Showing posts with label teabaggers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label teabaggers. Show all posts

Sunday, August 08, 2010

茶分心 - Tea Party Distraction

Many of the pundits and commentators have been speculating, uttering for public consumption variations on a disingenuous theme: the Tea Party threatens to undermine the grand old Republican party. Are you falling for it? Nothing could lead you further from the truth.

Ask what motivates those who echo this "conventional wisdom"

In the case of most employed in the media the answer is simple enough, they seek attention because their producers use ratings as the primary metric - corporate media thrives on advertising revenues, which rise and fall with ratings. Relatively few fans realize credibility takes a back seat to celebrity -- logic is overwhelmed by the profit motives of the "business" of news coverage.

The goal of an expert political commentator has some of that same need for attention, interwoven with the complex agendas of using their pulpit to at once distract and mislead their opponents, hopefully to such an extent they become depressed and disenfranchised, while inspiring and energizing those who contribute to their party's success via both votes and on-going media "success."

Consider the two major factions

In the case of a political strategist the goals, at least, are clear even though the strategies and tactics often defy attempts by the pundits to explain, let alone forecast.  The political strategist cares not - the pundits are a tool, and persuading them to portray the process in a way that conveys advantage to the strategist's cause doesn't require the understanding and consent of the media, although that willingness to play along (as the Fox network is generally charged with doing during the previous administration) has obvious benefits.

Both major parties seek to expand their influence and control. Since voters often forego logic when deciding who to empower, the original goal of a political party has to bow, at least in part, to pragmatic reliance on persuasion to preserve their bureaucratic turf.

The Democrats would be delighted if more people accept that the Tea Party signals the decline of the GOP no matter what the party strategists may or may not believe.  The Republicans party's goal is to use the coverage to suggest that either the mood of the country is more right-leaning than it was as the electorate swung from supporting Bush administration initiatives to sweeping Obama and Democrats into office, or that voters who feel that way are shrugging off their lethargy and energized enough to matter nationwide in the looming elections - although we hear over and over that all politics are local.

What does the Tea Party represent?

The Tea Party ideology may have had legitimate, grassroots origins, but it's now a tool of right-wing strategists who spread the story of their concern that it attracts extremists and all manner of unsavory and under-educated bigots while disingenuously stressing the threat to the GOP if Republicans don't accommodate and react. The appeararnce of a growing third party movement even further to the right than the Republicans sets up the GOP strategists to market their candidates as "middle of the road" moderates in the political spectrum. Brilliant not simply as strategic ploy, but also because it's lately become impossible to continue winning votes by touting the GOP brand as compassionate,  fiscally conservative, or good for small business interests.

On most ballots in November, though, there will only be Democrats and Republicans; the GOP will have invested in looking sensible and middle-of-the-road in their coordinated advertising campaigns while many Democrats will rely on voters to make the logical choices.  Logically, of course, more voters are aligned with what Democrats have accomplished and Democratic candidates advocate. But compared to the media coverage of Tea Party rallies replete with misspelled signs and hats festooned with tea bags the Republicans will seem close to most voter's self-image: sensible and moderate.

The Tea Party is now, above all else and quite regardless of the beliefs and goals of its founders or participants, an excellent marketing tool to reposition and re-brand the GOP in advance of the 2010 general elections.



Thomas Hayes
is an entrepreneur, Democratic Campaign Manager, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.



Friday, July 23, 2010

Will the RNC replace Michael Steele with a hockey-mom?

GOP strategists are surely already considering who can best replace their controversy-laden RNC Chair - their principle questions are the timing and who will be able to insure the media spotlight stays on the party's message while inspiring both donors and voters, particularly the vocal, visible Teabaggers. Perhaps this time they'll turn to a woman?

After all, the most recent crop of Naval "Sailors of the Year" were all female, and women make up more than 50% of the U.S. population while turning out to vote more consistently than men.  In fact, if Representative Bachmann weren't seeking re-election she'd surely be in the running, but she'll have to wait her turn as elite GOP strategists have to be aware of the looming November election as they consider their "short list."

