcast “all tea parties, all the time” they successfully harnessed the anti-AIG bailout anger and pointed it at Obama. AfP and Freedomworks just ran the field operations in support of the Fox messaging machine, and they all worked in concert to hijack the tea parties from Ron Paul.
Whatever their origins, the tea parties quickly became a squadron of GOP apparachiks who have shown little independence or ability to organize themselves outside of corporate-funded efforts. If they truly are the “free thinking independents” they believe themselves to be, wouldn’t they be putting aside tribal and party differences and joining the AFL-CIO’s protest of Wall Street on April 29th? Or at the very least, trying to organize their own?
And how about that insurance mandate they were all so angry about? (*crickets*). The Fox News tea partier will go to the ballot box in 2010, cast their vote for some Republican who is cussing “ObamaCare,” but never ask what they plan to do about it. How many Republicans are actually co-sponsoring Ron Paul’s bill to end the mandate? Nine. Out of one hundred and seventy-eight. The insurance mandate is a Heritage Foundation wet dream, and the GOP is only sorry they weren’t the ones to reap the donation bonanza for passing it.
Over at the Daily Paul, they note that Ron Paul finds equal fault with the spending habits of both liberals and conservatives — who just like to spend on different things. Conservatives, he says, “like embassies, and they like occupation. They like the empire. They like to be in 135 countries and 700 bases.” As in, the 8 years of profligate spending under George Bush. Yet tea partiers have a favorable opinion of George Bush over Ron Paul by more than 2:1. That’s completely incoherent.
Fox News is still betting that you can fool some of the people all the time. And it appears to be working. Jamie Dimon can still knock back cocktails with John Boenher and watch Fox without feeling the slightest bit threatened by the tea parties.





51 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Thanks Jane.
Maybe if Fox told them GS was inflating the price of oil, they would have a different opinion.
That comment merits a ‘high five’, Boo.
I guess the teabaggers still want to tie one on with Dubya, who was – if nothing else – a world class cheerleader.
I really think that’s the strongest skillset these guys have: they’re great cheerleaders. Just don’t ask them to think for themselves or solve actual problems.
Tea partiers aren’t monolithic and I kind of question how you can get a representative sampling of such a diversely driven group.
However, Ron Paul just introduced his bill against the mandate this week. I expect a lot more GOP sponsors. Not so sure about Dems though….
The most effective regulation against the banksters and Wall Streeter is NO BAILOUTS. Period.
If you know in advance you’re not going to be bailed out, you will not do stupid things (or if you do your shareholders and customers will take you out). If your shareholders know in advance they won’t be bailed out either, they’re less likely to sign up for stuff they have no idea what it is or how it works … if they do, they’re too stupid to be involved in high finance, they’ll fail when you fail, and they’ll go flip houses or something instead.
The fact is, neither the Democrats or Republicans have any intention of substantively ‘reforming’ the financial system. They both like it just fine the way it is. And the bailouts will continue until the whole economy demolished.
Then we’ll start over.
That’s why the working hypothesis is that FIRST we have to break up the “too big to fail” banks, so that when they are allowed to fail, they don’t take down the entire economy.
There’s a Bill that start to force this issue on Congress:
“On Wednesday, Senators Sherrod Brown and Ted Kaufman unveiled a “SAFE banking Act” with a clear and powerful purpose: Break up the big banks.”
http://baselinescenario.com/2010/04/22/the-safe-banking-act-break-them-up/
http://baselinescenario.com/2010/04/22/make-the-call-or-get-out-of-the-booth-after-the-president%e2%80%99s-wall-street-speech/
This SHOULD have appeal across the political spectrum, provided we actually do buy our own anti-bailout and/or “free market” schticks.
I don’t know that we need a special bill to “break up the big banks”.
If they can fail, they won’t get so big in the first place … and if they’re already big, they’ll get smaller precisely because the chance of failing would be so catastrophic to investors, traders, CEO, etc. that they’ll break themselves up into smaller entities to avoid that prospect.
These people know risk. If they have to carry ALL the risk, they will minimize that by breaking down into smaller entitites.
If they know that will not have to carry ANY of the risk (as is currently the case, we proved it) there is absolutely no incentive to do anything but get bigger and double, triple or quadruple down on the risk. After all, they’re not carrying the risk, taxpayers are.
It has to get personal. Until it is personal to every shareholder, every CEO, every trader, nothing will change.
I agree 100%. Thanks for the good discussion.
tea partiers tend to “demonstrate on command.”
“C’mon. Bark like a dog.”
