Splits in the Tea Party Movement

Summary: Will the feuds between Tea Party factions make it a less-effective movement?

An interesting article in the Huffington Post on Friday finds that there appears to be a feud between two or more Tea Party factions.

It all began when a co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots - Amy Kremer - decided to join a group called the Tea Party Express, a project of the Our Country Deserves Better PAC which helps conservative Republican candidates. As the Washington Independent reports, “several leaders in the [Tea Party Patriots]…stressed to Kremer…working with [the Tea Party Express] could imperil the tax status of non-profit Tea Party Patriots.”

Since then there has been a deep and sometimes dirty infighting between factions of the movement. From the Washington Independent article:

Kremer turned down the advice and took the plunge, signing up for the Tea Party Express’s next tour. On September 27 she was removed from the board of Tea Party Patriots. She responded by locking the Tea Party Patriots email account, a problem that the other members of the group quickly solved, but one that rankled.

Since then, several local Tea Party Patriot organizations have been blasting the Tea Party Express. Other groups have been thrown into the mix as well. The Tea Party Patriots have even sued Kremer since the split.

The factions appear to be arguing over two points: partisan funding and astroturfing. It seems that the on-the-ground activists are becoming increasing disillusioned by the true nature of their organizations - namely that they are all funded by big business and are beholden to the strategies implemented by Republican consultants.

And to be sure, there are no less than eight different organizations that make up the Tea Party movement. Among them are the Tea Party Patriots, Tea Party Express, Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks, the American Liberty Alliance, and the Sam Adams Alliance. They all have a lot in common, namely they’re all connected in one way or another and several are heavily funded by Koch Industries, who we mentioned on this topic in a previous post.

A couple of thoughts about this development:

1) This demonstrates a key point we made about what Republican candidates want to do for their 2010 campaigns - steer clear of special interests for a little while.

As we said in a post last month:

PACs bring in a lot of money, which is always valuable, but if there’s one thing that could lose confidence in the Tea Partiers, it’s special interest money. Simply put, the Tea Parties are part of a larger populist backlash to the bailouts and lobbyists who secure grants under the stimulus bill. If your war chest is found to be connected to a banking firm or any other Wall Street group, it could hinder the confidence the base has in you.

This certainly seems to be the case with the on-the-ground Tea Party activists - they won’t even trust their own organizations to steer clear of the Washington beltway elite and special interests. So it’s important that Republican candidates avoid associating with PAC money in order to keep up support from the base.

2) All fringe groups seem to have inner-feuding problems. Infighting is actually a fairly typical phenomenon with all political organizations, but it’s especially contentious within far-right or far-left groups, as we discovered when researching Marxists and Nazis in last year’s “Know Your Third Parties” series.

Granted, the Tea Party folks aren’t quite as extreme as Marxists or Nazis, nor are they as obscure to the larger American politic (at least for now), but this split may very well slow down the anti-Obama backlash they were fostering earlier this summer.

Far-Right Splitting from GOP

Summary: Are Republicans becoming more vulnerable as far-right leaners move away from the GOP?

A number of stories in Politico today suggest that the far-right of the Republican base is now either leaving the GOP, or at least leaving it more vulnerable for 2010. This comes despite the recent election of Democrat Bill Owens in New York’s 23rd Congressional District where a Conservative Party candidate forced a Republican out of the race.

First, the Scorecard reports that Club for Growth - who endorsed Conservative Doug Hoffman over Republican Diedre Scozzafava in NY-23 - is now endorsing Marco Rubio in the Florida GOP Senate primary over moderate Gov. Charlie Crist.

"Marco Rubio is the real deal, one of the brightest young stars in American politics today, and a proven champion of economic liberty," said Club for Growth President Chris Chocola.

“Charlie Crist has repeatedly joined with big government liberals on major economic issues facing America today, from taxes to spending to cap-and-trade. He represents the wrong direction for our economy and our nation."

