Conservatives Monitoring The Liberal Left
Conservative Advocacy
Glenn Reynolds: More impact is what’s next for the Tea Party movement | Washington Examiner
Jan 31st
via Glenn Reynolds: More impact is what’s next for the Tea Party movement | Washington Examiner
By: Glenn Reynolds
Sunday Reflections Contributor
January 31, 2010
A year ago, the Tea Party movement didn’t exist. Today, it is arguably the most popular political entity in America. The movement is already more popular than the Republican or Democratic parties, according to a recent NBC / WSJ poll .
Even in blue-state California, three in 10 voters identify with the Tea Party movement.
And, of course, Scott Brown’s come-from-behind blowout in Massachusetts occurred in no small part because of money and volunteers from the Tea Party movement around the nation.
This is heady stuff — and, for people in the political establishment, both Republicans and Democrats, it’s worrying stuff. If political movements can bubble up from below, and self-organize via the Internet, what will happen to the political class?
It’s one thing when record stores or video rental places get dis-intermediated. It’s a whole different ball game when people who rely on politics not only for their livelihood, but for maintaining their considerable sense of self-importance discover that they may not be quite as necessary as it once seemed.
But that hard lesson is becoming apparent. In fact, the Tea Party movement seems to be showing better political judgment than either of the two major political parties.
Last week, Joe Scarborough wrote that the Tea Party movement might “tear itself apart.” His evidence of this: Some squabbling over a Tea Party convention in Nashville, Tenn. Well, squabbling is normal in movement politics, particularly when people think they’re being shortchanged on money and credit. But what’s really striking about the Tea Party movement isn’t that there’s squabbling — it’s how little squabbling, overall, there has been.
Scarborough’s column, remember, was occasioned by the Brown victory in Massachusetts. A few Tea Party purists didn’t want to support Brown, seeing him as insufficiently pure. But the vast majority made the entirely pragmatic determination that Brown, whatever his flaws, was vastly better than his Democratic opponent Martha Coakley, and just the guy to stop Obamacare in its tracks if elected.
They poured in donations and volunteers (millions of dollars and thousands of people), and helped Brown win, and were immediately proven right as Brown’s victory did, in fact, derail Obamacare and produce a general Democratic flight from the whole hope and change agenda.
The Republican and Democratic hacks who were supposed to be worrying about this sort of thing, meanwhile, were asleep at the switch. Republican Party support to Brown was late in coming, appearing only after the Tea Party support raised his profile.
Democrats were even slower to recognize the threat and react, and their reaction — a last-minute visit by President Obama — probably hurt more than it helped, demonstrating their tone-deafness regarding public attitudes.
So far the Tea Party’s record is looking pretty good. But what happens next? Many people — er, well, many pundits, anyway — complain that the Tea Party movement is entirely oppositional: For a brief moment, the key buzzword was “nihilistic,” though the connection between Turgenev and Tea Parties seems rather tenuous.
In fact, Tea Partiers seem quite clear on what they’re for: A limited government, one that keeps its nose out of their business and focuses on things like protecting the country in preference to redistributing income.
As blogger Freeman Hunt wrote recently:”You want a big tent? It’s fiscal conservatism. The people are overwhelmingly in favor of it.You offer that, you follow through on it, and you get the Republicans, the moderates, and a sizable chunk of disaffected Democrats.”
Only to the likes of MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann is support for limited government a species of nihilism. But Tea Partiers are, in fact, working on a platform, which they’ve called the Contract From America . Though the name may remind some of Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America, this is something very different.
It’s a set of ideas developed via an interactive Web site, where voting determines which elements are most important. And it’s not a top-down contract consisting of promises made by leaders to the voters — it’s more in the nature of a contract of employment from the voters, which politicians may choose to accept, or look for alternative employment.
This is basically a crowd-sourced party platform, with the smoke-filled rooms and convention logrolling taken out of the picture. More dis-intermediation. I’m guessing that the political class won’t like it much, either.
