_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); (function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; (document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0] || document.getElementsByTagName('body')[0]).appendChild(ga); })();

Conservative Advocacy

The Tea party’s Focus: Elections

The Tea Party’s Focus: Elections

by Bill Hennessy

For the Tea Party movement, 2009 was about coming together, meeting our brothers and sisters in arms, and standing athwart socialism, yelling, “Stop!”  It worked. President Obama entered office promising socialized medicine, card check, and cap and trade all before the August recess.  He went 0 for 3 thanks a grassroots uprising that came together like spattered quicksilver.

boston-tea-party

In our desire to fix things, we also launched a lot of legislative initiatives.  These initiatives included various sovereignty amendments in the states, petitions for Constitutional Conventions, petitions for redress of grievances, petitions of right, and state laws exempting states from any national healthcare legislation.  Each of these was a bold and important step, and such laws, amendments, and petitions should continue.  Next year.

Let’s not fool ourselves. While the Tea Party movement has been very effective, it has been effective only when focused on a very narrow set of compelling causes.  Our quick responses to card check and cap and trade convinced the White House to suspend those initiatives until we weren’t looking. Our overwhelming attack on ObamaCare took the last bit of energy and time from each Tea Party patriot.  We left it all on the field.

In 2010, our focus must be to overthrow the leftists in Congress at the ballot box.  By definition, our focus will be diffused. We will have to divide up 40 critical races and do our best on 395 others.  And that’s just the House.  We also must win a dozen Senate races, a dozen gubernatorial races, and countless state legislative seats.  Our task is mighty.

We are up to the challenge. But we are not up to the challenge of winning tough races AND waging state legislative battles AND fighting for Constitutional Amendments AND the myriad other causes that we’ve taken up.  If we are to prevail on November 2, 2010, we must table our various legislative initiatives until after the election. Our power is without limits.

You might say, “But we’re so close. We can’t quit now.”  I want you to ask yourself this.  If you wake up on November 3 and realize that the Tea Party movement was put down by a corrupt White House, that some great conservative candidate lost while you and the people you influence worked on a state sovereignty bill that will be ruled unconstitutional by Obama’s federal court appointees, will you be able to look at your children and grandchildren ever again?  Will you ever forgive yourself if your effort toward a state’s non-binding resolution costs us our freedom?

That’s how stark our choices are in 2010.  We either take control of Congress, or we learn to live in a socialist empire where your children’s careers are determined by a bureaucrat, where your wages are directed by a federal labor board, and where the words you speak are approved by a government correctness czar—under threat of incarceration.

This is the year. If we do not take back Congress, the socialist tsunami bearing down on the beachhead of freedom will overwhelm our valiant resistance.  Let’s put aside the bills and amendments until a friendly national legislature is seated and ready to reward our hard work for their election. As Ben Franklin said over 230 years ago, if we don’t hang together, we will surely hang apart.

Original Article can be found here.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • PDF
  • email
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • BlinkList
  • Faves
  • Live
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • RSS

Glenn Reynolds: More impact is what’s next for the Tea Party movement | Washington Examiner

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

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • PDF
  • email
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • BlinkList
  • Faves
  • Live
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • RSS

BREAKING-Martha Coakley: Devout Catholics ‘Probably Shouldn’t Work in the Emergency Room’

BREAKING-Martha Coakley: Devout Catholics ‘Probably Shouldn’t Work in the Emergency Room’.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • PDF
  • email
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • BlinkList
  • Faves
  • Live
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • RSS

Biggest Story of 2009: The Rise of the Virtual Newsroom

12596236295284

By  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

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • PDF
  • email
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • BlinkList
  • Faves
  • Live
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • RSS

Anatomy of a Beat-Down Part 1: Why Kenneth Gladney Was Beaten, And by Whom

Anatomy of a Beat-Down Part 1: Why Kenneth Gladney Was Beaten, And by Whom.

763d952c7bee4c4abe_12m6bxper

Anatomy of a Beat-Down Part 1: Why Kenneth Gladney Was Beaten, And by Whom

by Stage Right

On August 6, 2009 two Service Employee International Union (SEIU) leaders and a volunteer for Organizing for America (OFA) assaulted Kenneth Gladney outside of Rep. Russ Carnahan’s Town hall meeting on health care.  The perpetrators were arrested at the scene of the crime, and three months later charges have finally been filed.

