No tea party for the press

Well, a few hand-picked…

The First National Tea Party Convention in Nashville next month will be closed to the press except for a small number of “selected” journalists. The restrictions apply to speeches by Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. While organizers will help press set up interviews with some speakers, Palin will not be available. Organizers are setting up two unspecified events that the press can cover.

http://www.startribune.com/blogs/81186517.html

fnord

34 Comments

Filed under Tea Party Movement

34 responses to “No tea party for the press

  1. Which of the disparate agendas of the tea baggers will the hand-picked press feature?

  2. If the organizers are serious about their ‘convention’, then there should not be the restrictions on coverage by the media. It is their deal, and they may do as they see fit; but, rumor, inference, and ridicule will prevent those not already in step from falling in step with them. Of course, former Gov. Palin likely doesn’t want the organizers to bear the expense of an interpreter…

  3. How big a part will the Koch’s play in what gets publicized?

  4. Propaganda: a form of communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience.

    Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda.

    wiki

  5. BadAxe

    I for one will be cheering them on. Any support gained by the Tea Party movement is support lost by Republicans.

    Sadly, the Tea Party has a rude awakening coming, the same lession I and others learned back in the Perot days.
    It’s very difficult, if not impossible, to launch a third party in this country.

    • “It’s very difficult, if not impossible, to launch a third party in this country.”

      It will always be impossible as long as we insist on separating ourselves instead of finding common ground. If there was an entity that wished to find the truth, a poll would likely show that there are a good 40% of people in this country who are fed up with both parties and interested in a third party.

      The problem is that we can’t come together over these lines that have been drawn to keep us apart. We have to start finding common ground, even with the tea baggers. I believe that we agree much more than we disagree about the state of the union.

      “The possibilities are numerous once we decide to act and not react.” George Bernard Shaw

      • On third parties, a few generalizations.

        1) The third party must begin locally, and build upwards. Starting from the top down won’t work. See Amendment XII, Constitution of the United States, for a reason I say this.

        2) The third party will need to replace one of the existing parties to be a national force. Think Republicans vice Whigs. A reason for this is cited above.

        3) Common ground is what led to the GOP, imho; disgust over the “peculiar institution” and the way it was dealt with by the Democrats and Whigs. There must be, imho again, something that moves the populace analogous to slavery, and the abolition thereof.

        4) $$$$$.

    • lillacluvr

      I do not think they are aiming to form a third party – they are trying to purge the GOP party into the PURE party.

      • Hip, hip, hooray! I approve of their goal to be pure!

        Haley Barbour isn’t high on my list of people I respect, but he does have sense enough to know that numbers are what win elections, not purity.

  6. I am still waiting to hear what the tea bag movement is FOR. I’ve heard the disparate ideas they are against. They seem to me to be discouraged Republicans for the most part. They seem also to be not terribly well informed. Of course, there are so many agendas who knows what direction they may take?

    • I know, Paula — you don’t have to tell me. I just labeled two groups of people: Republicans and the tea bag movement.

      So, the tea bag movement is made up of all kinds of people, ordinary people, who each have their own agenda. And any organization seems to be coming from very identifiable entities who have their very own agenda too. Sadly these very ordinary people, who we may well have a lot in common with, are being controlled by the groups with the big bucks. Koch being one of them!

      Do they know they are being used? Do they still think whatever their own personal agenda is will be represented by the ‘movement’ that appears to have been taken over?

      • Maybe they don’t know that they are being used, but the fact that they have now attempted to seperate themselves from the Republican Party control indicates that there is a possibility that they are awakening to that awareness.

        As to Lilac’s question of what they are FOR, I think they have not figured that out yet. I think they are still working on figuring out what they are against. But, eventually, they will come to a solid agreement on that and then they will be ready to figure out what they are FOR and work towards it.

        Meanwhile, there is no comparable movement on the left toward an organized resistance to the corruption inside the Democratic Party. That is scary. When you see the teabaggers organizing themselves and gaining numbers and you know that they have sympathizers among other groups in this country so their numbers will increase, it makes you wonder what could happen if the left could find some common ground on which to join them. What numbers we would have to fight the corporatocracy then!