But whether the political class likes it or not, this sort of thing is probably here to stay. While 2009 was the year of denigrating and ignoring the tea parties, I suspect that in 2010, they’ll be listened to quite closely. Those who fail to do so, are likely to find themselves out of a job.
ExaminerContributor Glenn Harlan Reynolds hosts “InstaVision” on PJTV.com, and blogs at Instapundit.com. He is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee.
Read more at the Washington Examiner:http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Sunday_Reflections/More-impact-is-what_s-next-for-the-Tea-Party-movement-83041312.html#ixzz0eDfpIYCy
Biggest Story of 2009: The Rise of the Virtual Newsroom
Dec 2nd

By Jeffrey Lord on 12.1.09 @ 6:09AM
It was the biggest story of 2009.
If you doubt, ask ACORN. Or Van Jones. Or the So We Might See campaign. You won’t need Time magazine’s once clout-filled “Man of the Year” issue to figure it out, either. Just take a look back at the bestseller lists, the ratings of Fox News or simply turn on your local AM radio dial.
The single most important news event of 2009 was the emergence of The Virtual Newsroom. A newsroom run by a virtual army of conservative journalists famous and unknown, their individual and collective impact multiplied exponentially by millions of Internet users, radio listeners, readers and television viewers.
How did this happen? How does it work in practice?
First, perspective is needed here. Like other big news events, it didn’t happen overnight. There is history, lots of it.
In the afterglow of World War II, at the dawn of the Cold War, the ideology of American liberalism reigned supreme. What began at the beginning of the 20th century as the “progressive movement” — an ideology that believed government control in some fashion was The Answer to the everyday lives of Americans — was now riding herd.
Politically, on the one-to-ten scale, Communism was at a thousand. Beginning with the Soviet Union, entire nations had succumbed to the idea of state control of everything, run by the famous Marxist dictum of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” In America, adherents to the driving principle of government control were spread out along the scale below, from socialists like Norman Thomas at a ten to progressives like FDR Vice President Henry Wallace at a nine and on down the line, ending with the weakest strain of the germ as exemplified by liberal Republicans like the New York Governors Thomas E. Dewey and Nelson Rockefeller.
The “progressive disease” was slowly and not so slowly infecting everything it touched — the culture, education, religion, commerce and so on. It was “mainstreamed” — and nowhere else were its believers more prominent than in the American media. As fate would have it, the media itself was undergoing a transformation — technology relentlessly pushing it along in a fashion that in fact had nothing to do with the politics of the participants. The power of newspapers, magazines and books was growing as printing and distribution technology blossomed. Radio, coming on the scene in the 1920s, was reaching what would be thought of as a peak, quickly giving way not just to television but to network television.
And in each and every case, these events were being shaped by believers who self-identified somewhere on that one-to-ten scale of “progressivism.” It was, literally, one giant food chain of intellectual thought, with respectability unquestioningly bestowed on just about everyone of any note who believed — which meant just about everyone of note. The country could trade political parties in the White House from Truman to Eisenhower, while putting up losing presidential nominees like Dewey or Democrat Adlai Stevenson. It could send its kids to college, buy bestselling books, go to church, turn the television channel from CBS to NBC to, later, ABC — and without missing a beat be on the receiving end of some forms of the progressive message.
In retrospect, the opening shot of the media counter-revolution to all of this was the 1951 publication of one book – God and Man at Yale – by a precocious William F. Buckley, Jr. The book took on the startled establishment of Yale, portrayed by alumni Buckley as progressive politicians in the guise of educators. The book was an instant bestseller, setting Buckley at 26 firmly on the road to a hugely successful life as a founding father of conservative media. The book was followed by Buckley’s establishment of National Review magazine in 1955.
The conservative counter-revolution in the American media was on.