Much has been said in the past three months about this incident.  Here at Big Government calls have been made for justice, for formal charges and mostly for the mass media to follow the story and delve into the government’s role in this violent attempt to intimidate and silence dissent.  We can no longer wait for the establishment journalists to connect the dots and bring to light the insidious relationships between the SEIU, OFA, Russ Carnaham’s office and the Obama Administration.

0

Was this assault merely a flare up of tempers during a heated exchange of rival political camps?  Or was it a coordinated attempt to silence the scores of protesters who had been so effective at swaying public opinion against the President’s health care scheme?  Today, Big Government will bring to light documents that read like an instruction manual for the SEIU forces in St. Louis the evening of August 6th.  We will also show that on the very same evening of the St. Louis assault, an almost identical scene played out in Tampa Bay, Florida.  Also involving SEIU and OFA.  Also resulting in hordes of union members shouting down and physically evicting protesters from a U.S. Representative’s Town hall meeting.  Finally, we will introduce all of the various players in leadership roles at these organizations, what they said in instructing their members in how to fight back against the Town hall protesters, and how these individuals all connect to each other and to the Obama Administration.  As I said, we’ve been waiting for the “Real” journalists to do this, we’ve waited long enough.

On June 1, 2009 President Obama enjoyed a 64% Job Approval rating with a disapproval rating of 30%.  As Summer approached, the President began the plans for the roll out of his comprehensive plan to overhaul the entire distribution system for America’s health care services.  As the messaging began, the talking points were clear:  “If you like your current health plan, you can keep it”, “This plan will cover the 40 million Americans who have no insurance”, “This plan will not add to the deficit and not raise taxes”.  It all seemed too good to be true.   The House Committee on Energy and Commerce promptly passed the first version of a reform bill in June.  President Obama planned multiple town hall meetings across the country including an unprecedented event televised live on ABC and everything seemed moving toward a major victory for the President and the Democratic Party.

In late June and through the month of July, members of congress held scattered town hall meetings in their districts to get their constituents’ feedback on the proposed health care bill.  The clusters of semi-organized protesters who had rallied at “Tea Parties” earlier in the Spring took these meetings as opportunities to rejuvenate their energies with passionate opposition to these congressmen.  YouTube videos began circulating showing outraged citizens challenging their representatives and showing those representatives completely unprepared for any legitimate questions about the proposed bill.  It was clear in many cases that the representatives were not well versed on these bills beyond the boiler-plate talking points the administration had handed them.  They were not used to being questioned.

By the beginning of August Sarah Palin had caught headlines by describing certain policy discussions that evaluate a patients “level of productivity in society” and how it relates to the level of prioritized care they would receive as ‘death panels’ , Rep. Michelle Bachmann had delivered a stinging speech on the House floor tearing apart the President’s advisors on health policy, Sen. Arlen Spector was caught flat-footed at a town hall meeting and protests began cropping up all around the country at various town hall meetings of Senators and Congressmen.  President Obama’s job approval rating had now plummeted to  52% with a disapproval rating of 41% (an unbelievable 23% swing in approval loss and disapproval gain combined in 60 days).  The White House had seen enough.  It was time to take action and engage the opposition.

Somewhere between August 2nd and August 6th a strategy was devised that put all tools at the administrations disposal in line and firing at the protesters.  August 4th seems to be an important day in the roll out of this strategy.  The White House famously posted a new aggressive offensive on their blog calling out what they described as “mis-information” about the proposed bill and directed true-believers to report any sources of these “lies” to a special e-mail address:  flag@whitehouse.gov.  Also on the 4th, an organization called Health Care for America Now (HCAN) released a document that became a blueprint for intimidation and, ultimately, violence under the guise of confronting the tea party protesters at these town hall meetings.

HCAN is an organization funded by various unions, most significantly SEIU, whose main purpose is to promote and push the effort for government-provided, universal health care.  (To understand the SEIU’s reasons for pushing for this government health care, read this post.)  The National Field Director for HCAN is Margarida Jorge.  Margarida Jorge used to work for the SEIU as an organizing director.