While Rubio is a Republican, it is well known that he is considerably more conservative than Crist, who actually endorsed the stimulus package earlier this year. If Rubio was to win the primary it would be much more difficult for him to win over independents in a general election than it would be for Crist - perhaps leaving the seat as an easy grab for Democrats.

Also in Florida, a conservative activist has actually established a “Tea Party” - as in, an actual political party to take on both Democrats and Republicans.

"The current system has become mired in the sludge of special interest money that seeks to control the leadership of both parties. It’s time for real change,” says Orlando lawyer Frederic O’Neal, the new party's chairman, who couldn't be reached immediately by phone, in a press release.

A spokeswoman for the Florida Secretary of State, Jennifer Davis, said the party had registered in August, and that its qualified candidates will appear on the ballot in the state.

O'Neal compared his party's role to that of the Conservative Party in New York's 23rd District. Florida, however, lacks the "fusion" rules that has [sic] allowed third parties in New York to amass influence by offering their ballot line to acceptable major-party candidates.

Of course, Florida does still have a large number of minor third parties - 32 to be exact - including Socialists, Prohibitionists, and even something called the Real Food Party.

Now, WAYLA devotees will remember that there already exists a “Boston Tea Party” which is an off-shoot of the Libertarian Party. Yet despite the recent libertarian trends among the so-called Tea Party protesters, I have to imagine that this new Tea Party is not as liberal on the social issues.

Finally, conservative insider Gary Bauer gives some tips for his fellow right-wingers in an ideas piece today. This was the gist of his argument:

"Hoffman’s strong showing — coupled with the successful uprising against Republican nominee Dede Scozzafava’s candidacy — will embolden some conservatives to consider abandoning the GOP and initiating a broader third-party movement.

As a staunch conservative Republican whose political action committee invested much in Hoffman’s campaign, I believe nothing would hurt the conservative movement, or the GOP, more. National Democrats would love nothing more than for conservatives to start looking for third-party candidates all across the country, because third-party candidates almost always lose."

Well, not entirely. The Boston Tea Party does have two elected officials from within their ranks - albeit, they’re local and non-partisan - but Bauer’s right, there’s nothing we’d love more.

Tea Party Protesters Getting Out of Hand

Summary: The Tea Party activists and their latest protest - how it crossed the line.

While the nation mourns the tragic loss of our men and women at Ft. Hood this week, an interesting secondary story has been circling the blogosphere - hateful messages coming from Tea Party protesters, and what appears to be encouragement from GOP leaders.

From an editorial in Politics Daily:

When John Boehner, the Republican leader of the House, appeared at the Tea Party rally at the Capitol on Thursday afternoon, it was a dramatic signal: The wing-nuts have taken over the GOP.

Think I'm being harsh? The angry folks at the protest -- which attracted several thousand conservatives -- held up signs with messages of hate: "Get the Red Out of the White House," "Waterboard Congress," "Ken-ya Trust Obama?" One called the president a "Traitor to the U.S. Constitution." Another sign showed pictures of dead bodies at the Dachau concentration camp and compared health care reform to the Holocaust. A different placard depicted Obama as Sambo. Yes, Sambo. Another read, "Obama takes his orders from the Rothchilds" -- a reference to the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory holding that one evil Jewish family has manipulated events around the globe for decades.

All of this extremism was on display -- proudly -- at an event that was officially sponsored by the House Republicans. After Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) invited tea partiers to the Capitol to rail against the emerging health care bill, the GOP leadership -- somewhat blindsided by Bachmann -- jumped on board, providing speakers and logistical support for the event. Certainly, the crowd was not made up entirely of bigots; I'm not smearing all the protesters who oppose Obama's health care reform effort. But it cannot be denied: Racism and anti-Semitism were part of an official Republican action.

