Reality check: Obama carried Massachusetts by 26% in 2008 -- but he couldn't get enough people out to overcome the motivated forces behind Scott Brown. Of course, Brown could have been a pumpkin, it wouldn't have mattered. What got those forces organized was fear of Obama and his Bolshevik-Muslim agenda, which is to say their image of Obama (who is, and always has been, centrist to his very core). That's the going explanation, anyway. But there's another layer.
Here's some interesting statistics from Sam Stein, to buttress the point:
I worry that the contempt progressives feel for these Tea-Party/Birthers may be blinding us to a hard fact. For supposed dummies, they have come a long way in less than a year. They have been very effective. Not only have Republican officeholders, facing primaries, given them veto power over policy--but they have caved on the rhetoric as well. John McCain me-tooing around that blowhard J.D. Hayworth is only the most obvious example. And that rhetoric creep poisons Obama's image in a more general way. It infects middle of the road independents, who know better than to worry about Obama's birth certificate, with a vague sense of underlying wrongness. We are close to a bipartisan conventional wisdom consensus that Obama's another Jimmy Carter (i.e. self-righteous and weak). If that settles in, it's game over for Democrats again.
My point is this: we have underestimated this movement. I think a lot of them understand exactly what they are doing--and I don't just mean the likes of Dick Armey.
I don't think all those people are clueless victims of the nefarious nexus of right wing PACS and Fox. I think many of them (not all) are actively and knowingly involved in shaping Obama's image, understanding that if they appear to believe it the MSM will conclude that it's a "side" that has to be "covered" (i.e.: spread). In a nutshell, I think that large numbers of them answered "yes" or "not sure" to the pollster asking if Obama is a Muslim just to keep the story going, just to keep the poison spreading.
Here's why I think that: while there was some controversy over commercialization last week about their gathering in Nashville that caused hopes to rise among some liberals--that wasn't the take-away for me. What I noticed was the discipline it took to forgo the outrageous outfits and signs. Above all, I noticed, that they are modeling their movement on--guess what?
The 2008 Obama campaign.
To understand how much the Tea Party movement owes to Obama '08, go back to the roots--back to the Dean Campaign of 2003. That was when the paradigm shift really happened, not just in the technology--but also in the psycho-cultural motivations of activists. Obama '08 was a Dean '03 upgrade. To understand the implications of that go to the best piece written about the '03 campaign, back when it was all unfolding. Called "The Dean Connection," by Samantha Shapiro, it appeared in the NYTIMES magazine (12/7/03)--and it's worth another look.
The piece brought out something that became so obvious by the time Obama '08 rolled around that we may have passed over it's general cultural significance: namely, that--for reasons described in my book, Mediated--this '03 Meet-Up movement was not so much about the cause as it was about the activists themselves. It was about the "You" Time magazine was soon to name "Person of the Year."
Shapiro summed it up this way: "People at all levels of the Dean campaign will tell you that its purpose is not just to elect Howard Dean president. Just as significant, they say, the point is to give people something to believe in, and to connect those people to one another." Lauren Popper, a Deaniac who gave up months of her life to the campaign, put it this way: ''The thought that he'll be president is a side effect,'' she said. ''This campaign is about allowing people to come together and tell their life stories.''
The Tea-Party/Birther movement is a manifestation of the same cultural phenomenon that drove the Dean and Obama campaigns. Because it's mostly aging white people who don't know what G3 even means, it's all too easy to miss that connection. They have grabbed the limelight, they are the reigning American Idols, they are the stars of today's unfolding political story. No wonder they're pumped. And, if they continue to smarten up the way they have been, they will be a huge force in 2010.
But what about all the "persons of the year" who made Obamamania happen? Will they get out and work long hours to stem the reactionary tide in 2010? If they do, it will have to be for the cause. The story won't be about them any more.
Here's a sample:
1) End the Fed
2)4-Powers agreement - U.S. China India Russia -- fixed exchange rates
3)Glass Steagall - wipe off all worthless derivatives and credit-default swaps from banks
4)Hills-Burton - 10-to-1 ratio of hospital beds, doctors and nurses.
5)Single payer
For more detail 'fan' me.
P.S. 'projected' surpluses are 'fictitious' surpluses; they absolutely mean NOTHING!
Clinton signed NAFTA and got lucky from a Y2K tech bubble (derivatives) that lasted 8 years.
There are policy decisions that have been made that have strengthened the 'Tea Party' 's ability to attract members. Certainly, there are a core who were there to be had from the outset, however I think the monster has been fed by the current administration every step of the way.
I'd say the two largest contributing factors to the tea party's success are:
Deal with pHARMa
No financial reform/no heads rolling over the financial meltdown.
Certainly, corporate cash is the miracle grow in the mixture, but it was the administration that provided the living space for it to flourish.
It's not rocket science...The same things feeding them are starving the base.
In case you missed it, people's support really turned when people watched the special interests, be it Big Pharma or Big Labor, jump into the legislative process, on something that public backed, and then began to carve out their own chunks and pockets of influence.
Simple as that
Cloakley's position, however, could have been based on more than mere self-assurance or perceived arrogance, but perhaps she was expecting her voters or the state voters to be proactive in setting the lead for the rest of the nation in not relying so much in the so called "reality" of politics, and the make-beliefs, but in voting as informed and concerned unbiased citizens for the best possible politics/agenda. That is similar to those non-sense professionals often giving advice in reputable T.V. programs who validate a person's character based on vague and naive models of 'body language.' Voters are almost as naïve and blind-sighted by appearances.
