Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Reid: 'Gridlock will not do the trick'
The Senate majority Leader - who defended his seat from Tea Party Challenger Sharron Angle - points to history as evidence that a divided government doesn't necessarily lead to inaction, and reiterates his belief that the new congress can work together
Rand Paul declares 'Tea Party Tidal Wave'
The Senator-elect from Kentucky talks about the message he's planning to bring to Washington, "fiscal sanity,
limited Constitutional government and balanced budgets".
limited Constitutional government and balanced budgets".
Steele: Country gave us 'one more chance'
Calling the Election Day gain "an enormous moment," RNC Chairman Michele Steele discusses the role Tea Party Party lawmakers will play in shaping the party's legislation.
Boehner claims mandate to repeal "monstrosity" health bill
The presumptive next speaker of the house tells reporters that Republican gains on Capital Hill is proof that the "Obama-Pelosi Agenda" has been rejected by the American People
Republican U.S. Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell, a favorite among the conservative Tea Party movement, appears at an election night rally in Dover, Delaware. Democrat Christopher Coons won the U.S. Senate race in Delaware on Tuesday, keeping for Democrats a seat once held by Vice President Joe Biden.
O'Donnell: 'Be encouraged. We have won'
In a somewhat confusing speech conceding defeat to Democrat Chris Coons, Republican Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell asserted that, despite her loss, political leadership in Delaware has been "drastically transformed" by her campaign.
Delaware hands Tea Party a resounding loss
An msnbc political panel talks about how the Democratic victories in Delaware will affect the Tea Party as well as the possibility of a GOP takeover of the House.
O'Donnell: 'Be encouraged. We have won'
In a somewhat confusing speech conceding defeat to Democrat Chris Coons, Republican Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell asserted that, despite her loss, political leadership in Delaware has been "drastically transformed" by her campaign.
Delaware hands Tea Party a resounding loss
An msnbc political panel talks about how the Democratic victories in Delaware will affect the Tea Party as well as the possibility of a GOP takeover of the House.
Election night phone call
Boehner to GOP: Sober Up!
— By Suzy Khimm
| Tue Nov. 2, 2010 11:59 PM PDT
By the time John Boehner took the podium at the Grand Hyatt in Washington, DC, the stage was set for the Republican restoration. The major networks had called a GOP takeover of the House hours earlier—with even more freshmen than came to Capitol Hill during Newt Gingrich's 1994 revolution. But amid the jubilant shouts from the crowd—"I love you!" "That's my boy"! "USA! USA! USA!"—the future House majority leader attempted to send the message that his supporters needed to sober up for a moment.
"This is not a time for celebration...not when we have buried our children under a mountain of debt," Boehner said as the crowd cheered and held up cell phone cameras. He repeated the "get serious" mantra moments later: "Let's start right now by recognizing this is not a time for celebration. This is a time to roll up our sleeves and go to work."
Even before Election Day, the National Republican Campaign Committee insisted that it wasn't going to be popping campaign corks on Tuesday night. The Grand Hyatt event "is not a 'party'—even if voters remove Democrats from power, you don't celebrate at a time when one in 10 Americans are out of work," a NRCC spokesman said last week.
The message, in other words, is that the Republicans will be serious about governing once they take power—and will vow to show restraint, despite having an obscenely large majority. But GOPers have already begun to list some of the obstructionist hijinks they could resort to once they take the House: ceaseless investigations into federal agencies, threats of impeachment, and anything it takes for Obama to end up being a one-term president.
Moreover, the influx of far-right and tea party-backed House members could encourage the GOP to pursue ideological crusades that end up consuming the party's agenda. And at least one veteran of the 1994 Republican revolution warned the GOP about venturing down such a path. "We had gotten distracted by some symbolic battles...government-subsidized art, for instance," says Michael Paranzino, a staffer for former Arizona GOP Rep. Matt Salmon, a member of Gingrich's freshmen class.
Paranzino warned the reborn GOP against launching small-bore, yet ideologically inflammatory crusades such as probes of PBS funding. "It's a lot of energy for a few million dollars here or there," he says, adding that Gingrich's 1998 downfall in the House gave him "the taste of disenchantment with a do-nothing Congress."