Extremism was also flowing from the podium, where Republican House members were eager for microphone time. Boehner, for one, declared that the health care bill is the "greatest threat to freedom that I have seen." That's some statement. A greater threat than Hitler's Nazism or Soviet communism? About the same time he was speaking, Obama was making a surprise appearance at the White House daily press briefing to tout the fact that the American Medical Association and AARP, the powerful seniors lobby, have each endorsed the health care reform bill. Here's a question for Boehner: Are these two groups opposed to freedom? And at one point during the rally -- call it a Bachmannalia -- when John Ratzenberger, a.k.a Cliff Clavin from "Cheers," claimed that the Democrats were turning the United States into a land of European socialism, the audience shouted, "Nazis, Nazis." No Republican legislator left the stage in protest. Boehner and his fellow GOP leaders should be asked how they feel about mounting a rally that attracted intense hate-mongering.

I find this interesting because lately I’ve been noticing more and more signs of what one might call “patriotic” protests: with Tea Party protesters carrying Gadsden flags and screaming about taxation, it seemed like the American Revolution all over again. In fact, that’s sort of what they’ve been going for.

But some of these new developments cross the line. Sure, they’ve been crossing the line here and there for a while, but depicting the president as Sambo, bringing up the Rothschild conspiracy, and shouting “Nazis, Nazis” is not the innocent War for Independence comparisons they were beginning to draw for themselves.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid never attended rallies in which liberal activists were comparing George W. Bush to Hilter - if they did, do you really think the Democrats could have taken back Congress?

Top Stories: 10/14/09

Politico takes a look into the 5-member "President's Club" and its activities.

One Florida political blog says that the recent resignation of Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) could start a "Democratic free-for-all" in his district.

The Huffington Post picks up a story (video included) on how even Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is not safe from Tea Party protesting at town hall meetings.

Maureen Dowd contemplates a Cheney consulting firm in her New York Times Column.

Nate Silver discusses what he calls the "price of party unity" in an interesting post.

And these were last night's political jokes:

Top Stories: 10/12/09

The Wall Street Journal reports that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) will be the "key" to the GOP's 2010 strategy.

Politico, meanwhile, reports that the Tea Party activists may not be so helpful for the Republican Party.

A blogger for the Washington Post comments on Rush Limbaugh's bid for the St. Louis Rams.

Nate Silver explains the reasons behind the health insurance industry's efforts to block healthcare reform.

The Huffington Post is currently holding a vote on the biggest political "game-changers" that have come from the online revolution.

And here are this weekends late night political jokes:

What was Behind the Scenes of the Town Hall Protests?

Summary: Who is behind the disruptive Town Hall Protests and what should Health Care Reform proponents watch out for?

I happened to pick up a copy of the latest edition of Rolling Stone this morning, and read a very in-depth political article by Tim Dickinson.

The article, entitled “The Lie Machine” expands on the inside story of August’s town hall protests that we started following over a month and a half ago.


Now, bear in mind that Rolling Stone is notoriously liberal, and the language they use may be more forceful than most media outlets would make it. However, I thought it would be good to relay you some parts of the article today.

From the section “Writing the Script”:

The campaign to mobilize the town-hall mobs began with a script written by the right’s foremost fear-monger, Frank Luntz. Luntz rose to fame in 1994 as pollster for Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America, and crafted the Republican playbook on global warming. In a May memo, Luntz outlined a battle plan for conservatives to block what he branded the “Washington takeover” of health care - the most terrifying buzz words conjured up in his polls and focus groups.

The logic of the language is simple, Luntz writes: “Takeovers are like coups - they both lead to dictators and a loss of freedom.” For a third of Americans, he adds, the top worry about health care reform is “being denied a procedure or medication because a Washington bureaucrat says no.” Luntz concludes by telling Republicans how best to play the fear card. “It is essential that ‘deny’ and ‘denial’ enter the conservative lexicon immediately,” he writes, “because it is at the core of what scares Americans most about a government takeover of health care.”

Distributed widely to Republicans on Capitol Hill, the memo framed the right-wing attack on health care reform. What Luntz describes as “the best anti-Democrat message” is now familiar to everyone in America: “No Washington bureaucrat should stand between your family and your doctor…The Democrats want to put Washington politicians in charge of YOUR health care.”