On August 4th Margarida Jorge released a four page memo instructing members of HCAN on how best to combat the mounting opposition on display at the town hall meetings.  On the HCAN web site, the new tactics were filed on a post under the heading “Fight Back Against the Right”.  A subsequent HCAN call to action on August 5th was under the benign headline “The Guns of August: A Call to Arms for Progressives and Obama Activists” likening the debate to World War I.

The entire memo can be seen here

763d952c7bee4c4abe_12m6bxper

The memo features instructions and tactics for the left on how to dominate the meeting and marginalize the protesters from the right:

  • Their side will be smaller but noisier. You must bring enough people to drown them out and to cover all our bases so as to marginalize their disruptive tactics.
  • We need to stack our folks in the front to create a wall around the Member, and we need to stake out the best spots for visibility and signs. Reconnaissance on the venue and an understanding of the staging will be important here. Make sure you do your homework so you can position your folks most effectively.

It features ideas on how to manipulate the media:

  • Make sure you have people holding signs in every place where a TV camera is likely to be and that next to every right wing sign, there’s one of your signs with your message.
  • Don’t wait for the reporter to approach you. You must approach the reporters and be assertive in shaping the narrative that they write. Have someone assigned to greeting the media or checking in media as they arrive. That way you will know who they are and be able to work with them both during the event and afterwards.

It has ideas about how to dominate the conversation by asking the congressman prepared, rehearsed questions:

  • Line up a number of people who feel comfortable interrupting and prepare them with statements like:
    • Excuse me, I came today to listen to Representative XXX explain how this bill is going to make health care more affordable for me and my family. We’re being gouged by insurance companies that just want to make more profits while we struggle to keep up with premiums and co-pays. Representative, how are you going to fix that?”
    • “I’m retired and can’t afford my prescription drugs because I’m on a fixed income. Representative, how is this bill going to affect me?”
    • “I want to hear the Representative speak. He’s the one voting on the bill. Representative, how will this bill help people who already have insurance at work?”
    • “What I’m worried about is how we’re going to keep the insurance companies from continuing to charge people more for being sick and keep them from taking away coverage when we need it most. What’s the plan for that?”

And, on page four of the memo written by Margarida Jorge of HCAN are instructions for hosting a town hall meeting.  These instructions include:

  • One advantage to organizing your own Town Hall or public event with Members of Congress is that you will have much more control over the event and limit the other side’s opportunities for disruption.
  • Make sure you turn out a substantial number of people from your base and that everyone signs a sign in sheet upon entering the event. Give everyone name tags so they are easily identifiable. If you want to ensure greater control over turnout, you can ask attendees to rsvp or even issue tickets to the event and require presentation of the ticket at the entrance.
  • Choose a venue that is difficult for the opposition to access without being noticed. Get to your location early and make sure you set up the venue in a way that ensures that the attendees you want are at the front and that any protesters who come are sequestered as far as possible from the stage.
  • Make sure that you assign marshals to take care of moving the crowd, keeping people organized and orderly, and acting as security should any need arise to ask noisy or disruptive protesters to leave.
  • Another way to limit protesters’ ability to hijack your event is to confiscate signs or leaflets that they may bring into the venue from outside. The best way to do this is to make a blanket rule that no one can bring signs or leaflets and to advertise this fact as you do turn out in the weeks preceding the event. You can distribute your own signs in the event and offer them one as they enter if you choose to allow them to enter.
  • It’s important that you take away right-wingers opportunities to talk with reporters by making sure that your staff or leaders are in constant contact with the media who attend.

On August 5th the DNC released a video advertisement calling the protesters an “angry mob” and showing a photo of one alleged protester hanging a congressman in effigy.  Also on August 5th we hadSpeaker of the House Nancy Pelosi derisively calling the protesters “Astro-turf” and claiming that they were carrying signs with swastikas.

By August 6th liberal web sites like Talking Points Memo and Daily Kos were cheering HCAN’s instructions and the stance taken by Organizing For America (The left-wing volunteer web site evolved from the Obama Campaign) urging liberals to call congress (providing them instructions on how to do this) and then to register the call at the OFA web site.  Huffington Post celebrated the new bold move with a post urging the unions to get more involved (an astounding 11,000 comments appear on this post in just 6 days, many of them from early in the day on August 6th show that the readers of HuffPo knew exactly what this union engagement meant and what the results would be).