But despite early vows of restraint from ascendant leaders like Rep. Darrell Issa, the fist-pumping crowd at the Grand Hyatt made it harder to believe that the new Republican majority would be inclined to hold back. "It's a fucking bloodbath!" yelped one young attendee as more House results came up on the screen. When I asked a tight-lipped Hill staffer what he expected from a GOP-controlled House, he simply replied: "It's going to be entertaining."
"This is not a time for celebration...not when we have buried our children under a mountain of debt," Boehner said as the crowd cheered and held up cell phone cameras. He repeated the "get serious" mantra moments later: "Let's start right now by recognizing this is not a time for celebration. This is a time to roll up our sleeves and go to work."
Even before Election Day, the National Republican Campaign Committee insisted that it wasn't going to be popping campaign corks on Tuesday night. The Grand Hyatt event "is not a 'party'—even if voters remove Democrats from power, you don't celebrate at a time when one in 10 Americans are out of work," a NRCC spokesman said last week.
The message, in other words, is that the Republicans will be serious about governing once they take power—and will vow to show restraint, despite having an obscenely large majority. But GOPers have already begun to list some of the obstructionist hijinks they could resort to once they take the House: ceaseless investigations into federal agencies, threats of impeachment, and anything it takes for Obama to end up being a one-term president.
Moreover, the influx of far-right and tea party-backed House members could encourage the GOP to pursue ideological crusades that end up consuming the party's agenda. And at least one veteran of the 1994 Republican revolution warned the GOP about venturing down such a path. "We had gotten distracted by some symbolic battles...government-subsidized art, for instance," says Michael Paranzino, a staffer for former Arizona GOP Rep. Matt Salmon, a member of Gingrich's freshmen class.
Paranzino warned the reborn GOP against launching small-bore, yet ideologically inflammatory crusades such as probes of PBS funding. "It's a lot of energy for a few million dollars here or there," he says, adding that Gingrich's 1998 downfall in the House gave him "the taste of disenchantment with a do-nothing Congress."
But despite early vows of restraint from ascendant leaders like Rep. Darrell Issa, the fist-pumping crowd at the Grand Hyatt made it harder to believe that the new Republican majority would be inclined to hold back. "It's a fucking bloodbath!" yelped one young attendee as more House results came up on the screen. When I asked a tight-lipped Hill staffer what he expected from a GOP-controlled House, he simply replied: "It's going to be entertaining."
After the Disaster, What's Obama's Next Act?
— White House photo/Pete Souza (US Government Work).
The president has a tough decision to make: how confrontational to be in opposing the more extreme and more powerful Republicans.
| Wed Nov. 3, 2010 3:00 AM PDT
Now comes Act III for Obama, and the critical question: will he change the script?
The election results on Tuesday night were no surprise: a tea party-fueled tsunami of discontent washed away the House Democratic majority and eroded much of the Democrats' territory in the Senate. It was a historic rout. The initial returns indicated the Republicans would pick up five dozen or so House seats and end up with a commanding majority in that chamber. Prominent House Democrats—Florida's Alan Grayson [1], South Carolina's John Spratt, Virginia's Tom Perriello [2]—lost. Tea party favorite Rand Paul [3] dominated the early returns, winning the Kentucky Senate seat. Sen. Russ Feingold, a three-term, non-establishment Democratic progressive from Wisconsin—gone. Republican candidates with lobbying and corporate ties waltzed into office. A reelected Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) will be commanding a sizable tea party caucus in the House. Republicans made signficant gains in gubernatorial races and state legislative contests, placing the party in a strong position to consolidate power by redrawing congressional districts in key states.
And all this was utterly predictable. With high unemployment persisting, polling had made it clear for months—perhaps over a year—that Obama and the Democrats had backed themselves onto the edge of a cliff. Yet the president and his strategists—David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, and others—failed to plot a path to safety. At times, it even appeared they were not exerting themselves fully—such as this past August when the White House did nothing special to prepare for the coming elections.