Here is part of the next section, “Assembling the Team”:

Americans for Prosperity, which has taken the lead in the current fight against reform, is a front group for oil billionaires David and Charles Koch, co-owners of the world’s largest private oil and gas conglomerate. The Kochs, who provide much of AFP’s budget, have a strange affinity for mock uprisings: Matt Schlapp, one of the original “Brooks Brothers rioters” - the GOP activists who disrupted the Bush-Gore recount in Miami-Dade County - now serves as director of federal affairs for Koch Industries, orchestrating the firm’s political efforts in Washington.

To head Americans for Prosperity, the brothers tapped Tim Phillips, one of the Republican Party’s most notorious dirty tricksters. Phillips served as a strategic consultant to George W. Bush in 2000 and reputedly took part in the smear campaign in South Carolina that portrayed John McCain’s adopted daughter as his mulatto love child. That same year, Phillips was linked to a nearly identical smear campaign in Virginia that portrayed the primary opponent of Rep. Eric Cantor - a Jew - as the “only Christian in the contest.” Under Phillips, AFP became a driving force behind the Tea Party protests against Obama’s economic stimulus plan, and the group organized the Austin mob that attacked Rep. [Lloyd] Doggett. Boosted by the mobilizing effort, AFP now boasts 700,000 members and chapters in 24 states.

Dickinson continues the article - loaded with evidence from memos he has been able to collect - explaining how the team then executed the plan to mobilize the protests, and how they collaborated with Republican leaders in Congress.

It is certainly worth a read.

Top Stories: 9/15/09

The big story on Politico this morning is about a study that finds women make more effective lawmakers than men. They introduce more bills, attract more co-sponsors, and deliver more money for their districts.

A speechwriter for the second President Bush has a new book coming out about his time in the White House staff. The Huffington Post reports on what he says Bush said about Obama, Clinton, and Palin. He blasts all of them.

Tom Schaller at FiveThirtyEight.com has an interesting take on some of the Conservative protests going on in Washington, DC lately - he says they're most characteristic of Ron Paul followers.

And here is last night's political humor on late night TV:

Is Obama Opposition All About Race?

One unexpected result of Rep. Joe Wilson’s (R-SC) outburst during President Obama’s speech last week has been the topic of racial anxiety among Republican - almost entirely white - voters.

Today Politico reports that many Democrats have come to see the opposition to Obama’s presidency as at least somewhat race driven.

This comes not long after the Los Angeles Times reported a growing “problem” Obama had in losing white support. Tom Schaller at FiveThirtyEight.com argued that the “problem” was being overblown for the most part, but it does seem to suggest that the divide over the 44th president’s performance is at least partially racial.

Just as they were infuriated by the Department of Homeland Security’s report that right-wing militia groups could spawn domestic terrorism, conservatives are undoubtedly becoming infuriated by the suggestion that their opposition to President Obama’s policies are due to racism. Conservative pundits like Rush Limbaugh will undoubtedly say that Democrats are “playing the race card” now.

Of course, many social psychologists can easily explain what’s happening. Studies show that the image of a black man can evoke subconscious fears, anxieties, etc. in whites. Therefore, it wouldn’t be to far-fetched to assume that the unprecedented intensity of opposition coming from Tea-Baggers, birthers, and other hard-line anti-Obama conservatives is due to a little racial undercurrent.

Joe Wilson served as the perfect example. As a white Southerner (the South has by far the saddest record of race relations) he gave evidence to that theory when he made an unprecedented outburst (screaming “you lie!” of all things) during a presidential address to Congress.

But can Democrats admit it openly?

So far, it’s been liberal pundits and Democratic activists that have been ready to call their conservative counterparts out on the issue of race - politicians have known better.

On Martin Luther King Jr. Day, we relayed an article from the New York Times explaining how then President-Elect Obama had been “an omnipresent icebreaker” for racial anxiety.