There isn’t space to detail all that brought us to this moment. In brief — the known events of the Great Society, the 1960s cultural revolution, the comeback of AM radio, the rise of the Internet, cable and satellite TV, Fox News. What we can focus on here is the effect — how all of this has salted out in the biggest story of 2009. The coming of age of the Virtual Newsroom and its convergence with the conservative movement.
Imagine, if you will, the traditional newsroom as it dominated the once-great metropolitan daily newspapers of America. A vast acreage of desks, in the modern era, separated into cubicles. Somewhere is the glassed-in office of the editor, and somewhere else, usually not on the same floor, the clubby and comfortable quarters of the publisher.
Now take this image and virtualize it. Add in the names and faces, the specific tasks of each. Most importantly, understand that just as with the original, physical version of a newsroom, the relationship of one person to the other, one task to the other and each person and task to the whole is essential to the success of the entire virtual enterprise.
So let’s tour the Virtual Newsroom.
This being the modern era, computers hum at every work station. The acreage required to accommodate everyone is simultaneously huge — mammoth — yet intimate. This is a virtual operation. To be “at your desk” requires only a computer, and while the story files in here, the journalist in question can in fact be anywhere, not unlike the old-fashioned idea of the trench-coated foreign correspondent on the line from 1930s Berlin or the hard-charging White House correspondent calling in from the Dallas, Texas of November 22, 1963.
In one corner are the newspaper people, still engaging in the ancient art form by writing the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal or putting together the New York Postor Washington Times. In another corner are the magazines — the one you are reading, The American Spectator – along with Buckley’s National Review, Human Events,the Weekly Standard and Commentary. Throughout are the columnists — my colleagues — who sift the work product of the rest of the room for investigation or commentary.
Just down the hall is talk radio row. This line of studios filled with hosts, producers and call-screeners is enormous, covering hundreds of shows from Maine to California. The man who almost single-handedly created this section of the newsroom has — but of course — a corner office. Everybody in the newsroom loves Rush. They know he’s in when cigar smoke is seen wafting out the door, the occasional NFL replay booming forth as he preps his way through his “stack of stuff.” His EIB studio adjoins his office, a glassed-in-front providing an inside-look for visitors as he sits before the golden microphone. The great thing about the Virtual Newsroom is the corner office concept. Everyone can have one if they wish. Sean Hannity has one, a football frequently arcing out onto the larger newsroom floor waiting for someone to toss it back. Donuts airlifted from someplace called Stan’s in California signal that Mark Levin is back there, along with the pin-up of the U.S. Constitution. Beck’s people are distinctive because they seem to be perpetually running out of chalk, giving new meaning to the phrase “let’s chalk this one up.” Laura Ingraham is frequently seen running out to run with pal Lucy, the music plugged in, eyes rolling as she catches an Obama image on a nearby monitor.
Moving along the room we enter TV Land, populated primarily by Fox News and Fox Business Channel personalities. CNN rented space for Lou Dobbs but recently gave it up. O’Reilly and Beck seem constitutionally unable to stop pranking each other, which has necessitated a rare disciplinary procedure of giving Bernard Goldberg his virtual office separating the two on occasion. Dennis Miller does not help the situation. Sean and Beck, doing double-duty with radio shows and TV shows, seem to live in the newsroom, both apparently having a huge time of sheer fun with the whole thing. Greta and Neil and Stuart Varney work their respective beats, although there is a ripple of amusement or two every time heads lift to the realization that Frank Rich is on Imus and hence Fox Business, yet again playing defense for the Times.
The rapidly expanding section of the Virtual Newsroom that has everyone buzzing is the Internet “desk.” Drudge is here, ditto Andrew Breitbart. There is much suspiciously timed coming and going to the virtual water cooler when Breitbart stars James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles are in. In real life people are always disappointed to see O’Keefe doesn’t wear the chinchilla fur to work and that Giles is, in fact, suitably dressed for the virtual workplace. What’s particularly interesting here is the size of this division. Job applications pour in hourly from conservative bloggers around the nation. The applications are stamped “hire now” by someone wearing a Harry Potter-style “invisibility cloak” and the virtual newsroom expands yet again. There is some speculation that the physical dimension of the newspapers will at some point vanish altogether and their offices just be folded into the Internet group. Time will tell.