The election results on Tuesday night were no surprise: a tea party-fueled tsunami of discontent washed away the House Democratic majority and eroded much of the Democrats' territory in the Senate. It was a historic rout. The initial returns indicated the Republicans would pick up five dozen or so House seats and end up with a commanding majority in that chamber. Prominent House Democrats—Florida's Alan Grayson [1], South Carolina's John Spratt, Virginia's Tom Perriello [2]—lost. Tea party favorite Rand Paul [3] dominated the early returns, winning the Kentucky Senate seat. Sen. Russ Feingold, a three-term, non-establishment Democratic progressive from Wisconsin—gone. Republican candidates with lobbying and corporate ties waltzed into office. A reelected Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) will be commanding a sizable tea party caucus in the House. Republicans made signficant gains in gubernatorial races and state legislative contests, placing the party in a strong position to consolidate power by redrawing congressional districts in key states.
And all this was utterly predictable. With high unemployment persisting, polling had made it clear for months—perhaps over a year—that Obama and the Democrats had backed themselves onto the edge of a cliff. Yet the president and his strategists—David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, and others—failed to plot a path to safety. At times, it even appeared they were not exerting themselves fully—such as this past August when the White House did nothing special to prepare for the coming elections.
In his first eighteen months in office, Obama racked up impressive achievements: a stimulus bill that saved or created millions of jobs (though not enough), health care reform legislation that contained significant improvements (though it also included hard-to-understand provisions and eschewed a public option), and a Wall Street reform measure that set up a new consumer financial protection agency (though it did not tighten up the rules of the road sufficiently). But the president, who had presented such a compelling tale as a candidate, allowed Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to outfox and outmaneuver him. The GOP did all it could to block Obama's agenda and then claimed he had not succeeded. Its leaders lied about the stimulus (claiming it had literally produced no new jobs), and they enabled and cheered on tea party critics of health care reform, who decried nonexistent "death panels" and who compared Democratic supporters of the bill to "Nazis." And Obama never fully called them out.
Republican narratives [4] ("socialism," "no new jobs," "too much spending") triumphed and fed the tea party fires, while Obama, staying true to his 2008 vow to transcend partisan wrangling, kept insisting that he could do business with the other side for the common good of the nation. He did occasionally poke the GOPers in the eye for it's drumbeat of "no," but he went back and forth, sometimes denouncing them, sometimes negotiating with them (often for naught). At best, he presented a mixed message. And the results are obvious. The Republican's stark rallying cry (No to Obama) subsumed Obama's balancing act (We Must Work Together and Have Patience, But The Other Side Sometimes Doesn't Really Try).
Now Obama has a tough choice. Does he continue with this approach, even as the Republican caucuses in the House and Senate shift toward the right and greater extremism, or does he recalibrate and set a more confrontational tone? It's true, as the conventional pundits say, that American voters don't like confrontation in Washington. But if Obama—the guy with the bully pulpit—fails to define the opposition in clear terms, it will keep on defining him and his initiatives to their advantage.
This is not just about politics—and winning in 2012. It's about policy. With the Republicans in charge of the House, Obama's accomplishments are in jeopardy. The GOPers may not attempt to repeal the entire health care reform act—though Bachmann and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) vowed to do so on election night. But the Republicans can try to limit or restrict funding for the implementation of various provisions of that bill. Ditto for the enacted Wall Street reform legislation and parts of the stimulus package. To protect these and other policy victories, Obama is going to have to engage in divisive battle with the Republicans. (In the Senate, Rand Paul [5] can use a variety of parliamentary rules to bring any and all action to a halt. And if he blocks raising the debt ceiling, he could singlehandedly precipitate a global economic crisis.)
Yet in the days before the elections, Obama was still sending I-can-work-with-them smoke signals. He told [6] the New York Times he was optimistic he could find common cause with Republicans after the elections: "It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, they feel more responsible, either because they didn't do as well as they anticipated, and so the strategy of just saying no to everything and sitting on the sidelines and throwing bombs didn't work for them, or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals and work with me in a serious way."