But Obama took a bit of a hit in the polls earlier this summer when he said that the Cambridge, MA police had acted “stupidly” in their arrest of an African-American Harvard professor. There was a huge racial divide on that subject - blacks supporting the professor, white’s supporting the arresting officer - and Obama’s mismanaged reaction resulted in a small (even just temporary) drop in the polls.

So far, neither the Obama Administration nor the Democratic Party will speak directly to the question of race in this debate. And that’s exactly what they want to do. Affirming the speculations of race-driven opposition will only hurt Obama among moderate whites while denying the speculations would hurt his position with progressives and minorities.

So the opposition to this president is (very likely) partially driven by racial anxiety. Unfortunately we can’t really admit it.

Top Stories: 9/14/09

Politico has an exlusive excerpt from a new book about New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg that deals with his stealth 2008 presidential campaign and how it ultimately didn't happen.

It has been a year now since the collapse of Lehman Brothers, but Joseph Stiglitz - a Nobel-winning economist from the Clinton Administration - says that banking problems are now bigger than before.

Tina Fey won an Emmy over the weekend for her impersonations of Sarah Palin on SNL last year.

A new flim about Charles Darwin - which focuses on his personal struggle betweeen faith and science - is unable to find a U.S. distributor because a movie about Darwin is considered "too controversial" for Americans.

Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com has an interesting take on the size of some of the conservative protests against President Obama this year.

Don't forget, new episodes of the Daily Show and Colbert Report begin tonight. Here is a look at last week's late night comedy without them:

Healthcare, Congress, and the Midterm Elections

Early last month, we asked “Will Healthcare Reform Survive the Tea-Baggers in August?” Well, now it appears that it all depends on your definition of “reform”.


For many progressives, reform is dependent on the creation of a public option as an absolute minimum. Ideally, many of them would prefer a single-payer system or even a national healthcare service. For others, reform is possible without a public option - even if they do agree with a public option, they still see the value in other reform measures, such as an end to pre-existing conditions.

In fact, Marc Ambinder recently wrote a very interesting piece in the Atlantic that Democrats have actually held together and healthcare reform will survive - even if it’s without the public option.

"After August, under the worst case scenario, there is majority support for the following major changes to health care: real (albeit limited) competition in the insurance industry (even absent a public plan). A cap on what a person pays for catastrophic illnesses. An end to insurance company recision policies. Guaranteed issue. A basic benefit package. Significant subsidies to help people who earn as much as $64,000 a year pay for health insurance. Better cost and coverage incentives. And lots more. Say what you will about these reforms -- maybe they're incremental -- but they're a foundation for center-left policy in the future."

But now some are wondering if the rowdy August recess and the Town Hall protesters have had some other meaningful impact: namely, putting members of Congress at risk in next year’s midterm elections.

From Gallup:



But will the healthcare debate sink Congress?

First, let’s take a look at Gallup’s most recent Congressional approval polls. While still low at 31%, it’s a bit of a boost since last year, when Congressional approval was at just 19%.


And most of that boost has come from Democrats (and a plurality of Americans identify as Democrats).


So while approval is still low, it does appear to be considerably better than it used to be for members of Congress.

Next we turn to our friends at FiveThirtyEight.com where Joshua Grossman points to recent special elections in California and Iowa as evidence that Democrats - who control both chambers in Congress - are still “alive and kicking”.

"It’s certainly possible that Obama will antagonize the Democratic base by not advocating strongly enough for a public option in his health care proposals. It’s also possible that the drum beat of Republican attacks on everything associated with Obama and the Democrats will continue to drive down Democratic support among Independents. The pendulum tends to swing over time. But for now – looking at actual elections, not polls which can be spun any which way – there’s no hard empirical evidence of significant changes in the electorate’s behavior since November of 2008."

538’s chief blogger, Nate Silver, would likely agree. As we posted earlier, he recently used a model to find that a majority of Congressional districts probably approve of healthcare reform - and healthcare reform with a public option!


