The new media and self-publishing world has spawned an explosion of information and opinion sources, some more valuable than others and some just plain dangerous. Knowing what sources to trust can be a challenge. In Red State yesterday, book reviewer, Leon H. Wolf takes into the dribble of the candidate's daughter turned pundit; Megan McCain in a biting and humorous way that provokes a number of thoughts. The treatment is so effective, one only hopes that Wolf never encounters daddy never in a dark alley. Then it occurs, that daddy would have a hard time not being thoroughly mortified for himself. What can he say? By elucidating the self-contradictions in McCain's rantings, Wolf exposes a flawed character and warns of the danger of her having any audience whasoever. From the review:
"In the final analysis, however, I determined that most of Meghan’s flaws – such as her unbearable narcissism, delusions of persecution (sic) and mendacity – couldn’t be chalked up to her manifestly below-average intelligence. These are blameworthy traits born of a malfunctioning moral compass, and they are laid bare in spades on every page of Dirty, Sexy Politics. Furthermore, it is important to address them because Meghan McCain’s book is an active attempt to split the Republican Party in two and thereby destroy its ability to win elections. And even though she is an idiot, she is a useful idiot in the hands of the media and other assorted Democrats, who also want to achieve this goal."
It is the author's last point that makes this review/rebuke further worth reposting. Wolf exposes her as a grammatically challenged, narcissistic dolt who would divide us as long as she can maintain her place on the stage. She is a destroyer, not a builder, whom Wolf asserts, needs to be addressed. Absolutely.
Thank you Mr. Wolf, for doing the job and reminding us to be leery of simplistic, narrow thinking useful idots who in their exaggerated sense of self-worth, assail conservatives and Tea Partiers thus serving the left more than the right. Patriots should be cautious before heeding the rantings of these types.
The following is a response to an article written by Jim Hoft, published on his website, and re-published on Big Journalism. Perhaps, since Dana has allowed this article to appear on a website for which she is Editor-and-Chief, she would allow us to respond either there or on her radio show. Here's Jim Hoft:
The race first turned ugly last summer, but more about that later. The information provided to Steven Nelson included the Ann Wagner donor lists now available on 24thState.com, the hidden spouse data, and an explanation to frame the data. Because you might talk about totals for Q2, Q3, year-to-date, and spouse donations for Q2, Q3, and in total, it was important to provide some explanation of the data to help Nelson understand the spreadsheets. Here's part of the email sent to Nelson:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 3:06 PM, <redacted> wrote: >Steven, > >Attached is the full donations list. There are >duplicate entries, because of reattributions and >reassignments, but the totals are accurate and >the subtractions are counted. The entries are >unchanged from the FEC files in the interest of >accuracy. That total is $249,750. These are >Enterprise companies, subsidiaries, and holding >companies, with spouses added. There are more >contributions from Enterprise connections >(future fuels, lobbyists), but that just muddies >the water. The ones in the spreadsheets are >direct and provable. > >In addition to being an astounding total, you >can see a clear pattern of AVP giving $250, and >VP/GM giving $1000. And then you have the >spouse giving, listed below, where spouses of >executives gave to the Ann Wagner campaign, but >the executive didn’t. In our view, that’s what >makes this the story. It’s not the typical >doubling up you see where a husband and wife >give money. This is an attempt to hide the >source of the donations. Most of the names on >the list below have another correlation. The >Enterprise employees, who did not give to Ann, >are regular contributors to the Enterprise >Rent-A-Car Political Action Committee....
Rather than ask the Tea Party members involved with the story, Jim published information that is not true. That stands in stark contrast to the Daily Caller's Steven Nelson who spoke with and quoted sources both within the St. Louis Tea Party and Ann Wagner's campaign. We also received an email while Nelson was researching this story in which Dana Loesch implies that she spoke with Nelson. In short, while Nelson actually included sources and quotes, there's nothing to support Hoft's assertion that "Martin's team" is behind this. But Reboot Congress, who has been involved with this story from the begining, reported that the data was uncovered by a group of moms.
This too fails, as the PR efforts of a $10 billion company to dismiss the idea of taking TARP funds isn’t proof that they were not involved. They were involved in lobbying TARP for their benefit, including Cash for Clunkers, which used TARP money. If you remember Roy Blunt was a big Cash for Clunkers proponent, and it was Ann Wagner who chaired his campaign. Roy Blunt also received a lot of donations from Enterprise, including hidden spouse donations that have not yet been revealed.