      • This is an interesting article that is along the lines of what I have been thinking lately.

        http://www.opednews.com/articles/Behind-the-Veils-of-Power-by-Bernard-Weiner-100112-624.html

        On some sites I have been accused of not being realistic because I won’t support a crappy healthcare bill that is really just a giant corporate giveaway. I have been told that I am not being realistic and that I am selfish to want to scuttle the whole thing because it isn’t what I want. If this is how progressives get things done, I don’t want any part of it. They don’t even give me a chance to say that it is not because I didn’t get my way but because it doesn’t fix the problems that I want this bill scuttled. Because I would rather have a bill that actually addresses the problems that makes me a selfish and unrealistic person? Basically what they are saying is that Congress is incapable fixing problems with regulation. If that is the case, they are useless because that is one of their primary functions. I, for one, would rather not pay a couple hundred thousand dollars per year, plus medical benefits and lifetime pension benefits to people who are elected to solve problems and refuse to do so.

    • Are many of them FOR a Republican being elected to the office of president so they can get rid of this young black upstart socialist? And also FOR electing majority Republicans to both the House and Senate? Won’t that take care of all the problems we face?

      /sarcasm

  7. BadAxe

    Paula Sayles,
    The next question would be, “WHO” separates us? The example that comes to mind is when Westar equalized electric rates for north and south Kansas. Instead of Kansans being angry with Westar, they turned us against ourselves. I think we have corporate America to thank for a lot of this division you speak of.

    “We have to start finding common ground, even with the tea baggers.”

    How true. Or at least, we need to watch them and learn what they’re all about. There’s a lot of misconceptions floating around out there about what and who the Tea “baggers” are. I noticed the other day that some folks have bought into the MSM line. It isn’t very accurate.

    The Tea Party movement is very much up in the air as to who they are and what they stand for. My experience indicates that while a majority of Tea Baggers are conservative, there are some moderates involved, too.

    I can deal with moderates.

    • The WHO is the corporate interests that control government. When a majority of people can stop thinking of that as some sort of whacky conspiracy theory and start realizing it’s truth, maybe we can all get together and do something about it.

    • Paula,

      How do we do that? Where do we start? I think most people agree with you and want solutions not blame.

  8. BadAxe

    Mission Statement
    The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.
    http://teapartypatriots.ning.com/

    • Nobel mission statement. I do note that the “Patriots” are one of many factions of this movement.

      Further, speaking only for myself, I don’t mind the taxes as long as there is value.

      Honestly, where socialism actually truly exists (not the kind you hear about from the loonies who don’t even know what the word means) they pay high taxes and they get value.

    • I can agree with some of that, but not the “free market” crap. The free market is a myth but maybe they will figure that out when they start looking at it more closely.

      None of us is in support of the corporate giveaways or pork barrel spending.
      I think all of us here would support the limitations and barriers that the founding fathers put into the Constitution.

      Those are two areas in which, generally, we can find agreement with these people. If the founding fathers had insisted on 100% agreement on all issues, they never would have been able to form the new government.

  9. BadAxe

    IMHO, the ideal would be if the Tea Party movement were hijacked by moderates from both sides, since they seem to be the only ones who can still communicate with one another.

  10. BadAxe

    Fnord,
    the “Free Market” would be a great subject for it’s own thread. I’m not as big a supporter as I used to be. And considering what a free market did to our economy…..

    There’s a lot to be said for regulation.

    • We have two people who blog here who know economics — 6176 and PrairiePond. They are both too busy to start many threads these days, and 6176 is also dealing with recovery from a stroke and typing is a bit more tedious than before, but either could give us useful lessons.

      Me? I am stupid. Literally, hopelessly stupid. Yes, we need regulations and yes, they need to make sense not be controlling. Ah, the middle ground again.

      Do you know economics?

    • There has never been a ‘free market’ in the history of this Republic. The question to be considered is to what degree will regulation be tolerated.