Translation:
“Paint up another (stupid) sign and make sure you’ve got plenty of extra clips…”
Until they are broken up, not only will they never know they can fail, they will know they absolutely will not be allowed to fail. No matter what the law says, if they are so big that they will take down the economy with them if they go down, they won’t be allowed to go down. If they are so big that they can spend more money than everyone else combined on loybbists and campaigns, they will not be allowed to fail and they know it. The shareholders know it. Everybody knows it. So no matter what is said or done, if they are not broken down, they will not ever be allowed to fail and nothing will ever change. The only thing that will cause them to fail is the collapse of the entire economy, taking all of us down with them. And they still, up to the day that happens, will believe that someone will save them because they have to. They are big enough and powerful enough to hold us all hostage. We have to break them up first and foremost.
http://documents.nytimes.com/new-york-timescbs-news-poll-national-survey-of-tea-party-supporters?ref=politics
how many of the tea party s (not so smart members) are going to fill out this 110 questions survey & send it in.
Agreed Tea Baggers come in all the shades of…white:) Tea Baggers come in all shades of crazy/s
When I polled the Anchorage and Wasilla Tea Party tax day events last week, when I asked “Who, currently active in American political affairs and dialogue, inspires you the most right now?” the answers were:
I’ve bolded the personalities prominently covered on FOX.
I’m a charter member of the Mr. T Party.
Maybe if Fox told them GS was
inflating the price of oilmanipulating the price of gold, they would have a different opinion.FTFY Boo…
Thank you Jane! I bet they don’t even drink their coffee “black”!
Can you explain why Hannity is a favorite of anyone? During the election, he was completely a “one note.” He is incessantly self-promoting and frequently not so truthful, IIRC. So, where is the appeal? Just wondering.
Bill O’Reilly occupies the tall Irish bully niche. Hannity occupies the dark, not so tall Irish bully niche. They’re both character actors. Jane knows more about casting than I do.
As of yet, I have yet to hear them care about the Fourth Amendment rights of people of color in Arizona, either. I’m sure that sympathy rallies are being planned all across the nation though.
Well that would explain the investment in precious metals…
Wait. Sean Parnell? Is that the same Sean Parnell as the #2 in that government-to-the-highest-bidder Center for Competitive Politics or whatever crap? Wow.
It really is going to come down to Molotovs for the rich, just like 100 years ago, isn’t it?
Sean Parnell succeeded Palin as governor of Alaska when she quit.
Well do we really expect a “party” who considers Rick Santelli’s screaming as the “shot heard ’round the world” as being anything other than under the sway of the banks and Wall Street. The whole movement of “too big to fail” basically only applied when there were businesses in which labor unions could be assailed…while the populist screams against big banksters diminished once Lehman actually did collapse.
I’m not sure a strong FDIC self-insured system is the best route to go…but at least it would put their own “skin in the game”. My concern is that the big banks would use the fund to cover their own tails riding on the more efficient smaller banks and financial entities. And if the system then failed they’d still come running to the government with the same “too big to fail” mantra.
It seems that there still needs to be some reduction in the size of these firms, just to reduce any single ones impact on the financial system.
It’s all about race. Tea Partiers are all racists! All of them. Every one.
They should stick with themselves and not mix with us enlightened folk. We should keep them separate, but equal of course.
I notice that this website displays tiny black letters surrounded by a sea of angry white background. Coincidence? I think not!
The stupids showed up.
Why is it that the people who are most obsessed with slamming tea partiers with simple minded comments and slurs also appear to be the ones most likely to share their level of intelligence. It’s like they’re cousins.
Yup. Though when the FDIC has 50 billion to insure depositors, it does not incentivize those depositors to take bad risks. When the Treasury has 50 billion or more set aside to insure creditors of big investment banks, it does probably incentivize more risk taking for institutional investors and the banks. Too big to fail is nothing more and nothing less than holding the Treasury and taxpayers hostage to greater risk taking. It needs to go away, somehow.
the Authoritarians run the rethuglicians who run the astroturf tea partys. George Orwell was right. Only he was about 50 years early
Quite so, Jane. I looked in at the Chicago Tea Party rally on April 15th. Pathetic is what it was. At most, about 500 Republicans standing around, some with signs, listening to GOP Congressional candidates. About half that many left-wing counter-leafletters around the edges, both groups vastly outnumbered by ordinary office workers eating their lunches on the Plaza.
Sheesh, we used to fill that plaza every weekend back in 2002-3 protesting the upcoming Iraq War.
It’s the chicker or egg argument. The way I see it, government is the egg. Without government protectionsim, sanction and complicity, banks (and other large entities) would not be so big. You can make all the government regulation you want, but in the end, the big money can sway both the people who write that legislation and/or the people who enforce that regulation.
