Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The new Tea Party movement is a corporate sham and an elaborate PR campaign


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#1 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,973 posts

Posted 01 March 2009 - 03:20 PM

I just thought I'd make this in response to Venom's thread. While I'm pretty sure he's just a fakeposter, there's no doubt that there are people that actually believe this poo is organic, and that these people are acting in their interests.

Read the full article here. I'm going to post the most intriguing excerpts.

What hasn’t been reported until now is evidence linking Santelli’s “tea party” rant with some very familiar names in the Republican rightwing machine, from PR operatives who specialize in imitation-grassroots PR campaigns (called “astroturfing”) to bigwig politicians and notorious billionaire funders. As veteran Russia reporters, both of us spent years watching the Kremlin use fake grassroots movements to influence and control the political landscape. To us, the uncanny speed and direction the movement took and the players involved in promoting it had a strangely forced quality to it. If it seemed scripted, that’s because it was.


What we discovered is that Santelli’s “rant” was not at all spontaneous as his alleged fans claim, but rather it was a carefully-planned trigger for the anti-Obama campaign. In PR terms, his February 19th call for a “Chicago Tea Party” was the launch event of a carefully organized and sophisticated PR campaign, one in which Santelli served as a frontman, using the CNBC airwaves for publicity, for the some of the craziest and sleaziest rightwing oligarch clans this country has ever produced. Namely, the Koch family, the multibilllionaire owners of the largest private corporation in America, and funders of scores of rightwing thinktanks and advocacy groups, from the Cato Institute and Reason Magazine to FreedomWorks. The scion of the Koch family, Fred Koch, was a co-founder of the notorious extremist-rightwing John Birch Society.

Let’s go back to February 19th: Rick Santelli, live on CNBC, standing in the middle of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, launches into an attack on the just-announced $300 billion slated to stem rate of home foreclosures: “The government is promoting bad behavior! Do we really want to subsidize the losers’ mortgages?! This is America! We’re thinking of having a Chicago tea party in July, all you capitalists who want to come down to Lake Michigan, I’m gonna start organizing.”

Within hours of Santelli’s rant, a website called ChicagoTeaParty.com sprang to life. Essentially inactive until that day, it now featured a YouTube video of Santelli’s “tea party” rant and billed itself as the official home of the Chicago Tea Party. The domain was registered in August, 2008 by Zack Christenson, a dweeby Twitter Republican and producer for a popular Chicago rightwing radio host Milt Rosenberg—a familiar name to Obama campaign people. Last August, Rosenberg, who looks like Martin Short’s Irving Cohen character, caused an outcry when he interviewed Stanley Kurtz, the conservative writer who first “exposed” a personal link between Obama and former Weather Undergound leader Bill Ayers. As a result of Rosenberg’s radio interview, the Ayers story was given a major push through the Republican media echo chamber, culminating in Sarah Palin’s accusation that Obama was “palling around with terrorists.” That Rosenberg’s producer owns the “chicagoteaparty.com” site is already weird—but what’s even stranger is that he first bought the domain last August, right around the time of Rosenburg’s launch of the “Obama is a terrorist” campaign. It’s as if they held this “Chicago tea party” campaign in reserve, like a sleeper-site. Which is exactly what it was.

ChicagoTeaParty.com was just one part of a larger network of Republican sleeper-cell-blogs set up over the course of the past few months, all of them tied to a shady rightwing advocacy group coincidentally named the “Sam Adams Alliance,” whose backers have until now been kept hidden from public. Cached google records that we discovered show that the Sam Adams Alliance took pains to scrub its deep links to the Koch family money as well as the fake-grassroots “tea party” protests going on today. All of these roads ultimately lead back to a more notorious rightwing advocacy group, FreedomWorks, a powerful PR organization headed by former Republican House Majority leader Dick Armey and funded by Koch money.

All of these are ultimately linked up to Koch’s Freedom Works mega-beast. Freedomworks.org has drawn fire in the past for using fake grassroots internet campaigns, called “astroturfing,” to push for pet Koch projects such as privatizing social security. A New York Times investigation in 2005 revealed that a “regular single mom” paraded by Bush’s White House to advocate for privatizing social security was in fact FreedomWorks’ Iowa state director. The woman, Sandra Jacques, also fronted another Iowa fake-grassroots group called “For Our Grandchildren,” even though privatizing social security was really “For Koch And Wall Street Fat Cats.”