The Martin camp claims, and Nelson writes, that Wagner’s husband Ray is a “registered lobbyist.” Oops. Wrong again. Ray Wagner actually de-registered as a lobbyist prior to Ann’s campaign kick-off last July. A simple search of publicly-available documents would have alerted Martin’s campaign and the Daily Caller to the actual facts. Ray Wagner’s highest ethical standards stand in sharp contrast to the Martin-machine’s attempt to go after a spouse and his employer in the Republican primary.
As everyone in the Tea Party knows Ray delisted himself in preparation for Ann’s campaign; however, he is still Enterprise's Government & Public Affairs Vice-President. In that capacity, he oversees Enterprise's lobbying and he helps determine where their campaign funds go. Again, Jim knows this, but deliberately ignores it in the post.
And what about those claims that Enterprise Rent-A-Car is attempting to “buy a US House seat?” Consider that Wagner has raised nearly $1 million from donors who are not Enterprise-related. Consider that Enterprise is one of the largest employers in Missouri and has over 70,000 employees world-wide. For the Wagner campaign to receive donations from dozens of Enterprise employees is hardly a surprise, given that those relationships have been developed for nearly two decades. The Martin Campaign is wrong to attack Ann Wagner for her record fundraising.
Actually, Ann raised only about $800,000 without Enterprise. A lot of that was connected to the Enterprise network, like the $14,000 to lobbyists like Ogilvy, the Podesta Group, and Fleishmann Hillard. While Ray Wagner may have relationships with Enterprise executives, are we supposed to believe that Ann had relationships with Enterprise lobbyists? And if Ann were so beloved by Enterprise employees, why are there no smaller donations? These are hefty donations from over 100 executives and their spouses. When you compare those results against any other candidate in the country, Ann wins out as some kind of super-candidate who generates blind loyalty from her husband’s company. There is a pattern of giving that correlates with the Enterprise Political Action Committee and the spouses of executives that can not be explained by love for Ann Wagner. If any Democrat did this, we’d be having a field day. We cannot grant a pass because someone has an (R) by their name.
For anyone who actually looked at the data, the pattern is clear. Enterprise donations were hidden through the spouses of executives who themselves did not give.
And again, this is not the Martin campaign. This originally was crowdsourced through members of the St Louis Tea Party, as was reported by Reboot Congress.
Speaking of donors – it’s also interesting to note that Wagner has also raised over $145,000 from donors who supported Ed Martin during his 2010 campaign. No wonder the Martin camp is so upset with Wagner’s cash haul. Wagner actually collected more from former Martin donors this year ($145,000) than Martin was able to raise from his remaining donors last quarter (115,000). This obviously has Ed Martin worried. Hence, the attack on Ann Wagner, her husband, their friends, and Enterprise Rent-A-Car.
This is an interesting number. Did Jim Hoft do this research? Who provided him these numbers? Was it the Wagner campaign? Was it Chip Gerdes? Was it Dan Riehl? And if Jim Hoft didn’t do his own research, did he write this piece at all? As mentioned at the top, Hoft was quoted in the first hit piece against Ed Martin that came out last August on Big Government. That piece, supposedly written by Dan Riehl, sparked a firestorm among Tea Party conservatives in Missouri. Upon questioning, Chip Gerdes, another paid political consultant, stated that he wrote the piece as a “warning shot” to Ed Martin because of comments that Martin made on a Christian AM radio station. If Gerdes is writing hit pieces for Ann Wagner and publishing them under Dan Riehl’s name, what else has he written?
We ask: Where did those figures come from? Dan Riehl and Dana Loesch have written on Twitter and in Tea Party emails that hundreds of thousands of dollars were given to Ed Martin by Ann Wagner’s Enterprise connections. This has been proven false. Who gave Jim the data and where is it? Let’s see some research.
It also must hurt to watch a series of notable conservatives endorse Ann Wagner – John Ashcroft, John Bolton, Mike Huckabee, and Chris Christie to name a few.