He even lists each member of Congress and how much their district probably supports or opposes the public option.

Yet Tom Schaller would probably disagree. He relays an analysis from the Cook Political Report which compares the 2010 midterms to the 1994 Republican Revolution. While most of the Cook report has to do with ethnic makeup of the electorate (white voters make up a considerably higher percentage of the turnout in midterms) there is some evidence that particular issues will play a significant role.

From the report:

"In 1994, it wasn't easy to be a Bush-district Democrat who voted for both the Clinton budget and the Brady handgun bill. In fact, out of the 12 Democrats who fit this description and ran for reelection, two thirds lost. So far this year, 20 of the 49 McCain-district Democrats have already voted for the "cap and trade" bill. If the House Democratic leadership insists on putting a health care bill with a public option to a vote, how many of these 20 can be relied upon to take on more political risk?

On the other hand, the lessons of 1994 might serve as a reality check for GOP challengers to Democrats who plan to vote against their party's leadership on both of this year's dominant agenda items, such as Reps. Bobby Bright (AL-02), Parker Griffith (AL-05), and Chet Edwards (TX-17). In districts with challenging numbers, the strategy of voting (and running) against party leadership has persisted for generations, if sometimes for only one reason. It works."

Schaller even points out that this may be why the Blue Dogs have been so reluctant to support a public option - despite Silver’s claims that it might actually help many of them.

Ultimately, though, it seems far fetched to say that healthcare reform will be the single biggest issue in next year’s elections. Most Congressional elections come down to the on-the-ground circumstances of competitive (typically open-seat) races and rather than a particular national issue. Voters might say that healthcare reform will be a major issue in their decision now - after all, now is the time that healthcare is a big issue - but voters tend to forget a lot in 14 months.

Furthermore, Congressional approval is usually pretty low, but incumbent members of Congress never seem to lose their seats. Americans hate Congress, but love their Congressmen.

Still, this isn’t the first time we’ve seen the 2010 midterms have been compared to 1994. In the end, there’s probably no good way to say - at this point - what impact the healthcare debate will have on the voters in November next year.

Top Stories: 8/17/09

Politico examines the history of and reasons for the GOP recruiting football stars and coaches to run for office.

With all the new confusion about whether or not health care reform will include a public option, Nate Silver examines - in-depth - the chances of such a bill passing through the Senate.

Paul Krugman contrasts how healthcare reform in this country will look compared to the healthcare systems in other industrialized nations.

And the Huffington Post is starting to gather photos of the funniest town hall protest signs. So far they’re mostly coming from liberals who showed up to make fun of the anti-reform folks.

New Gallup Polls on the Healthcare Debate

Despite the fact that Americans don’t seem to be happy about much of anything these days, recent trends in the Gallup polls find that Americans are becoming increasingly confident in the outlook of the U.S. economy, and increasingly satisfied with the State of the Nation. In fact, these polls are reaching all-time highs for 2009.

43% of Americans now believe the economic outlook is good (with 50% believing it’s bad) - that’s a 25% improvement since the beginning of the year.


Meanwhile, 32% of Americans say they are satisfied with the state of the nation (with 65% saying they are not) - a roughly 17% improvement since the start of 2009.


Yet the issue of healthcare has become remarkably tricky to follow in terms of public opinion. This has become even more significant since the rabid town hall protests started at the end of last month.

Gallup finds that most Americans (69%) are following the disruptions at town hall meetings closely, with Republicans being the most engaged in news of protests (at 79%).

And while a plurality of Americans (36%) say that the protests haven’t made any difference towards their opinion of the healthcare issue, an incredible 34% say that the protests have made them “more sympathetic” to the conservative view.


Those views also came down along predictably partisan lines.


So far these findings appear to suggest that the anti-reform protests are working. But there is some evidence that they might be backfiring - they are only emboldening Democrats to push for reform.