So today’s protests show that the corporate war is on, and this is how they’ll fight it: hiding behind “objective” journalists and “grassroots” new media movements. Because in these times, if you want to push for policies that help the super-wealthy, you better do everything you can to make it seem like it’s “the people” who are “spontaneously” fighting your fight. As a 19th century slave management manual wrote, “The master should make it his business to show his slaves, that the advancement of his individual interest, is at the same time an advancement of theirs. Once they feel this, it will require little compulsion to make them act as becomes them.” (Southern Agriculturalist IX, 1836.) The question now is, will they get away with it, and will the rest of America advance the interests of Koch, Santelli, and the rest of the masters?


so you believed all this? you were caught up in the fervor? you think something financed by one of the richest men in america is in your, the lowly commoner's interest?

congrats you're a corporate shill

#2 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,716 posts

Posted 01 March 2009 - 07:26 PM

If only Soros had sponsored it.

Then it would be a tea party "we can believe in"

#3 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,973 posts

Posted 01 March 2009 - 07:51 PM

If only Soros had sponsored it.

Then it would be a tea party "we can believe in"

if only you had been a good poster

then this would be a post "worth reading"

#4 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,186 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 01 March 2009 - 08:42 PM

if only you had been a good poster

then this would be a post "worth reading"

fiz, is it even within your scope of understanding to at some point in your life go, "hey good point or hmm, that's another way of looking at"?
Your like what would happen if Fonzi had banged Goodwill Hunting...
a overinflated dweeb with IQADD. Intelligence Quotient Attention Deficient Disorder who can't say the phrase I was wwwwwwwrong(before your time catch phrase, sorry. Unless Johnny Knoxville has something similar)
In some ways you are Bizzaro George W Bush. Let that sink in..it will come to you as you drink your sugar free organic chai tea while stealing somebody elses WiFi signal....:thumbsup:

#5 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,973 posts

Posted 01 March 2009 - 08:50 PM

hey pstall what does it say about you that you think someone responding to an investigative article revealing the corporate backing behind a faux grassroots with "hurr hurr but obama hurr hurr" is a good point?

why do you think that response is worth the time the poster obviously didn't take to formulate an intelligent response?

are you so determined to sit on the fence and never make a worthwhile observation that you've decided to white knight this troll?

i don't expect much from someone who slurps friedman like you do, but rushing to the aid of white noise poo posters is even less than what i had anticipated. congratulations on failing to meet my continually lowering standards of you.

#6 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,186 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 01 March 2009 - 09:04 PM

A sham is sham. No doubt. Retort the poster with similar informed diatribes and Im cool.
Just do an equal amount of homework and show the same passion for the Soros type of stealth agendas. They are out there.
And let go of the friedman readings danielson. Its bad for your complexion.

#7 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,716 posts

Posted 01 March 2009 - 09:12 PM

if only you had been a good poster

then this would be a post "worth reading"


You are quite hilarious.

#8 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,973 posts

Posted 01 March 2009 - 09:20 PM

A sham is sham. No doubt. Retort the poster with similar informed diatribes and Im cool.

poo he won't read? no thanks. people like him don't get that way because they read long things.

Just do an equal amount of homework and show the same passion for the Soros type of stealth agendas. They are out there.

this thread isn't about george soros, but your little equivalency game is transparent and ill informed. tell me how soros' 60,000 dollars he and his family directly donated to barack obama deserves a comparison to what was mentioned in the original post.

#9 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,973 posts

Posted 01 March 2009 - 09:21 PM

but pstall if you feel so strongly about soros, then please, make your own thread. write up a long, poorly formatted post with appropriate sources where you describe your problems with him, and why he compares to koch.

#10 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,716 posts

Posted 01 March 2009 - 09:25 PM

The hemorroid must really be painful.

#11 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,186 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 01 March 2009 - 09:26 PM

but pstall if you feel so strongly about soros, then please, make your own thread. write up a long, poorly formatted post with appropriate sources where you describe your problems with him, and why he compares to koch.