Therefore, NO BAILOUTS of any sort (regardless of the consequences) is the most effective regulation there can be to put an end to the concept of Too Big To Fail. The reason why so many lobbyists for big banks and corps are so involved in ‘reform’ legislation is that they know (from vast past experience) that “influencing” regulations is far more lucrative than being left alone by the government to sink or swim on their own.
“When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” ___ P. J. O’Rourke
Oops, didn’t see you there. Nicely done.
I wonder…who covers Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman more?
Fox…or MSNBC?
FOX.
Well after all, she does work for them.
Cenk Uyger wrote “If you remember, the Tea Parties were originally formed to protest the bailouts. They were so mad at the Wall Street bankers who destroyed the economy and then took our hard earned money for their efforts.”
Jane, why didn’t you challenge this? The Tea Parties were not formed in protest of the bailouts. They were form to protest the stimulus, which was for Main Street not Wall Street. There was no protest by the soon to be Tea Party folk when the bailout happened. They didn’t raise a whimper about bailing out the big banks that that made horrendous profits of sub prime loans that took advantage of poor people who didn’t realize their mortgage payments would someday balloon. They went apoplectic, however, when the stimulus was proposed and it included helping those poor people keep their homes.
Also, they weren’t formed as they were mad at the Wall Street bankers. They were formed from a call by a sympathetic CNBC reporter of the traders and bankers, Rick Santelli, who on CNBC ranted and fumed over the help to Main Street on the floor of a trading exchange while traders on the floor cheered him on.
The Tea Parties were formed by folk who had nothing to do with Ron Paul and his supporters who opposed government subsidies of Wall Street. Ron Paul had nothing to do with it. Ron Paul a year before had rhetorically said we needed a new Boston Tea Party. But he and his people did NOT organize or form anything. It was only after the fact that they decided to join the Santelli Tea Parties that were being formed by mainstream Republican lobbying firms and Fox News. Then they claimed that Ron Paul started the whole thing.
Part of this whole fictional narrative about the Tea Parties is due to the confusion of public between the Bailout and the Stimulus.
Yes, there are Paulites involved in the Tea Parties who might win straw polls at conventions, but they are not the ones actually controlling the Movement, which has NEVER been against Wall Street or the Bailouts. The Tea Parties have always been a whole, owned subsidiary traditional economic, big business right of the GOP, not of the Libertarian movement.
For heavenssakes…don’t let Tweety or Ed Schultz know about this.
Book Salon up at the Mothership with Jeff Shesol’s Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court hosted by Sanford Levinson
You said:
“If you remember, the Tea Parties were originally formed to protest the bailouts. They were so mad at the Wall Street bankers who destroyed the economy and then took our hard earned money for their efforts.”
You started by getting it in theory, completely wrong.
The Tea Parties started much in part to respond to the bailouts…but, the anger was and is at government, not at Wall street. This is a huge distinction with a difference. It is the liberal dems who are mad at Wall street, and results from this indignation are going nowhere unless Obama returns his $994,795
Misreading the Tea Parties – who are NOT monolithic, is the proverbial death nell for Dems in November. It is this tone-deafness that will make Sarah Palin’s words live for decades — “I can see November from my house”
Doubt it?
There was a huge hue and cry before the October 2008 TARP vote.
Citizens were calling/emailing/faxing their representatives in record numbers … the sentiment was 100:1 against TARP.
As it turned out, a majority of Dems (in both houses) voted for TARP, a majority of Reps (both houses) voted against TARP … against their own President who was for it.
Still, enough R’s voted yay along with the majority of D’s that it passed.
This was the spark of Tea Party movement, which at that time wasn’t a movement, just a lot of people who were angry that their representatives in Congress so blatantly disregarded their wishes (again overwhelmingly against TARP 100:1). Those kinds of numbers amounts to not being represented by your representative. There is just no other way to look at it. It wasn’t even close.
This was BEFORE Obama was elected, and many people feel it was part of the reason McCain lost so soundly (McCain was for TARP) a month later. A lot of R’s just stayed home out of disgust.
Since that time, the so-called Tea Party (which is really not at all monolithic or organized in terms of an actual platform) has taken up many other causes, all in some way related to perceived lack of Congressional representation (see opposition to insurance reforom) or percieved Constitutional challenges.
But TARP was the spark that started it all.
The tea partiers know they don’t make sense. They just don’t care about that. They aren’t being fooled by Fox or anybody else because they like obeying some conservative overseer. The point for them is to simply march in line and to trust that their guide won’t march them over a cliff.
The first (modern) tea party was in 2007 in support of Ron Paul’s presidential campaign.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/12/ron_pauls_tea_p.html
It just was. There’s no denying it.
Rick Santelli ginned them back up again when Congress was going to pass cramdown, and he wanted to aim anti-bank sentiment at “deadbeat” mortgage holders. The fact that he was standing on the floor of the fucking degenerate gambler Chicago Board of Trade at the time is an irony that escaped many.