      Free markets, as popularized by many, really aren’t free in the theoretical sense, and, ceteris paribus will lead to monopoly power in almost all areas. This is inevitable, not in a ‘true’ free market, but how the concepts thereof have been employed in the U.S. See, e.g., Microsoft; and, to a lesser degree, Wal-Mart.

      One area ignored by the prior administration (speaking of regulation) was anti-trust. I would argue that market concentration in 2010 is worse than it was in 1898 when the Sherman Act was enacted. The current administration should take a hard look at reversal of policies inherited, and push for more rigorous legislation to remove some of the threat.

      Enough for now. Rant off.

  11. lillacluvr

    I think the Tea Partiers would do better if they are not seen pallin’ around with a bunch of Purist Republicans like Palin and Baachman if they are to be considered a third party of moderates.

    Moderates + Palin + Baachman + Beck + Fox News does not add up to moderates – in either party!

  12. lillacluvr

    I wonder how long it will take for Palin to start to demonize the mainstream media for not covering the Tea Party Convention?

    She claims to hate the media because they are biased, but then when they don’t pay her enough attention, she invites them to watch her catch fish with her shiny new hip waders on and then she still bashes them to their face for being biased.

    WTF??

    • Makes NO sense, neither does anything else with her.

      I hope they get all the media attention they deserve — NONE!

      I do have a feeling you are correct that when those who aren’t hand-picked to cover their convention don’t cover it, they will be criticized. We must remember those who are Fox people will not change NO MATTER WHAT and those who find out this is what Fox is reporting but no one else will wonder why, check in to it and find out the facts. Then who will have the egg on their face?

      • lillacluvr

        But loyal Fox watchers refuse to watch anything else. She and Baachman will be preaching to the choir.

        I wonder if they will all have halos and wings due to their purity?

  13. Guys, I think you just don’t get it.
    The tea party movement which is completely grass roots, is formed of average people who are simply concerned about their children’s future. They worry about the massive amount of money that America is borrowing and the exploding deficit and debt that the current administration is compiling. The same people who used to be the bread and butter of the Democratic party are pretty much the heart of the Tea party movement today. They are working men and women who simply want a break in life without govt consuming their very existance or sweeping them aside like they are meaningless. They want to form small businesses or work as electricians or plumbers, as blue collar or white collar workers, without much love of either party.
    They do not like the Republican party that much, but the tea party members do think they can take the party over for their own cause. While you assume them to be stupid, they are hardly as stupid as the leaders that we have today, who spend money they don’t have, and likely have never owned a business or had to make payroll.
    You speak of “Progressive” movement, but how progressive is it to take from all to let the politician live lavishly like Pelosi, Reid, or Obama?
    And were true Liberals always so happy to accept the “let them eat cake” attitude of these same politicians and complete nincompoops? I thought it was all about distrusting authority? I guess the 60’s are over, and the era of Latte sipping, Limousine Liberalism is here–too bad.
    Perhaps if any real Liberals exist, they will join us at the next tea party and talk to some of us, ask us a few questions, and find out how much we resemble YOU. Crazy idea, I know.

  14. fnord

    Hi DreadPirateRoberts. Welcome to PP&Ps.

    You’ve seen different members of this movement than I have. I’ll hope the ones you speak of become organized before the ones I have heard of do.

  15. lillacluvr

    Dead Pirates I find your claim that the Tea Party movement is a true grassroots movement rather suspect.

    If that is true, then why is Dick Armey and Fox News in the background pulling those strings?

    That right there tells me that the Republican Party is behind the Tea Party Movement.

    Now, it may be true that you may think you can take over the Republican Party, but believe me, the good ole’ GOP boys will NEVER let you take their party away from them.

    And for politicians to live lavishly – it’s funny you only list Democrats – have you seen how the top Republican politicians live?

    If the Tea Party Movement really is a grassroots movement and don’t like the Republican Party either (as you stated), then why are you associating with them?

    You’re known by the company you keep.