Last but most importantly not least, is what we call the Boswell department. Named after England’s James Boswell, the famous 18th-century chronicler of The Life of Samuel Johnson, the Boswell’s are conservative authors. The real-time chroniclers of conservatism as it is or is not seen or applied today. Between them they take the time to illuminate the basics of conservative philosophy (Mark Levin in Liberty and Tyranny), the craziness of liberalism (Ann Coulter, most recently in Guilty ,Glenn Beck inCommon Sense, Laura Ingraham in Power to the People), the historic attachment of progressivism to overripe if not outright totalitarian political thought (Jonah Goldberg in Liberal Fascism) or what the progressives running the government are up to now (Michelle Malkin in Culture of Corruption, Dick Morris in Catastrophe). The central function of each is the same. To educate, to remind, to explain, to illuminate for their Virtual Newsroom colleagues. This in turn keeps all of us in the Virtual Newsroom repeatedly attuned to the necessary ability to examine what we see in the world around us. To understand exactly what we are seeing, why we are seeing it, and most importantly why what we are seeing does or does not work.
SO HOW DOES all this work together? What is here that makes the Virtual Newsroom and its conservative occupants indisputably the biggest story of 2009?
Three stories.
Story One: Here you have two young conservative journalists, O’Keefe and Giles, possessed of a keen philosophical eye, a knowledge of technology (cameras, microphones videotape, the Internet) and a fat and inviting liberal fish in a barrel known as ACORN. Imagination conjured as to how they will approach their story — they go out and conduct their very-old style journalism investigation. Story in hand, Andrew Breitbart of Breitbart.tv in the Internet division takes the handoff. He sends a virtual memo to talk radio row’s Beck and Hannity. Who in turn are both Fox News stars. Five…four…three…two…one. Bang! Within a virtual instant, the Virtual Newsroom has just blown in the hull of the good ship ACORN, its stunned survivors racing around the deck of a political Titanic as Breitbart, O’Keefe and Giles are powered by the engines of the Virtual Newsroom. The full power of the Virtual Newsroom kicks in. Talk radio shows light up the call screeners screens. The newspaper and magazines kick in, in print and online. The lights are on in the Fox studios as the surging Fox audience gapes at a federally funded organization strategizing on prostitution. And…lights out for ACORN. Or more accurately, considerably damaged and suddenly congressionally unfunded. And the coverage from what’s left of the liberal mainstream media in all this? Next to zero.
Story Two: Van Jones has it made. From community organizer straight to the White House staff in the Obama era. Says Obama key aide Valerie Jarrett:
JARRETT: You guys know Van Jones? [Applause. Moderator injects: "This is his house apparently."]
JARRETT: Oooh. Van Jones, alright! So, Van Jones. We were so delighted to be able to recruit him into the White House. We were watching him, uh, really, he’s not that old, for as long as he’s been active out in Oakland. And all the creative ideas he has. And so now, we have captured that. And we have all that energy in the White House.
Alas for Mr. Jones, the Virtual Newsroom is at work. This is the 21st century, and not unlike millions of others, Mr. Jones has portions of his career on videotape. On the Internet. The blogger sleuths of the Virtual Newsroom are at work, from coast to coast. This time the info surfaces, speech by speech, piece of tape by piece of tape, painting a portrait of Van Jones — painted by Van Jones himself. A portrait recognized of the old progressivism highlighted so ably in book form by National Review‘s Jonah Goldberg in Liberal Fascism – the desire to take from one group seen as undeserving and unworthy of their creations and give it to others. A portrait made more vivid by the Virtual Newsroom discovery of a tie to the nuttiness of the “Truther” movement that believes George W. Bush secretly set up the attack on America. In the material flows. The Old Media, predictably if irrelevantly, ignores the story. Seamlessly now, racing around the Virtual Newsroom from Internet desk to the talk radio desk to the television, magazine and newspaper desks — Van Jones is quickly and unceremoniously out of his White House job.