Then Fox News began promoting them for tax day, when anger at the AIG bonuses was at its peak. I think there was some organization around the stimulus, but not much relative to other events.
I did a timeline last year:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/a-teabagger-timeline-koch_b_187312.html
More about the evolution:
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/04/15/cbs-poll-fox-news-succeeds-at-hijacking-tea-parties-from-ron-paul/
The original tea party was a moneybomb/rally for Dr. Paul’s presidential nomination that was held on December 16, 2007. Here is a website that advertised the event: http://mysite.verizon.net/nathanielyao/index.html
That was before Dick Armey and Fox News mixed the brew and tainted the movement.
And just recently, Newt Gingrich described the tea party movement as the “militant” faction of the Republican Party. So the whole movement is going downhill under its current leadership.
There is no leadership.
It’s going off in a dozen different directions.
There is no official leadership, and the movement itself is pretty diverse, but Palin and the Republican Party/Fox News are so far serving as quasi-leaders, trying to pin-down the spontaneous hostility and put their own spin on it.
Juan Williams said about 2 wks ago that the GOP (I assummed he meant Faux news)were trying to get control of the teabaggers.
The (D) Tea Party envy is thick enough to slice with a knife.
“No leadership” and “going off in a dozen different directions” is dead on. Also the two biggest reasons why it is the biggest threat to liberal progressives.
I’m going to start hoarding popcorn, this is going to get good.
Jane,
I still contend that the Ron Paul, one time, Tea Party event and the 2009 Tea Party movement are two separate things without a causal connection. The 2009 Tea Party movement did not grow from the Ron Paul event or develop from it. Instead the lobbyists and marketers for the GOP just used the same term but for different purposes. The purpose of the Ron Paul event was to promote the candidacy of Ron Paul and raise money for him. It was an internal Republican battle. The 2009 Tea Party movement was to create what appeared to be a popular movement of opposition to Obama’s stimulus and then health care proposal in order to defeat him. It is a battle between Republicans and Democrats. Rick Santelli, not Ron Paul, started the current Tea Party movement.
Yes, there was a lot of opposition to TARP. Yes, a lot of people contacted their representatives to lobby against it and yes, the reported numbers are 100 to 1.
No, it was not a Republican thing. Lots of progressives, who are for government spending and think we need *higher* taxes, were against it. For instance Michael Moore in his film, “Capitalism, A Love Story” rails against the TARP and reports that 100 to 1 number.
But there was no organized protests that were just anti spending. There were no buses picking people up and driving them to rallies that were anti spending. There were no internet organizations guiding it. Most importantly, there were no media promoting a movement.
The spark that started the Tea Party movement was Rick Santelli’s rant and it was given by someone for the TARP in front of traders who benefited from the TARP and it was all about stopping the Stimulus.
There was no organized protest at the time of TARP. It was completely spontaneous and you’re right, it was bi-partisan.
But from that particular legislative event (and more from being flipped off by their representatives), and LATER, people did organize around the fact of their of lack of representation … which is perfectly logical since THEY WERE NOT REPRESENTED BY THEIR REPRESENTATIVES.
Whether you agree with TARP or not, whether you agree with the Tea Party’s various and sundry present causes or not, I don’t see how anyone can deny that the spontaneous anger over lack of representation in Congress over the TARP vote was not justified.
100:1
As you noted, even Michael Moore can see that.
It’s great to “contend” things and have strong opinions – when you’re willing to do the work and support them with proof.
When you’re not, just “contending” things emphatically does not make them true. And as someone who went to a lot of effort to document what was happening at the time, and who read the work of Ron Paul folks who were taking part in tea party events, it does not appear that your analysis comports with what actually happened.
As a Paulite myself, I can tell you that I was not happy with Fox’s involvement in the “tea party” protests which took place after Santelli’s rant last April. While I do believe that the origins of that particular protest in April, 2009 were spontaneous, I also believe that Fox jumped in with both feet and made an end run around the RP movement effectively corralling the “angry conservatives” and keeping them in the mainstream GOP. After that, Glenn Beck stepped up his hypnotic campaign and focused primarily on government spending rather than some of the other more egregious Republican errors. I see the present day Tea Partiers as mostly disgruntled Republicans who will vote for Palin, Huckabee and even worse, Romney mostly because they are tied in to Fox News… The best example of this division can be seen in the recent Texas Republican Gubernatorial primaries.
In September 2008, Santelli was not for TARP. He also claimed that half the traders he worked with were not for TARP. We don’t know if his claim about his collegues is true, we know Santelli was not for TARP … so you’re wrong about that.
http://vodpod.com/watch/1377927-rick-santelli-objects-to-rushed-tarp-on-92608