And yet, in order for the public to get the dose of "true reality," not the "make-believe reality," needed for a changing conscience and a better society, those 24/7 news play an important role in awakening the public conscience to the hypocrisies imbedded in politics, and in hopefully changing their voting habits so that the next time that they "feel" like voting, they don't do it on a face-value reality that is all a bunch of personal agendas and false pretenses, but, they instead do it as detached enough individuals from such a need to be socially cared for, and more concerned about the true critical matters that can make or brake a society in the long-run.
J.M.
Criminal Justice Major
Florida International University
(Response to: Chris Matthews)
It could be agreed upon when Mr. Matthews mentions that "you have to make contact" if you expect positive results in a political campaign. However, there needs to be a point when somebody is willing to teach the public that “reality” as they perceive it is not necessarily what it appears to be or good for them. Furthermore, the conjecture that he makes that "the reality seems to be missing" because "politics has become too much 24/7 media types" is a good and a bad thing. Perhaps his observation about the effectual expectations of “reality” do play a major role in the outcomes that a candidate may wish to attain in a campaign, however, and very sadly, reality is not necessarily always the best possible alternative to changing the human conscience and making them a little more responsible.
I personally believe that Martha Coakley was a little too arrogant during the campaign process, giving the public the illusion that she deserved to win the Kennedy sit. However, in that Ivy League state, aside from its obvious pretentious attitudes, there is a double-play of expectations because voters also don't like to see in others the arrogance they oftentimes have themselves, and thus, the old "making contact" becomes crucial to keep appearances and make-beliefs running smoothly.
J.M.
Criminal Justice Major
Florida International University
(Response to: Matthews: Democrats need to show support for the people Posted: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 10:39 AM by Cathy Finkler
Chris Matthews)
Where are our sponsors? Do you really think we have enough money on our own to go to a Washington march, even if we did have a progressive leader? No. We're broke, just like the Tea Partiers.
Rep. Alan Greyson has proved, beyond a doubt, the Progressives will support progressive ideas. He has raised more money that anyone else so far and it's because he actually stood up for us. If he started a Progressive movement and helped us rally in D,C. the congress would be shocked, and so would the teaparty.
Get this clear: PROGRESSIVE almost always means NO MONEY, just PEOPLE. Without true campaign finance reform, we're going to have a very hard time competing in the American political system.
IF they would pass some REAL health care reform they would not be in this position.
Obama is worse than Bush if the wars and economy are any indication.
Maybe people need to see rock bottom before they realize that corporatism is poison.
Remember OB's promise to filibuster Telecom immunity? He reneged and the Telecoms paid the lion's share for the Democratic National Convention. He hasn't changed.
Voting for Democrats is a loosing proposition for Progressives. In most cases it always has been.
Is it too late to bring the Democratic Party back to being the party of common people? I'm not so sure.
Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson joined in a filibuster of a Presidential appointment. It was a procedural vote, not just a vote against the appointee. Yet Harry Reid did nothing. He didn't move them to the offices of a junior senator, he didn't strip them of a committee chair, and he didn't have the Democratic Party deny them reelection funds. Nelson was given $500,000 ads from the Democratic Party to thank him for gutting the senate health care reform bill.
Rahm Emanuel screams obscenities at progressives who try to hold Democrats accountable for campaign promises. He apologizes when Sarah Palin complains of his word choice (not the profanity part) yet the President reasserts his unwavering support.
These are the Democratic Party. This is what they represent. This is the result of our hard work. This is what our donations pay for. They don't care what we think. As the President's representative said to the Wall Street Journal, their attitude is "Where else are they gonna go?"
Well, not out to help them. There are better things for us to do with our time. Volunteering, traveling to four state to get out the vote, raising money, I regret wasting time on all of those things in 2008.
Instead of coming into office telling people what they stand for and that they are determined to fix things, many Democrats try to play the middle of the road card and end up short on details standing for nothing. 'I'm for good stuff and against bad stuff', doesn't work once you're in office. The expectations that people had for Obama and Clinton were quickly dashed once they took office and became just another Washington corporate tool accomplishing little for the average working person. Some people figure that if they are going to be forced to vote for a corporate tool, they might as well vote for the Republicans who are experts at it.
The disenchantment gets played out in state races where the Democratic candidates are left unsuccessfully trying to defend presidential polices that don't solve the problems and have alienated a considerable part of the state's Democratic base who stay home on voting day. Clinton and Obama created a situation where they have no coattails in state elections.
Some of these people are unemployed and are benefiting mightily from the extended benefits supplied by the stimulus bill (irony much) and are taking the opportunity to use the teaparties for social networking to look for a job.
Mostly, they could really care less about weather their ideas are fair, workable for the country, or reflect reality. They just hold those ideas to flip out the parents, like teen age goths.
More contact with Reality and and effort at quality policy can be found at Star Trek Conventions.
Teapartiers are just having too much fun ignoring all that adult stuff, and that is why the movement is seductive and dangerous.
Both parties are bought and paid for corrupt hired hitman for Wall Street/City of London.
I wish Obama would step down and take the Clintons with him.
They are all Wall Street/City of London stooges who believes in war-for-profit!
What is your solution besides whining with your eyes closed? This country is for the people and by the people not the corporations! Clintons? They are the only ones who created a SURPLUS and you somehow think that was a bad thing.
Maybe it will take four more years of Jones running things to make Democrats see the light.