Story Three: The So We Might See campaign “hate speech” campaign that pushes to get both Beck and CNN’s Lou Dobbs off the air. In this case, the story came from my desk at The American Spectator section of the Virtual Newsroom. After spending much time in the Internet division’s research library, the Spectator runs a series of my investigative columns involving seven major religious denominations and what appear to be an effort to silence Virtual Newsroom colleagues Limbaugh, Beck, O’Reilly, Dobbs and others. Paid for in part by left-wing billionaire George Soros’s Open Society Institute. Once up on the virtual screen of The American Spectator, customers of the Virtual Newsroom begin swamping the leaders of their faiths, furious at what is instantly seen as an attempt to silence free speech — and in a fashion a portion of the Virtual Newsroom itself. Backtracking begins. Three faiths change their mind, two dropping from the FCC petition, one out of the group altogether. The campaigns to Drop Dobbs and get Beck are removed from the So We Might See site. Who in the Virtual Newsroom was involved in this? The Internet desk, the magazine desk, talk radio row, and Lou Dobbs. Ironically, Dobbs left CNN the night of my appearance on his show, a fact that only highlights CNN’s inability to cope with the Virtual Newsroom. He is still, it should be said, over there in his studio on radio row.
What these three stories illustrate — and there are more, the health care fight being another — is that the Virtual Newsroom has arrived. It is populated by a cast of thousands — TV stars, radio broadcasters, Internet sites, columnists, investigators, people in pajamas — you name them, they are here. They have a philosophical underpinning for what they do — something seen in the response to Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny. They know exactly what to look for, as Breitbart, O’Keefe and Giles of the Internet division have shown. Most importantly, they know how to take a story — to alert their colleagues in the Virtual Newsroom — and then work the story across the newsroom from virtual or physical print to Internet to radio to television. To wit: from the cameras of Breitbart, O’Keefe and Giles to talk radio and the bright lights of Beck and Hannity. Or, from my computer to pages of The American Spectator to the set of Lou Dobbs. And so on, for every single colleague in the Virtual Newsroom who has a compelling story to tell.
What is particularly interesting here — and a key to the success of the entire Virtual Newsroom — is that the Virtual Newsroom itself is a living, breathing example of what Levin calls Adam Smith’s devotion to free markets as “spontaneous order.”
No one “has” to write or broadcast a particular story. It’s a free market in story ideas out there on the Virtual Newsroom floor. As a result, creativity reigns. A million different ideas float through the Virtual Newsroom on any given day, with the journalists in the room looking them over as if at some giant intellectual smorgasbord. What appeals to The American Spectator may not interest National Review. What turns on Breitbart may enthuse Beck but not Hannity. The curiosity of Michelle Malkin on an issue may not appeal to a Jed Babbin at Human Events. Launching Laura is not the same as ticking off Ann. What gets Rush’s adrenaline flowing…well…generally speaking Rush gets everybody’s adrenaline flowing.
The problem for American progressives today — be they the activists of ACORN, Van Jones, the So We Might See group or others — is that they are unaccustomed to finding themselves on the receiving end of this kind of attention from the journalists, commentators, investigators, talk radio hosts, television stars and authors of the Virtual Newsroom. It is safe to say that whatever else went on in the three stories listed here, the scoundrels at ACORN, Mr. Jones, and the So We Might See-ers were taken aback at the fact they — they! — were suddenly under the Virtual Newsroom microscope for their public activities. Accustomed to velvet-gloved treatment from their progressive buddies in the Old Media, they simply never factored the existence of the Virtual Newsroom into the equation.
Newsflash to progressives. The Virtual News room is here to stay. Not only is it not going away — in spite of whatever shenanigans may be going on behind the closed doors of the FCC — it is gaining in both size and strength.