But resorting to attacks on local job-creators, is something you’d expect from a goon at #Occupy LA not a conservative candidate for Congress. It also raises the specter of class warfare. The Daily Caller ought to check out the facts before they run with an Ed Martin campaign attack next time.
Note what Jim does here. Earlier, he said the "Martin camp", which could include people who support him but who are not part of his campaign. Then he ends with the Ed Martin campaign, trying to claim Martin was the source of this story.
Martin was not the source. Members and followers of the St Louis Tea Party were. The same people who used to provide research and work with Jim Hoft and Dana Loesch to help them build their popularity. The people who defended them, and protected them.
One final point, both Ed Martin and Ann Wagner are friends of mine and capable conservatives. But this was a cheap hit on Ann Wagner. Ed Martin is a better person than this.
Again, the Daily Caller was only provided with the Enterprise-related contributions, the same numbers published on 24thstate. We are sure the DC would be happy to own their own articles. What is a "cheap hit" is writing a response to the DC as if Ed Martin had written in the Daily Caller himself. Jim Hoft, Dana Loesch, Ann Wagner and Enterprise all received this data, but none have ever made a direct response to the level of candor in reporting those contributions to the press. Instead, a never-ending stream of logical fallacies have been used to distract from the issue at hand:
If Enterprise-related contributions to Ann Wagner are above-board, then why were the total numbers not given to the press and why has the Wagner Campaign failed to address its candor to the public, directly.
Dan Riehl, Dana Loesch and Jim Hoft have taken the point on this issue, which begs the question, can we identify them as "Ann Wagner's Team," and attribute their responses to Ann Wagner?
The individuals below collaborated and/or approved this rebuttal. None of them have taken money, nor coordinated with, the Ed Martin Campaign.
The following two links are to documents containing public information crowdsourced from FEC.gov.
It is the campaign contribution reports from Ann Wagner's campaign for Missouri's Second Congressional District.
The first is the total for donations from Enterprise Rent-A-Car employees, spouses, holding companies, financial companies and subsidiaries. The second is a list of those donations solely in the third quarter.
The information has been unaltered from its form in the FEC reports.
Make your own decisions about what they mean, but let's not pretend these don't exist, or that transparency in campaign finance is a bad thing, or that posting publicly available information is a dirty tricks campaign.
This information was collected by St Louis Tea Party members. The decision to collect, publish and share with the media was done independent of Ed Martin, Ann Wagner, or the official St Louis Tea Party Coalition.
It is fact. It is undisputed. The totals get bigger when we do it again January 30th. If one company wants to have this much influence on a primary election in a conservative district, it it our obligation to make sure voters know the full extent of that influence.
On Tuesday morning, September 13th, St. Louis Mayor Slay testified in support of local control of the of the St. Louis Police department. I testified against local control on behalf of the St. Louis Tea Party. Senate Bill #1 turned over control to the City of St. Louis and was scheduled in front of Committee Chairman Senator Kevin Engler, (R-Farmington).
In the 15 years I have testified in front of various committees both for and against legislation, Senator Engler was the rudest Missouri legislator I have ever encountered. He interrupted me on 5 separate occasions and obviously did not support the Tea Party position. When I advised that the Tea Party objected to the fiscal responsibility aspect and cost involved in the special session that is when he advised that the cost of the hearing was ZERO dollars. He then castigated me regarding my lack of knowledge on the costs to taxpayers in regard to the special session.
A google search gave me insights into Senator Engler’s distain for Tea Party beliefs. Senator Engler’s son Andrew Engler is a paid lobbyist for American Traffic Solutions, which is the firm behind the red light cameras throughout the St. Louis area. St. Louis City has over 25 locations implemented by ATS designed to generate revenue for Mayor Francis Slay and the City of St. Louis. It does not take a detective to connect the dots between ATS and Senator Engler’s relationship with Mayor Slay.
Kenneth Gladney has filed a civil suit against SEIU for the August 2009 attack outside a Russ Carnahan townhall on Aging. In the suit, Gladney will have several advantages that were not available to the prosecution in the criminal trial, including an experienced lawyer, the ability to cross-examine witnesses with evidence, and the ability to bring in the public statements of Elston McCowan and SEIU into the trial, including quite a bit of information that has not been published.