I have a few times. MY take on Soros isn't the point. In fact, I'm currently reading a book by Soros(GASP, I'm reading something other than friedman) on paradigm shifts in the credit markets. Light stuff.

You are a modern miracle.

#12 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,973 posts

Posted 01 March 2009 - 09:32 PM

I have a few times. MY take on Soros isn't the point. In fact, I'm currently reading a book by Soros(GASP, I'm reading something other than friedman) on paradigm shifts in the credit markets. Light stuff.

You are a modern miracle.


don't try to match me at an intellectual level while trying to insult me at the same time; you're good at neither.

if you just want to dodge away from answering my question, then I'm fine with this being your last post in the thread and won't press you to back up what you say again.

#13 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,186 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 01 March 2009 - 09:54 PM

don't try to match me at an intellectual level while trying to insult me at the same time; you're good at neither.

if you just want to dodge away from answering my question, then I'm fine with this being your last post in the thread and won't press you to back up what you say again.

:shocked:

don't pull a muscle patting yourself on your back.
Soros. Ok. So he as always been upfront in all his agenda's and who he funds?
No political fencing operations by him at an level? Straight ahead Soros.
His books are open? He himself doesn't ride the fence when it comes to terrorists or agencies that are anti American or dangerous? Lynne Stewart anyone?

I gave up trying to overcompensate my intellect a long time ago.
You are so wrapped up in yourself you wouldn't know an insult from an attaboy if it ran over you in a Prius.
Don't lean too long looking into the pond(I'm sure that is another reference you will get off the bat oh oracle of smarts).

#14 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,973 posts

Posted 01 March 2009 - 10:05 PM

:shocked:

don't pull a muscle patting yourself on your back.
Soros. Ok. So he as always been upfront in all his agenda's and who he funds?
No political fencing operations by him at an level? Straight ahead Soros.
His books are open? He himself doesn't ride the fence when it comes to terrorists or agencies that are anti American or dangerous? Lynne Stewart anyone?

your debate tactics of rhetorical questions reeks of someone who reads time magazine, and certainly don't illustrate you know what you are talking about.

soros donated money to Lynne Stewart's defense fund because the Government used wire taps to spy on her and her client, which is a pretty obvious violation of attorney-client privilege. I'd say that his concern about the lengths the bush administration would go for their idea of security are prescient in retrospect, wouldn't you?

you responded to my request for something well written and meaty with a few pointless, vague questions, and the only specific thing you mentioned demonstrated a marked misunderstanding of the issue.

#15 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,186 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 01 March 2009 - 10:16 PM

your debate tactics of rhetorical questions reeks of someone who reads time magazine, and certainly don't illustrate you know what you are talking about.

soros donated money to Lynne Stewart's defense fund because the Government used wire taps to spy on her and her client, which is a pretty obvious violation of attorney-client privilege. I'd say that his concern about the lengths the bush administration would go for their idea of security are prescient in retrospect, wouldn't you?

you responded to my request for something well written and meaty with a few pointless, vague questions, and the only specific thing you mentioned demonstrated a marked misunderstanding of the issue.


if you call typing while doing things at home and not having copious hours to surf the net and find items to back up my claims as "debate tatics" then guilty as charged.
Never read Time. And don't hang your hat on the wire tap as the end all.
Let me guess though. I go post a link and then you will make sure to link it with something conservative.
And the time it took for you to pass off your retort as something of your own is about the time it would take to google just enough to respond.
Talk about sham.
I mean you really want to jump in to the big boy seat we can just have a debate that is taped and its either what you know or not. We can give proceeds to Toys for Tots.
No search engine to hide behind. No looking at the bookshelf of Books a Million while you type.
Keep in mind I am CURRENTLY reading a George Soros book. Now think about that. You are trying to challenge me on this guy, you try to paint a picture of me as a Time reader(lazy mans informer to some degree) as if I'm not on the ball.
I'm not doing a school project on Soros. I bought the book out of a increasing desire to understand what makes him tick and I do think he has a great mind for finance.
So I can quote something and it will NOT be google worthy. That can make your responses very difficult when it comes time to cut and paste.

I don't respond to threads to reconfirm my worth in this world. :svengo:


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com