Finally on August 6th, hours before the Carnahan town hall meeting where Kenneth Gladney was assaulted by members of the SEIU, David Axelrod and Jim Messina gave a pep talk to Senators on Capitol Hill prior to their leaving for the August recess.  According to Politico:

They showed video clips of the confrontational town halls that have dominated the media coverage, and told senators to do more prep work than usual for their public meetings by making sure their own supporters turn out, senators and aides said.  And they screened TV ads and reviewed the various campaigns by critics of the Democratic plan.

”If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard,” Messina said, according to an official who attended the meeting

Two days after the instructions on how to manage and control protestors at town hall meetings were released by Margarida Jorge at HCAN, one day after the Speaker of the House likened protestors to Nazis and mere hours after President Obama’s top political advisors assured Congressional Democrats that “If you get hit, we will punch them back twice as hard”, Kenneth Gladney lay beaten and bloody on the ground outside Rep. Russ Carnahan’s Town Hall meeting.

seiu

Tomorrow we will show how the people who are now charged with assaulting him are connected to SEIU and HCAN, how they followed HCAN’s instructions perfectly which inevitably led to the violence, and we will show how St. Louis was not the only meeting that followed HCAN’s template and ended in much the same way.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • PDF
  • email
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • BlinkList
  • Faves
  • Live
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • RSS

GOP Knight Aims To Check Democrats’ Bishop – Conservative anger attracts national attention, financial backing to district

Sal Gentille

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

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • PDF
  • email
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • BlinkList
  • Faves
  • Live
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • RSS

Growing public backlash over Obamacare | Washington Examiner

Growing public backlash over Obamacare | Washington Examiner.

Two-dozen Democrats from Republican-leaning districts, who voted for the House version of President Obama’s increasingly unpopular health care reform, are beginning to feel a growing public backlash. ReversetheVote.org has already raised $123,105 that will be dedicated exclusively to defeating all 24, including Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., in 2010 if they don’t reject the final conference committee version of the bill. They “voted to take away your healthcare and put it in the hands of federal bureaucrats,” the Web site says. “Democrats made a choice … next fall, voters will make a choice.”

They’re not the only ones. Twenty-nine other House Democrats who voted for the bill come from districts that John McCain carried, making them particularly vulnerable to an angry electorate that never bought into the “hope and change” hype in the first place.
Democratic senators who are up for re-election next year in nine states face the same dilemma. As support erodes for Obamacare’s massive tax increases and deep Medicare cuts, they must also consider the personal political cost. Only 38 percent of the public supports their health care plan, the lowest level of public support in more than two years. As more details of the 2,074-page behemoth — which most members of Congress concede they have not read — continue to trickle out, the more the poll numbers drop.
It’s not hard to figure out why. Obamacare was supposed to lower costs, extend coverage and improve Americans’ health care options. It does none of those things.
Despite accounting gimmicks, Obamacare will cost $4.9 trillion over the next 20 years. This enormous sum will suck the wind out of an already struggling economy. The plan includes higher premiums for younger workers, fines for those who refuse to purchase coverage, lower Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals, and job-killing taxes on employers.
Obamacare will also force an estimated five million workers to lose their employer-provided coverage.
Federal taxpayers will be forced to pay for elective abortions even though only 13 percent favor such coverage.
As far as improving health care options is concerned, the administration wants to cut down on mammograms and slash Medicare Advantage for seniors to save money. After all this spending and upheaval, 24 million Americans will remain uninsured in 2019. Every Democrat who ignores the public will and votes for this higher-cost, lower-care monstrosity will be held accountable. Voters back home won’t let them forget it.
Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • PDF
  • email
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • BlinkList
  • Faves
  • Live
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • RSS

2010 Election Cycle Starts Now !

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.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • PDF
  • email
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • BlinkList
  • Faves
  • Live
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • RSS

CSA Long Island Answers The Call of Michelle Bachmann

The Video speaks for itself. Thank’s Art for another great repot!

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • PDF
  • email
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • BlinkList
  • Faves
  • Live
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • RSS

Conservative Society For Action Halloween Rally – All Politics Are Local

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

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • PDF
  • email
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • BlinkList
  • Faves
  • Live
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • RSS