Adam Shriver, a teacher's assistant in the of Washington University in St Louis Philosophy department, continues his two year quest to smear private citizens (but not public officials) with a challenge to debate the facts of the Gladney case. Convinced he knows more about the Gladney assault than anyone else in St Louis, we decided to create a list of unanswered questions we know Shriver lacks the inrformation to answer.
Since August of 2009, Shriver has attacked anyone connected with the Gladney case. At no point has he ever actually written his account of events. This has allowed him to raise questions without being put on the spot as to what happened that night.
So the first thought is: What happened?
Shriver has never written his version of events. He instead has written about "problems" with second and third hand accounts of the story as written by journalists, bloggers, and in Shriver's tortured version of what he thinks happened on video. So let's start with an account of what happened, in Shriver's view. If he knows so much about it, surely he can write a clear description of the night's events and the people involved.
On August 9th, 2009, Shriver was out with a post claiming the Gladney beating was faked by Tea Partiers. He used the SEIU website to go frame by frame and repeat a SEIU-website created narrative that claimed the video was the altercation, without speaking to anyone actually at the event. SEIU originally tweeted that 7 tea partiers were arrested based on an internal memo, a statement that shows a memo was indeed created. That memo will be the key to unraveling who ordered the Code Purple.
We know that Shriver's first version was wrong, as a flyer he distributed at the McCaskill townhalls demands that Bill Hennessy "give the money back" that Tea Partiers had given in charity. Shriver's flyer also claimed the video was the full altercation, and not the aftermath.
Download the page of the flyer Shriver is seen distributing to Kelly Owens, whose attacker that night pled guilty to striking her. To date, Shriver has not acknowledged that this first instincts were wrong, based on internet reports, and a fabrication.
At some point, Shriver turned from simply attacking Tea Partiers and Gladney to publishing defense documents. At what point, did he turn from internet gadfly to the online resource for Elston McCowan? Adam has crowed about a Not Guilty verdict and has had people like Chad Garrison and Eric Boehlert give him kudos for his reporting. So it's fair to ask.
Who has Shriver spoken with, and when did he speak with them?
We know Shriver started his attacks without personal knowledge of what happened. When did he first speak with Elston McCowan? Did he ever have access to Paul D'Agrosa? Did he ever sit down and interview Elston McCowan, or was he merely printing information he was sent? Has he ever extensively questioned Perry Molens? The mystery witness?
This matters because Shriver was not at the events in question. He is relying on other people to learn what happened. And most important, he was publishing documents supplied to him by the defense, notably the medical records of Elston McCowan. Who gave those to him, in what context, and how much information was he reporting on as opposed to simply publishing as a defense strategy?
Was he an independent researcher, looking for the truth, or was he a convenient mouthpiece for Paul D'Agrosa and SEIU Local 2000, who spent tens of thousands of dollars defending two SEIU staff against an ordinance violation? What level of access did Shriver have, when did he gain that access, and from that can we say he was a propaganda tool, or a dedicated researcher?
He's never had to answer that question.
Finally we get to the unanswered questions in the case, and we'll just list those.
1) The defense witness.
An SEIU employee testified at the trial that she saw Kenneth Gladney start the "fight." When did Shriver find this out? Was it before assault charges were filed in November of 2009? Was is before the NAACP press conference where a 100 people gathered to demand charges be dropped in 2010? Was it before the rookie prosecutor got the case, or after? When did the county counselor's office discover there was a defense witness, and were they adequately prepared with rebuttal testimony from other people who were there and three separate videos of the occasion?
Kelly Owens and David Brown enter the video at the same time as the mystery witness. Why did the county counselor's office never speak to Owens about the incident, even though Owens was assaulted that night?
Surely Shriver, who knows more about the case than anyone else would be able to give us this information.
2) Did Patricia Redington's office speak with anyone prior to pressing charges? In November of 2009, on KMOX, Redington claimed the charges took three months because there were multiple incidents and dozens of witnesses. In filing those charges, was anything other than the documents provided by the county police report used? If so, who was interviewed? If not, why would she cite dozens of witnesses being interviewed? If nothing but the police report was used to press charges, why did they wait three months to press charges, and why did Redington claim dozens of witnesses were being interviewed? And why didn't the SEIU employee step forward as a counter witness in the three months prior to charges being filed, a time when MMFA was writing that no charges were coming unless Breitbart had super secret evidence?