In other words, Obama didn't recognize that the tea party-ized GOP, which has striven to block his key initiatives and catered to corporate interests, is not likely to change its inclinations after these elections. In fact, the tea party influence is likely to be stronger, and that means the Republican impulse to obstruct will be more intense. (After that interview became public, a prominent Democratic strategist angrily complained to me: he was signing Democratic fundraising emails that slammed the GOP as implacable opponents to Obama's policies, yet the president was undercutting this message by describing the Rs as reasonable foes.)
Last week, when asked [7] how the president will be able to work with empowered and more conservative congressional Republicans, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs didn't have much to say: "We are going to be in a situation…that will require progress to be made only by working—where that’s possible—only through working together." He didn't acknowledge that Obama would be facing a brick wall of opposition. Moreover, this opposition will have two bedeviling (for the White House) components to it. The newly elected Republicans are more ideologically obdurate than the current band in Congress, and the House leaders are veterans who presumably learned from the excesses of the 1990s, when Newt Gingrich bumbled the job. An opposition with more ideological fervor and more savvy—that's not a good recipe for the White House.
In Obama's first act—as candidate—he effectively sold himself as a pol who could change Washington rancorous ways. In his second act—as president with whopping majorities in the House and Senate—he won the legislative battles with his nuanced tactics but lost the political war to a fierce and blunt opposition. His next act—as a president facing tremendous national problems but challenged by a hostile House—requires a significant rewrite. If he doesn't get it right, there may not be an Act IV.
If Obama—the guy with the bully pulpit— fails to define the opposition in clear terms, it will keep on defining him.
In the face of GOP demagoguery, subversion, and obstruction, Obama won legislative battles—his margins in Congress were large enough for that—but he never managed to win the story.Republican narratives [4] ("socialism," "no new jobs," "too much spending") triumphed and fed the tea party fires, while Obama, staying true to his 2008 vow to transcend partisan wrangling, kept insisting that he could do business with the other side for the common good of the nation. He did occasionally poke the GOPers in the eye for it's drumbeat of "no," but he went back and forth, sometimes denouncing them, sometimes negotiating with them (often for naught). At best, he presented a mixed message. And the results are obvious. The Republican's stark rallying cry (No to Obama) subsumed Obama's balancing act (We Must Work Together and Have Patience, But The Other Side Sometimes Doesn't Really Try).
Now Obama has a tough choice. Does he continue with this approach, even as the Republican caucuses in the House and Senate shift toward the right and greater extremism, or does he recalibrate and set a more confrontational tone? It's true, as the conventional pundits say, that American voters don't like confrontation in Washington. But if Obama—the guy with the bully pulpit—fails to define the opposition in clear terms, it will keep on defining him and his initiatives to their advantage.
This is not just about politics—and winning in 2012. It's about policy. With the Republicans in charge of the House, Obama's accomplishments are in jeopardy. The GOPers may not attempt to repeal the entire health care reform act—though Bachmann and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) vowed to do so on election night. But the Republicans can try to limit or restrict funding for the implementation of various provisions of that bill. Ditto for the enacted Wall Street reform legislation and parts of the stimulus package. To protect these and other policy victories, Obama is going to have to engage in divisive battle with the Republicans. (In the Senate, Rand Paul [5] can use a variety of parliamentary rules to bring any and all action to a halt. And if he blocks raising the debt ceiling, he could singlehandedly precipitate a global economic crisis.)
Yet in the days before the elections, Obama was still sending I-can-work-with-them smoke signals. He told [6] the New York Times he was optimistic he could find common cause with Republicans after the elections: "It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, they feel more responsible, either because they didn't do as well as they anticipated, and so the strategy of just saying no to everything and sitting on the sidelines and throwing bombs didn't work for them, or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals and work with me in a serious way."
In other words, Obama didn't recognize that the tea party-ized GOP, which has striven to block his key initiatives and catered to corporate interests, is not likely to change its inclinations after these elections. In fact, the tea party influence is likely to be stronger, and that means the Republican impulse to obstruct will be more intense. (After that interview became public, a prominent Democratic strategist angrily complained to me: he was signing Democratic fundraising emails that slammed the GOP as implacable opponents to Obama's policies, yet the president was undercutting this message by describing the Rs as reasonable foes.)
