Tea Party Convention, GOP influence overshadowed by Palin Gaffe… (or, was it a gaffe?)

With so much of the conservative angst on display in Nashville last weekend being directed at President Obama, it’s understandable that the tea party movement’s internal divisions often go overlooked. It’s important, though, as elements of the Republican Party are attempting to exploit the fear and anger of the tea party rank and file. The inaugural Tea Party Convention (TPCon) was very much a part of that GOP effort.

It’s a risky game that GOP operatives are playing — advancing the ridiculous notion that the president is a radical ideologue – but it has made for some interesting political theater, and according to a recent poll it appears to be working. The Republican effort to co-opt what was, perhaps once, a grassroots movement undoubtedly went unnoticed by those in attendance. However, much of the pre -TPCon media coverage was revealing.

One such media treatment, posted Jan. 25 at NYTimes.com, imparted the concerns of some tea party factions regarding the Nashville convention. The post quoted Philip Glass, national director of the National Precinct Alliance, a group committed to bottom-up, small-government, fiscal conservative activism. His apprehension about the TPCon was grounded in the questionable motives of the convention’s organizer: Tea Party Nation (T.P.N.)

“We are very concerned about the appearance of T.P.N. profiteering and exploitation of the grass-roots movement,” he said in a statement. “We were under the impression that T.P.N. was a nonprofit organization like N.P.A., interested only in uniting and educating Tea Party activists on how to make a real difference in the political arena.”

Mr. Glass said he was also concerned about the role in the convention of groups like Tea Party Express, which has held rallies across the country through two bus tours, and FreedomWorks, a Tea Party umbrella. He called them “Republican National Committee-related groups,” and added, “At best, it creates the appearance of an R.N.C. hijacking; at worst, it is one.”

TPMMuckraker blogger Zachary Roth got closer to the heart of the controversy in his Jan. 22 post, “Tea Party Dilemma: To GOP Or Not To GOP?” Within it, Roth imparted numerous examples of tea party conflicts related to GOP infiltration of the movement.

“The Tea Party movement still has not come close to resolving the question of what its relationship with the Republican party should be — and the issue is creating turmoil in Tea Party circles across the country,” Roth wrote.

TPCon attendees, apparently less concerned with Republican Party influence, were treated to an anti-Obama/Democrat extravaganza. Of course, lip service was paid to the tea party core principles; however, this was complimented by a healthy dose of xenophobic, homophobic, overtly religious, anti-intellectual rhetoric: perennial go-to, red meat banter for Republicans who’d rather not discuss policy.

As for the TPCon keynote speaker, former half-term Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, her speech was predictably critical of the Obama administration and its policies, neglecting to mention the specifics to go along with her GOP boilerplate remedies. That’s what political conventions are for, I suppose.

But the content of Palin’s speech, and the rest of the convention for that matter, have been overshadowed in the media. While some have suggested that Palin’s crib notes were a display of ineptitude — an understandable conclusion, to be sure – I suspect it may have been a stunt.

If you assume that Palin will not be running in 2012 — and, I think that’s a pretty safe assumption at this point — what is the downside of feigning the incident? Sure, it could effect her speaking engagement price tag, but she’s got a job. The ridicule from the left was a given, ensuring the payoff: unflattering media coverage translates directly into increased Palin adoration on the part of her fans.

The incident wont win her many converts, but her existing base will increase their resolve to ignore Palin’s inability to hold her own in a critical forum. It’s conceivable that if or when she does face any hostile questioning, it will come from the right. As Palin spends these next few months campaigning on behalf 2010 Republican hopefuls, making her tea party appearances with Fox News Channel’s preferred tea party faction — Tea Party Express — the above mentioned disaffected segments of the movement may have something to say about it.

Related on Care2:

Jan. 18 - Cynicism and Revisionism – Palin’s First Week at Fox “News”
Feb. 4 - Sarah Palin Objects to Limbaugh’s “Retards” Comment. Is Glenn Beck Next?

See Also:

Lidia DePillis, “The Tea Party Glossary.” The New Republic, 3 February 2010. ~ Be sure to check out page 2 which includes a linked listing of tea party factions.
Stephen C. Webster, “Ron Paul: ’Neocon influence’ is infiltrating the tea parties.” The Raw Story, 9 February 2010. ~ Interestingly, Dr. Paul’s 2010 bid for reelection faces 3 tea party affiliated primary challengers.

Image from Flickr.com user Kelly ~ by way of CreativeCommons.org

quick poll

vote now!

Loading poll...

no!
leaning no
leaning yes
yes!

no!
leaning no
leaning yes
yes!

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Donna A.

6:38AM PST on Mar 5, 2010

Sarah Palin need to just stay in Canada. She can't even remember was action are, as she has to write notes on her hand. Preseident Obama is doing a great job!!

send a green star

Michael C.

10:47AM PST on Mar 3, 2010

The Tea Party is entirely a creature of Dick Armey and the GOP - for them to think themselves "independent" just shows how deluded these people are. Anger is not a political platform.

Robert T.

7:36PM PST on Feb 21, 2010

The enemy of my enemy is... what's going on?

June K.

11:44AM PST on Feb 16, 2010

Robert S, we had a previous President (GW) who tried to correct a child's spelling at a spelling bee. Unless, you forgot it was Sarah Palin who brought the issue up. So if she is going to make an issue of the teleprompter do you think we should overlook her notes. Did you see Obama answering the Republicans questions, (Which they all read.) with out any notes? It will be interesting to see if the Q & A session is televised again. Fox News found it so embarrassing that they didn't even show the whole event.