And gaining in something else that simply terrifies progressive activists everywhere: the power to seriously influence events.
Which is why, when all is said and done by December 31, it is already clear that the story of the year in 2009 is not President Obama, health care, Iraq or even Tiger Woods.
The story of 2009 is the emergence of a new and powerful player increasingly dominating American politics, culture, education, religion and who knows what else.
That player is the media that is the Virtual Newsroom. And the conservatives who run it.
Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.
Reprinted from : The American Spectator
GOP Knight Aims To Check Democrats’ Bishop – Conservative anger attracts national attention, financial backing to district
Nov 30th
Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:12:00
Stephen Flanagan’s strategy worked.
The 55-year-old Suffolk businessman and conservative activist wanted to prove to the world that his congressman, four-term Rep. Tim Bishop, could be defeated, despite scant interest from national Republicans.
So Flanagan and his group, the Conservative Society for Action (CSA), whose 3,000 members meet monthly in a rented American Legion hall in West Islip, hatched a plan to attract national attention to the district and lure credible candidates to the race.
They swarmed Bishop’s first summer town hall meeting in June, mobbing him as he arrived and then chanting epithets inside. Police had to be called to escort the congressman from the event.
Footage of the protest spread like wildfire across the Internet and cable news. The National Republican Congressional Committee circulated the video among its donors. Conservative activists across the country mimicked the strategy, fanning a national phenomenon.
And suddenly Bishop, who won by healthy margins in each of the last four elections, became a target.
“We did target him for removal, and we felt that the first step was to create a vulnerability. That’s when we came up with the town hall protest concept,” Flanagan said. “The hope at that point was that, once it became clear that he was vulnerable in his position, it would attract a wider field of candidates and financial support going forward.”
Now, the unrest Flanagan’s group has stirred on the normally sleepy East End has attracted national attention from Republican and Democratic leaders, who see Bishop’s seat as one of a few dozen that could help shift the balance of power in Washington. The contest has also become a national bellwether for the relevance of the right-wing agitators and the ability of national Republicans to channel widespread frustration into electoral success.
“That put a spotlight on the district that had not been there before,” said David Wasserman, the House editor at the Cook Political Report, which has tagged Bishop’s district as a possible swing seat. “Republicans did some more prying into this district to try and gauge whether it was a sort of one-time-only thing, or whether skepticism toward Democrats is more widespread.”
Republicans in Washington and Suffolk say they found the latter, and as a result Flanagan and his allies have secured all of what they wanted and more: a credible Republican candidate, financial backing from wealthy GOP patrons and, at last, the interest of the national party.
Randy Altschuler, a Wall Street entrepreneur and Republican bundler, has emerged as the early favorite among local activists and GOP operatives in Washington, who believe he can meet the all-important benchmarks that determine a candidate’s credibility: endorsements, infrastructure and cash.
“With Randy, it changes the dynamic completely,” said Assembly Member Phil Boyle, who has managed several Republican congressional campaigns in Suffolk. “This is Tim Bishop’s worst nightmare.”
Altschuler has also demonstrated considerable progress toward a crucial benchmark many of his predecessors have promised to meet but failed: At least $2 million in cash-on-hand, the minimum the NRCC prefers to see before committing to a challenger. Altschuler’s campaign announced earlier this month that he has already collected a quarter of that, much of it from his own pocket.
“There’s been a lot of positive support from the national party,” Altschuler said.
An NRCC official confirmed that Altschuler had met with Republicans in D.C. and that, so far, his campaign had reached or exceeded each of the benchmarks national GOP operatives had laid out for him.
“He is impressing people in the first district and he’s generating significant momentum,” said the official. “He’s put up some impressive numbers and an impressive infrastructure.”
Altschuler’s campaign is being run by Chris Maloney, a veteran of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign and a former aide to the NRCC, who has helped Altschuler build a sizeable ground operation and connections to party officials in Suffolk and D.C.