The study finds that Democrats - who ended up feeling less sympathetic of the conservative view as a result of the protests - are the only group who say that the protests have been a greater factor on their opinions than their pre-existing views on healthcare.


What effect are these developments having on the healthcare debate?

No two polls are the same, so it’s difficult to compare the recent Gallup findings with others, but - at least at first glance - it appears that Americans are becoming more thoughtful about whether they support a specific bill.

A USA Today poll last month found that only 12% of Americans had couldn’t say whether or not they would support a healthcare reform bill passing by the end of 2009.

In another recent Gallup poll, 29% of Americans said they weren’t sure if they would advise their members of Congress to support a bill when they return from August recess.

Again, these results fell upon predictably partisan lines - Democrats saying “yes” and Republicans saying “no” to supporting reform.

And while a plurality of Americans (49%) disapproves of President Obama’s handling of the healthcare issue - with 43% approving - there has been no net change in approval-disapproval since before the town hall protests started.


What’s far more remarkable is that that while Americans are becoming more and more optimistic about the economy (as seen in the graph above) they are, paradoxically, supporting the president’s handling of the economy less and less.


It’s doubtful that in the coming months and years of the current administration, Obama’s approval rating on healthcare will be static and his approval on the economy will continue to dissipate while the economy simultaneously improves (as the majority of economists believe it will).

But this does demonstrate just how tricky it is to track public opinion and - for a prospective candidate or up-for-re-election politician - develop a campaign message while the nation seems so utterly confused with what it thinks.


UPDATE: An interesting comment we received for this post asks "How does shouting down to stop the conversation of the healthcare debate at town hall meetings endear them to anyone?"

We should point out that according to one of the Gallup polls Americans have differing opinions about different tactics coming from these conservative activists - except they generally think that "shouting down" those who disagree with them is an "abuse of democracy."

Top Stories: 8/13/09

Politico takes a look at what words President Obama uses most often. Afghanistan and Iraq are not among them.

On the Huffington Post, political psychologist Drew Westen provides analysis on how centrist-minded Obama supporters are feeling about their president now.

Nate Silver ponders whether or not the anti-reform healthcare protesters are succeeding, and whether liberal push-back is working. Not all the evidence looks good for Democrats.

And the round-up of last nights political jokes:

Will Healthcare Reform Survive the Tea-Baggers in August?

“It is proof of a bad cause when it is applauded by a mob”

- Seneca (1st Century A.D.)

As Congress prepares for the August recess, President Obama has advised his fellow Democrats to go home to their districts and defend the healthcare reform bills making their way through the legislative process.

But as Democrats are finding out, a mass of anti-reform conservatives are out there disrupting town hall meetings intended to defend reform measures to local constituents.

Here are just a few videos making their way around the internet…







Of course, they are trying to produce an image of overwhelming disapproval of any healthcare reform - as if all Americans were opposed to it. Obviously, this is not the case.

As Nate Silver pointed out this morning, the majority of party-identified Americans are still Democrats - but proportionally, the GOP is much more energized in the current healthcare debate.


As he writes in the post:

“…the Democrats don't have a mass movement right now. They have an electorate that's maybe 60 percent unaware of the threat that things like health care are under in Washington, 20 percent aware but burned out or ambivalent, and 10 percent both aware and engaged but busy fighting with one another. That doesn't leave very many Democrats left to stand up and shout back.”

And while the conservative movement in town hall meetings appears to be very grassroots, it is - in fact - nothing more than astroturf.

The liberal group Think Progress recently obtained (and released) a memo from a conservative group linked to FreedomWorks, which is business-funded and helped organize the April 15 tea party protests. The memo lays out a game-plan for disrupting town hall meetings.

From the memo:

“Our objective was to ‘pack the hall’ with as many people [as possible] ready to challenge [Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT)], put him on the defensive, and give him a reality check … organizing about 30 people and we spread out among the crowd of about 150 people in the hall. We used some techniques early on which immediately made Himes uncomfortable…

…Questions should be prepared … The questions should contain facts and numbers (which are embarrassing and damning to the Congressman’s record)…

…You need to rock-the-boat early in the Rep’s presentation. Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early.”