11:19AM PST on Feb 16, 2010

Jaime J. you said the richest 1& of American already pays 40% of the taxes as if that is a bad thing. However, if they have 42% of the financial wealth why should someone else pay the taxes when they don't have the money?

Financial Wealth
Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1983 42.9% 48.4% 8.7%
1989 46.9% 46.5% 6.6%
1992 45.6% 46.7% 7.7%
1995 47.2% 45.9% 7.0%
1998 47.3% 43.6% 9.1%
2001 39.7% 51.5% 8.7%
2004 42.2% 50.3% 7.5%
2007 42.7% 50.3% 7.0%

I do agree with Gregory and others that we need to stop corporate welfare. Obama did try to work with a congressional committee to work on cutting the deficit. Unfortunately, all 5 Republicans walked out of the committee even though they were given equal standing with the Democrats. They seem to think it is more important for Obama's administration not to accomplish something than to help the country.

11:05AM PST on Feb 16, 2010

Seth, thank you for so eloquently explaining that in a Democracy government should help those who need it, not the elite.

Seth E.

8:55AM PST on Feb 16, 2010

If someone makes only $10,000 a year, even if you allow them to keep everything they earned without taxing them, the costs of living tend to be so high that they may not even be able to cover everything they need, so they may go hungry, they may not be able to afford to pay for health care or even for the medical care covered by it if they have coverage, they may lose their house, if not forced to rent in the first place.

If there is no assistance from the government, in the form of food stamps, public housing, Medicaid/Medicare, etc., then they may not even be able to get by, much less thrive or advance in life.

In the case of the $10,000 earner, everything they earn if going right back into the economy because they must spend it. Therefore, their full earnings help businesses make money to pay their employees, who in turn will spend it with other businesses, further stimulating the economy, and the cycle will continue.

If you were to cut taxes on the wealthy, because they had no need to spend beyond their needs, this could allow them to keep even more money, so it therefore would not stay in circulation where it can stimulate the economy, leading to a recession such as we have seen; when people stop spending, the economy stagnates or even declines.

The high taxes on the wealthy may not seem fair, but the alternative is even less fair to more people as there are many more in the lower and middle classes.

The government should represent the majority, not the e

8:47AM PST on Feb 16, 2010

I agree with what June said, and to add to it, I think Jaime's condescension about people thinking they deserve something without paying for it is far off the mark as it assumes that only the idle are without health coverage. There are many people in this country who do work but do not earn enough to afford health care, mostly due to the increases in cost; also, don't forget about people who do have coverage, but it includes its own expenses that cause people to delay needed care, only to have to give in later when it ends up even more expensive but better than the inevitable death from forgoing treatment completely.

As far as taxing the rich, remember that there are services all of us need, such as infrastructure, and services that help those in need, such as social services.

While you may belittle the need-based services, think of it this way:

If someone makes $100,000 a year, even if they're taxed as 50%, they still have $50,000 left for their life expenses: car, house, food, utilities, etc. They can probably cover their expenses with some money left to save, so they get to maintain some level of wealth. Likewise for someone making $1,000,000 a year; at 50%, they would get to keep $500,000 of that, which is more than enough to get by, and because this is enough to cover their needs, and probably some wants, they can stop spending without needing to spend everything they have.

continued...

8:30AM PST on Feb 16, 2010

Jaime J.

You claim "Side Note: Universal Health Care is an expensive program that is NOT a right! Why is it everyone thinks they DESERVE something without paying or working for it?"

I don't know where you get your health care. My Mother worked all her life. She got cancer when I started college. When my Dad retired they could not afford to stay with his health care. My Mother had to go a year without treatment because the insurance company said her cancer was a pre-existing condition. She died because of the cancer. My sister-in-law has worked all her life. She was recently fired and rehired as a contract worker, so the company wouldn't have to pay her benefits. If you know of an affordable health care plan for individuals that are 50 years old please let me know.

Do you think hospitals should turn away people without health care? Is it cheaper to treat people before they end up in the emergency room? I think people would be healthier, more productive if they had health care. Frankly with H1N1 and other deadly viruses I would prefer that people I have contact with and the children in schools had health care.

8:19AM PST on Feb 16, 2010

Jaime J., you might also want to check who is making the money due to the rise in CEO salaries and stagnant salaries everywhere else.

Table 6: Distribution of income in the United States, 1982-2003

Income
Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1982 12.8% 39.1% 48.1%
1988 16.6% 38.9% 44.5%
1991 15.7% 40.7% 43.7%
1994 14.4% 40.8% 44.9%
1997 16.6% 39.6% 43.8%
2000 20.0% 38.7% 41.4%
2003 17.0% 40.8% 42.2%
2006 21.3% 40.1% 38.6%

Table 7: Share of capital income flowing to households in various income categories
Top 1% Top 5% Top 10% Bottom 80%
1979 37.8% 57.9% 66.7% 23.1%
1981 35.8% 55.4% 64.6% 24.4%
1983 37.6% 55.2% 63.7% 25.1%
1985 39.7% 56.9% 64.9% 24.9%
1987 36.7% 55.3% 64.0% 25.6%
1989 39.1% 57.4% 66.0% 23.5%
1991 38.3% 56.2% 64.7% 23.9%
1993 42.2% 60.5% 69.2% 20.7%
1995 43.2% 61.5% 70.1% 19.6%
1997 45.7% 64.1% 72.6% 17.5%
1999 47.8% 65.7% 73.8% 17.0%
2001 51.8% 67.8% 74.8% 16.0%
2003 57.5% 73.2% 79.4% 12.6%