Last week, when asked [7] how the president will be able to work with empowered and more conservative congressional Republicans, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs didn't have much to say: "We are going to be in a situation…that will require progress to be made only by working—where that’s possible—only through working together." He didn't acknowledge that Obama would be facing a brick wall of opposition. Moreover, this opposition will have two bedeviling (for the White House) components to it. The newly elected Republicans are more ideologically obdurate than the current band in Congress, and the House leaders are veterans who presumably learned from the excesses of the 1990s, when Newt Gingrich bumbled the job. An opposition with more ideological fervor and more savvy—that's not a good recipe for the White House.
In Obama's first act—as candidate—he effectively sold himself as a pol who could change Washington rancorous ways. In his second act—as president with whopping majorities in the House and Senate—he won the legislative battles with his nuanced tactics but lost the political war to a fierce and blunt opposition. His next act—as a president facing tremendous national problems but challenged by a hostile House—requires a significant rewrite. If he doesn't get it right, there may not be an Act IV.
Tea Partiers: Can You Hear Us Now?
| Tue Nov. 2, 2010 9:17 PM PDT
George Washington, a tea partier who is fighting the death penalty, from home in Mt Vernon (really!) : Photo: Stephanie MencimerLeaders of the Tea Party Patriots, one of the nation's largest tea party umbrella groups, traveled the country (in a private jet) in the final days before the election to rally the grassroots and get out the vote. "Patriot One" landed at Washington's Dulles Airport Monday night, in time for the group to rest up before planting a Gadsen flag on the grounds of the Capitol Tuesday and hosting an election night party at the nearby Hyatt hotel. The tea party leaders picked a good spot for their soiree: the Hyatt is directly across the street from the hotel House Speaker Nanci Pelosi chose for her election night event. The contrast was pretty striking. While the tea party party had almost a 1:1 tea partier to press ratio, the Democrats apparently kicked out most of the media from their event, preferring to mourn in private. Inside the Hyatt, the tea partiers were happily cheering the Dems' demise. Debbie Dooley, one of TPP's national coordinators, told the gathered crowd, "Welcome to Nancy Pelosi's retirement party."The event had all the trappings of the Washington establishment—$10 drinks, megatrons, swank hotel. It was decidedly lacking in star power, with local activists having their moment in the sun rather than say, Dick Morris. But there were a few highlights: "George Washington," in full Revolutionary War garb, on hand to talk liberty, pose for pictures, and give all the reporters someone to interview. Ditto for "Captain America," who's become a regular at these DC events. There was a Dartmouth student who made a tea party rap song and other patriotic singers.
The gathered tea partiers cheered the news of each new GOP victory: Marco Rubio in Florida, the defeat of Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.). Occasionally they'd break into chants of "USA! USA!" or "Can you hear us now?" Most of the speakers expressed their intent to ensure that all those newly elected conservatives in Congress remain true to the cause. National coordinator Mark Meckler shouted out at one point, "Anybody committed to the movement for the long term?" To which many responded with raised fists and cheers. There was talk of a 40-year plan, indoctrination sessions for incoming freshmen in Congress, and veiled threats to candidates elected with the help of the movement (who might not stay true to tea party principles).
Kerry Scott of the Alexandria, Virginia, tea party said, "I think people are very leery" of being part of the establishment now that their candidates have won. "We're going to do everything in our power to keep the pressure on them. We don't want them to get too comfortable." Scott also suggested that the tea party might change its focus to local issues now that the election is over, out of concern that it won't be able to influence the national debate that much. I asked whether activists worried that they might have trouble keeping people motivated and involved once Congress is in Republican hands. Scott admitted that's a real concern: "I have 200 people on my email list. Only 20 show up for a meeting."