Who can inspire big donors? Who can keep the media focused on the GOP's talking points? Who has a photogenic face and comfort in front of the cameras?  Who has the balance of national recognition and all these other elements, and is available to step up and step in when the next gaffe strikes Michael Steele down?


The Thrilla from Wasilla.

It's what she's been waiting for. It won't matter that she's blown any credibility on international affairs, or quit her post as Governor --  the chair doesn't direct policy or even write speeches; the job responsibilities are largely smiling for the cameras and memorizing scripted phrases while insuring a good turn-out for fund-raising events.

I'm sure there are other possibile choices, not to mention that the GOP loves how she distracts the rest of the pundits already pondering future presidential hopefuls.  But the GOP still has Romney and Huckabee, plus Pawlenty and Coleman coming out of "middle America" with records they can ostensibly run on to work with  thus leaving the hockey mom free to court publicity without anybody questioning her readiness or suitability to be
Commander-in-Chief.



Thomas Hayes
is an entrepreneur, Democratic Campaign Manager, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

Friday, February 05, 2010

Why do gun-rights advocates trust the GOP?

That was one of the big deals during the campaign, and it continues to echo through the Teabaggers sites, and on the signs at Tea Party rallies. You'd think the Democrats had "abolish the 2nd amendment" as a platform to hear the NRA and their lobbyists talk.

It's true, the President has some concerns he's been up-front with relating to assault weapons - the sort of rifle that has no place in the sport of hunting.

But when was the last time the government actually took away people's weapons in any sort of mass sweep of the citizenry, such as Obama's opponents seem to fear he'll do?

Oh, right, it was back in 2005. September of 2005, according to ABC news; it was under a Republican administration, of course, so it didn't provoke the outcry it might have.

"Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job!"
After all, former President George Bush is nominally a Texan, and if a Texan says you should give up your guns, that's different - right?

I mean, after all, Bush's Vice President was even a hunter - right?

It makes you wonder, doesn't it?


Thomas Hayes
is an entrepreneur, journalist, and political analyst who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

Wednesday, January 06, 2010

Tom Hayes: Is Gary Hart downplaying the threat?

I disagree that the tea-baggers and others referred to in Hart's Huffington Post OpEd today, "Getting the Government We Seem to Want," hurt only themselves - by acting to disrupt civil discourse and undermine the effectiveness of our government they drag the country toward a path that will parallel the outcomes of "no taxes but no government" as currently practiced in Somalia.

"...the cynics and trolls who scream like banshees at town hall meetings and scan the blogosphere to post cynical put-downs of their country's government are hurting no one but themselves."

I'm forced to disagree: They hurt me. They hurt everyone else living in the U.S. In fact, it goes beyond today; such actions threaten the well-being, liberty, standard of living, and the intent of the founding fathers when they inserted the language pertaining to "pursuit of happiness" for my descendants (and yours, and theirs.)

I do share Hart's concern that, "the most qualified Americans will continue to choose not to serve their country and we will continue to be weaker for it."

Under the adopted camouflage of the Boston Tea Party, which was about the unfair nature of being taxed without representation not anarchy, these short-sighted, loud-mouthed, anti-government anarchists threaten the values predicating, and described in, the Constitution of The United States.



Thomas Hayes
is an entrepreneur, journalist, and political analyst who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

Monday, September 14, 2009

"We don't want the government to do anything."

That's the mindset of some folks, despite the fact the U.S. Constitution actually calls for government to manage things such as defense, domestic tranquility, etc. In a way, it's interesting - it's utopian:
I don't need anybody regulating the food I buy, I don't need anybody checking the efficacy of the drugs I use, I'm never going to need a fire-fighter or a policeman, I don't need roads and bridges maintained by some big agency, no not me, I'm fine with private "free market" solutions to everything, including education, defense, and immigration.
Call it a little naive, maybe, but... the sound bites seem appealing until you ponder little things such as: who deals with pollution in the streams you fish in, or how a family living in a hut copes with forest fires, hurricanes, or immigration (at least there'd be no more illegal immigrants.)