Altschuler has engendered valuable goodwill among local lawmakers and activists by loaning his 100 or so volunteers out to their campaigns. His team hopes that strategy will help him avoid the problems that have plagued upstate Republican congressional candidates Jim Tedisco and Dede Scozzafava, who have suffered from the perception that they were forced upon their districts by national Republicans.
“My team has gotten involved with a lot of local races,” Altschuler said. “You have to show that you’re invested in the local party.”
But some Republicans remain hesitant to embrace Altschuler because of his Wall Street background. During the presidential campaign, when Altschuler served as a bundler for John McCain, reports emerged that a company he founded, OfficeTiger, had helped outsource American jobs to India. Democrats have already promised to make that a central theme of their attack ads, which has given some local Republicans pause.
“There’s a lot of this coronation going on,” said one Suffolk Republican who has stayed out of the race. “I think he probably has a consensus of support, but there are people who are concerned.”
Those people are instead turning to an alternative candidate, George Demos, a former Securities and Exchange Commission lawyer who worked on the investigation of Bernard Madoff. But Demos was late in announcing his candidacy, has raised only a paltry sum and has been outpaced by Altschuler in winning endorsements and assembling a campaign operation.
John LaValle, the Suffolk Republican chairman, said that would make catching up very difficult for Demos.
“Randy Altschuler has clearly established his ability to raise funds, and in addition to that he’s put together a very solid campaign team,” LaValle said. “We’ll see how George proceeds.”
What Demos lacks in money and infrastructure, he hopes to make up in grassroots energy. Demos is a member of Flanagan’s group, the CSA, and has already courted the organization’s members on several occasions for their endorsement.
But so has Altschuler, which Flanagan and his cohorts take as evidence of their growing influence.
“I think they know that we’re responsible for taking the first step,” Flanagan said of the candidates. “Our message is clear: If you don’t represent us, we’re going to come after you.”
Source: The Capitol
–
ABOVE: For the first time since 2002, Rep. Tim Bishop has a credible Republican opponent. Photo by Andrew Schwartz
2010 Election Cycle Starts Now !
Nov 15th
Sorry I am late posting this, but I am bogged down with writing several papers for school. I have list of stuff I need to add once I get to a conformable position with progress in my term papers and thesis papers.
Above, is a rally that our friends @ CSA had last Saturday (Nov. 7th), entitled “2010 Starts Now”. Steve Flanagan of CSA gave a speech that reenergized tea party members, highlighted the victories of the 2009 election cycle, and outlined the beginnings of a strategy for 2010 elections. Visit CSA @ www.CSA-1776.org and on meetup.com where many members chat online between meetings and political action events. Although they are based and active on Long Island, in New York, this group has ignited much of the bigger Tea Party movements throughout the US. They were the first with the Town Hall Confrontations of elected officials (Steve Bishop), which made it into the mainstream media and gave the democrats a BIG problem during the August recess this past summer, extending way into the fall. The strategy of CSA has been a model for other groups across the US, and collectively through our actions we are bringing real change. Shout out to Virginia and New Jersey for turning their state leadership from blue to red. 2010 will see more of the same in local, state and national politics. Change, it’s commin’ and were taking Back America, and throwing the bums out.
CSA Long Island Answers The Call of Michelle Bachmann
Nov 8th
The Video speaks for itself. Thank’s Art for another great repot!
Conservative Society For Action Halloween Rally – All Politics Are Local
Nov 2nd
Our friends at Conservative Society For Action (CSA), the main force behind the tea party movement in Long Island, New York had their get out the vote rally on Halloween afternoon on 10/31/09. Director Steve Flanagan gave a motivating speech that highlights the problems with national and local politics. He stressed that there are no such thing as an off year election, and by ignoring local elections, our country has got to where we are today, Remember to vote this election day in your town. From the guy who paves your roads, to local judges, to state representatives, to governor make sure you get out there and vote. Time to take our country back!! Go Hoffmaan-23