One tea partier at the victory party thought that there was one subgroup of activists who might become more engaged after the election: disabled conservatives. Hard to believe, perhaps, but there is a fairly good-sized contingent of tea party activists in that camp, and Melissa Ortiz is one of them. Co-chair of the Can-Do Conservatives—whose motto is "A hand up, not a hand out!"—Ortiz has been organizing a small army of wheelchair users like herself and other disabled folks to support the movement. She suspects that as health care reform really kicks in, and people start to see "rationing of care or lack of care all together," the normally liberal disabled community will start to get angry. "We've only just begun to fight," Ortiz said, as she sat with her service dog Lucy. She noted that it's not surprising that the disabled would be drawn to the tea party, which is all about personal responsibility and "being able to make your own choices." That, she added, is what most disabled people want: "I don't need the government to take care of me." Currently unemployed and working some freelance jobs, Ortiz is one of the few tea party activists I've met who wants a job on the Hill after the election. I suspect there will be more of them on Wednesday.
Sen. Rubio's Tea Party To Do List
| Tue Nov. 2, 2010 5:20 PM PDT
So what can we expect from Senator Marco Rubio? Put simply, the Miami native is a purist conservative's dream. Rubio has called for permanently extending the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts and slashing taxes on American corporations. He also wants to permanently end the estate tax (he calls it the "death tax") and slash a host of other taxes.
As for the unemployed, you're out of luck in Senator Rubio's eyes. In July, amidst a fight in Congress over extending unemployment benefits to millions of Americans, Rubio said Congress shouldn't extend jobless benefits unless cuts are made to offset that spending—even though it's common practice, among Democrats and Republicans, to pass said benefits without immediately funding them because they're deemed emergency spending.
Next on Rubio's to-do list is repealing the health care reform bill, passed earlier this year, and blocking any efforts to pass cap and trade energy legislation. Rubio also opposes any new efforts to pass a "card check" bill in Congress, legislation that would make it easier for workers to unionize. In other words, every major piece of policy Democrats have passed or pursued in recent years—yeah, Rubio's against it.
What remains to be seen is what stance he'll take on immigration reform, a looming issue for the 112th Congress. As MoJo's Suzy Khimm reported in May, Rubio initially criticized Arizona's hard-line immigration bill, which gave police more power to question and detain illegal immigrants. However, Rubio soon backtracked on that criticism and softened his take on the Arizona bill. Keep your eyes on how Rubio approaches a potential immigration bill in the new Congress.
Dear Congress: Leave the "Obamacare" funny business to the cartoonists, will you?
— By Zina Saunders
Wed Nov. 3, 2010 3:00 AM PDT
Mother Jones illustrator Zina Saunders creates editorial animations riffing on the political news and current events of the week. In this week's animation, Saunders' cartoon alter ego demonstrates for the incoming Congress why "Obamacare" isn't nearly as scary as existing health insurance plans. [Click here to read MoJo's special report on Tuesday's elections.] Ever wonder what doctors would say if a safe landed on your head? Watch the animation below and wonder no more. And since you ask: Yes, Saunders does all her own awesome cartoon voiceovers. —The EditorsWATCH: The scariest thing about the election results
The Tea Party's Post-Election Plan for World Domination
Shaking up the midterms was all fine and good, but now the conservative movement wants to "convert" you.
Tue Nov. 2, 2010 3:00 AM PDT
What happens to the tea party now?There's been lots of speculation about what the tea party movement will do after the midterm elections. Not only have tea party activists been busy plotting their next move, they've already revealed much of their plan. It looks something like this: Raise money, have more tea parties, and join the permanent political class. It's a far cry from a movement that has emphasized its insurgent organizing structure and disdain for politics as usual.
The Tea Party Patriots, one of the largest and most successful national tea party groups, which claims to represent more than 2,800 local organizations, is already focusing on ingratiating itself to the incoming Congress. TPP laid out much of its future intentions in a fundraising memo that was leaked to archrival and California talk show host Mark Williams in October. The document outlines the group's 40-year vision for world dominion, so to speak. The first steps are simple.