The 10-page document also includes a list of prepared questions to use and ways to coordinate a mass turnout.

Will it work?

Time will only tell, but the news media has already picked up on the disruptions at these town hall meetings. Some think this strategy could backfire - only emboldening Democrats to push for reform - others think it’s a genius way to halt progress by swaying public opinion to mob mentality and scaring politicians.

As former Bush advisor Mark McKinnon says, “town halls have become town hells.”

Democratic members of Congress might want to just scrap town hall meetings this month, but as political scientist Kathleen Hall Jamieson tells Politico “The more intelligent alternative is to take the extensive network the Obama campaign developed and send all of those people to town halls.”

That could mean heated shouting matches between liberals and conservatives at town-hall meetings and one intense August recess.


UPDATE: The DNC has released a new web ad in response to the recent "mob" strategies, pinning them directly with the GOP.

What Was the Impact of the Tea Bag Protests?

Last week, conservative protesters caught national attention on Tax Day for Tea Party - or Tea Bag - protests. Approximately 300,000 people poured into the streets to sound off their opinions on current fiscal policy.


But how representative were they of the average American?

According to a Gallup poll conducted before the protests, views of personal income taxes are among the most positive since 1956. 48% of respondents said the taxes they paid this year were "about right" and only 46% said the taxes they paid this year were "too high".


Additionally, 61% of respondents said the taxes they are paying this year is “fair” - a figure that is consistent with the past several years.


Answers to both questions fell along predictable partisan lines, and respondents who had an income of $75,000 or more last year were more likely to say their taxes were “too high”.

Yet the concern for high government spending we saw in the Tea Party protests does seem to resonate with more Americans. Another recent Gallup poll finds that 55% of Americans believe Obama’s proposals to stimulate the economy call for “too much” government spending.


But here’s where the responses get interesting. The question of government spending was asked to a random sample of half of the respondents. The other half was asked if they believed Obama’s proposal called for too much expansion of government power. These were the results.


And overall, 53% of respondents said they approve of the way the government has responded to the economic crisis, while only 44% say they disapprove.

And while the Tea Baggers were deriding President Obama as a “socialist” in hundreds of cities, a third Gallup poll shows the American people feel overwhelmingly confident in his positions on the economy.


It would certainly appear that the Tea Baggers were only representing about 29% of Americans.

But will the demonstrations change the average American’s mind?

So far the change in public perception over Obama’s fiscal policy is yet to be seen - but the approval ratings have not really changed since Tax Day.


From April 10-13 the approval rating was 62% and the disapproval rating was 29%. The latest numbers from the graph were collected from April 17-19. The Rasmussen Obama Approval Index (which has consistently more conservative estimates) seems to confirm this lack of change.


Yet it would be negligent to say that the Tea Party protests had no great significance. Although it may not have changed any public opinion (as these things usually don’t) it has been an opportunity for the conservative base to get excited again. Republicans will want to capitalize on this excitement and use it to boost fundraising and strengthen volunteer networks.

And that might just have a big effect in 2010.

Has America Flip-Flopped?

It’s Friday, April 17, 2009. Here’s what we’re looking at:

With this week’s Tax Day Tea Party protests, the Daily Show takes a humorous look into whether America itself has flip-flopped.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Nationwide Tax Protests
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

But could there be more truth to the comedy than Jon Stewart realizes? Earlier this week, Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com pointed out some interesting Gallup findings on America’s confidence in Fed Chair Ben Bernanke. The partisan split on his support has completely reversed itself.


In light of both the reversal of support for Bernanke and the Tea Party protests, it seems that Americans simply have greater confidence in their government when their party is in power - and are more likely to talk about “revolution” when their party is in the minority.

Obviously this is not surprising - what’s surprising is how it all happened so fast.