According to the memo and subsequent emails to members, TPP will host a "freshman orientation" for incoming members of Congress (many of whom will be getting congratulatory phone calls from tea partiers at the urging of TPP's leadership). It's the tea partiers' attempt to ensure that their newly elected members aren't unduly influenced by the likes of former Senate majority leader-turned-lobbyist Trent Lott, who has said that he intends to "co-opt" the newly elected senators so they will "fall in line" with the establishment and party leadership. Step two is a leadership summit for TPP's local coordinators to teach them how to maintain the pressure on elected officials tempted to sell out to the great American middle.
Step three is readying for a possible lame duck session of Congress. Tea partiers are promising intense opposition to "several disastrous bills that will likely be introduced or reintroduced," according to the memo. They envision the soon-bo-be-out-of-power Democrats rushing a host of bills to the floor—the cap and trade bill, further stimulus spending, and comprehensive immigration reform—and they're set to mobilize their minions against these initiatives. It's certainly not clear whether the Democrats have such plans, but TPP is even ready to oppose a lame duck campaign finance bill that would bring more transparency to the political process, something the tea partiers often profess to want.
None of these national moves will come cheaply. TPP estimates that the freshman orientation will cost at minimum $175,000, an eye-popping figure for the scrappy tea party movement. The leadership summits for local coordinators are pegged at another $50-$75,000 each. And the lame-duck session lobbying crusade? A cool $110,000.
Hence the need for the tea party movement to join the perpetual fundraising machine of DC politics, which will require staff and more marketing to do more fundraising. To make all this happen, tea partiers are going to have to hit up some people with really deep pockets. That fact alone could change the tenor of the movement, which is already looking to millionaires for critical support. The 40-year plan memo was presented in September as part of a fundraising pitch to a secretive and wealthy group of far-right evangelical Christian movers and shakers who have underwritten much of the culture wars over the past few decades. Then, in September, TPP announced the receipt of a $1 million donation to use for local get out the vote efforts, but it refused to disclose the name of the donor—a move that directly contravened one of the tea party movement's core values: transparency. (Another donor, whose identity Mother Jones uncovered, gave TPP leaders the use of his private jet to travel the country rallying the troops before the election.)
TPP has other ideas for drumming up with funding, too, namely running ads on Rush Limbaugh's radio show and the Drudge Report, which they've already started doing. According to TPP, these ads will help with its "brand awareness, donation requests and issue-driven buys." Of course, it costs money to raise money like this. TPP estimates $500,000. Local activists report that weekly conference calls with the TPP leaders have featured regular appeals for money, and not in the small amounts the movement was built on. They're looking for thousands of dollars a pop. And this raises a question posed by some local groups: Do the activists need a big, expensive national infrastructure? Especially when much of it will apparently be devoted to—what else?—having more tea parties. (TPP claims in its memo that in 2011 there will be more than 2,000 local tax day tea parties on April 15.)
But TPP does have a broader vision. In a weird mix of religious language and Madison Avenue jargon, TPP's 40-year-plan states that its goal isn't necessarily to take over Congress or elect any candidates. (It's a nonprofit and can't endorse anyway.) Instead, the tea partiers are looking to convert people. They write, "Tea Party Patriots plans to convert sixty percent or more of the population to support our core values of fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets."
Many of the people they're hoping to convert are much younger than the aging activists who are currently showing up with Gadsen flags at their local tea parties. TPP acknowledges in its plan that while the tea party movement has succeeded in mobilizing aging baby boomers, it hasn't exactly lit a fire among younger voters. If the tea party is to last another 40 years, it's going to have to reach out to the under 55 set. To that end, TPP plans to follow the Republican lead and that of every other aspiring group: to hit college campuses, where it will form clubs, programs, and run recruiting programs. In its memo, the group says, "We want to explore every avenue to communicate the irreplaceable values of freedom." In the end, though, if TPP succeeds in funding its 40-year plan and doing all the things its says it will, it won't look so different from any other well-funded, professional conservative lobbying outfit in DC. It will, in effect, be part of the establishment.
Step three is readying for a possible lame duck session of Congress. Tea partiers are promising intense opposition to "several disastrous bills that will likely be introduced or reintroduced," according to the memo. They envision the soon-bo-be-out-of-power Democrats rushing a host of bills to the floor—the cap and trade bill, further stimulus spending, and comprehensive immigration reform—and they're set to mobilize their minions against these initiatives. It's certainly not clear whether the Democrats have such plans, but TPP is even ready to oppose a lame duck campaign finance bill that would bring more transparency to the political process, something the tea partiers often profess to want.
None of these national moves will come cheaply. TPP estimates that the freshman orientation will cost at minimum $175,000, an eye-popping figure for the scrappy tea party movement. The leadership summits for local coordinators are pegged at another $50-$75,000 each. And the lame-duck session lobbying crusade? A cool $110,000.
Hence the need for the tea party movement to join the perpetual fundraising machine of DC politics, which will require staff and more marketing to do more fundraising. To make all this happen, tea partiers are going to have to hit up some people with really deep pockets. That fact alone could change the tenor of the movement, which is already looking to millionaires for critical support. The 40-year plan memo was presented in September as part of a fundraising pitch to a secretive and wealthy group of far-right evangelical Christian movers and shakers who have underwritten much of the culture wars over the past few decades. Then, in September, TPP announced the receipt of a $1 million donation to use for local get out the vote efforts, but it refused to disclose the name of the donor—a move that directly contravened one of the tea party movement's core values: transparency. (Another donor, whose identity Mother Jones uncovered, gave TPP leaders the use of his private jet to travel the country rallying the troops before the election.)
TPP has other ideas for drumming up with funding, too, namely running ads on Rush Limbaugh's radio show and the Drudge Report, which they've already started doing. According to TPP, these ads will help with its "brand awareness, donation requests and issue-driven buys." Of course, it costs money to raise money like this. TPP estimates $500,000. Local activists report that weekly conference calls with the TPP leaders have featured regular appeals for money, and not in the small amounts the movement was built on. They're looking for thousands of dollars a pop. And this raises a question posed by some local groups: Do the activists need a big, expensive national infrastructure? Especially when much of it will apparently be devoted to—what else?—having more tea parties. (TPP claims in its memo that in 2011 there will be more than 2,000 local tax day tea parties on April 15.)
But TPP does have a broader vision. In a weird mix of religious language and Madison Avenue jargon, TPP's 40-year-plan states that its goal isn't necessarily to take over Congress or elect any candidates. (It's a nonprofit and can't endorse anyway.) Instead, the tea partiers are looking to convert people. They write, "Tea Party Patriots plans to convert sixty percent or more of the population to support our core values of fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets."
Many of the people they're hoping to convert are much younger than the aging activists who are currently showing up with Gadsen flags at their local tea parties. TPP acknowledges in its plan that while the tea party movement has succeeded in mobilizing aging baby boomers, it hasn't exactly lit a fire among younger voters. If the tea party is to last another 40 years, it's going to have to reach out to the under 55 set. To that end, TPP plans to follow the Republican lead and that of every other aspiring group: to hit college campuses, where it will form clubs, programs, and run recruiting programs. In its memo, the group says, "We want to explore every avenue to communicate the irreplaceable values of freedom." In the end, though, if TPP succeeds in funding its 40-year plan and doing all the things its says it will, it won't look so different from any other well-funded, professional conservative lobbying outfit in DC. It will, in effect, be part of the establishment.
The New Landscape
| Wed Nov. 3, 2010 1:00 AM PDT
There were some bright spots for Dems—Harry Reid won in Nevada, as did Barbara Boxer in California. But the real questions for Wednesday are for President Barack Obama. What will he do now? How will he respond to the Dems' defeat? David Corn has more on that here: Obama's Next Act.
We're Still at War:
Photo of the Day for November 3, 2010
Wed Nov. 3, 2010 2:30 AM PDT
Soldiers are tested in a react to fire drill, during a spur ride held on Victory Base Complex by United States Forces-Iraq III Corps Special Troops Battalion, Oct. 24. This was the last scheduled spur ride of III Corps' tour in Iraq. They were able to welcome a group of XVIII Airborne Corps soldiers to Iraq as eight Airborne soldiers from Fort Bragg participated in the event. Five of them completed the challenge to be inducted into the Order of the Spur. Photo via U.S. Army.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)