3) Elston McCowan claimed in an email that he was denied workers' compensation when he filed. A short while later, that claim was approved. What did he claim on the worker's compensation filing, and is that the same information he offered at the trial?
4) Kenneth Gladney's testimony to the police is on tape from that night. He describes being punched in the face, kicked, and thrown to the ground. Has Shriver seen that video, and if so, why does he focus on a single sentence from another video where Gladney confronts McCowan for starting the "fight" by slapping his hand?
5) Elston McCowan gave several radio interviews and at least one print interview where he describes himself as the victim of an assault. He even told the Post Dispatch that "out of nowhere, this guy attacked me while I was walking to my car." In the trial, D'Agrosa maintained that this was a fight started by Gladney and that McCowan and Molens had the right to defend themselves. D'Agrosa never had to defend the change in story between what McCowan said before charges were filed, his admitting that he selected Gladney to walk up to, and his eventual defense strategy of "defending himself."
Which was it? Was McCowan the victim of an attack who never laid a hand on Gladney, or was he defending himself? We know what defense he used in the trial, but what was with his earlier story?
6) How much did Paul D'Agrosa tell Elston McCowan and Perry Molens it would cost to take the case to trial? Did that request come before or after the NAACP rally to force Redington "drop the charges?" Did SEIU pay that bill? Did SEIU pay a cash settlement to McCowan and Molens after the assault? Was the NAACP rally organized by Adolphus Pruitt because SEIU didn't want to pay for the trial, and did they acquiesce to pay the bill when the press rally failed? All of that information can be introduced into the civil trial.
7) Three prosecution witnesses gave testimony that they saw Gladney being attacked, specifically by McCowan. Two of those testified in the trial. Shriver has accused them of perjury. Does he believe, as McCowan has stated, that this was a conspiracy on their part, created prior to the assault? If not, how do two sets of witnesses come up with the same story and deliver that story to police officers just minutes after the event occurred? Keep in mind that McCowan admits he initiated the contact with Gladney, which would require the witnesses to have used Gladney as bait.
8) Was Shriver impressed with the quality of the prosecutor in the case? If someone he knew was attacked, would he be satisfied with the prosecutor that handled the Gladney case? Does he believe that a Not Guilty verdict proves a story, or does he think the court system is rightly set up to give overwhelming favor to the defendant?
9) Does Shriver still think that assault charges in the case, brought by Redington, were ridiculous? On what basis did he make that statement in November of 2009? Had he spoken to McCowan or Molens or the defense witness at that time?
10) Does Shriver know the pony tailed main in jeans from that night? Did he ever speak with Cheryl Johner, who pled guilty to assault of Kelly Owens, but defended Kenneth Gladney moments before when Perry Molens threw him to the ground?
11) Elston McCowan claimed that he attended the TownHall on Aging because he was wanted to learn more for his father's sake. SEIU made a statement to the Post Dispatch that no one was officially sent to the town hall. In fact, Elston McCowan and Perry Molens weren't officially working for the union when they went there that night. Adolphus Pruitt of the NAACP is on tape during a press conference stating that this is a gray area, because they were under contract, but not officially working. During the trial, McCowan spoke on a cell phone outside the courtroom and stated that yes, he was called and told to attend the event.
Was McCowan working for SEIU that night in an official capacity? If so, why did he say that he was not there officially, but went for his father? Why did SEIU deny an official presence? And why were worker's compensation and legal fees paid by the union for an incident that was instigated by McCowan after the townhall was over?
Shriver is puffing his chest up and pretending he can debate Breitbart, but his knowledge of the case is really just a recitation of what he was given. He has shown no evidence of questioning McCowan or Molens about the events, and his accusations of perjury on the part of prosecution witnesses boil down to, "they were there supporting the Tea Party and thus can't be trusted." In short, Shriver knows only what he was told by a criminal defendant and their high-powered defense attorney.
Members of The St Louis Tea Party Coalition, including seven who were at the event, were the ones who gathered the evidence, interviewed the witnesses, and kept the issue alive to the public. It is the St Louis Tea Party that has borne the brunt of character attacks from Shriver for doing so, including charges of inciting violence, embezzlement, lying to the press, and defaming the county counselor's office. From his now defunct anonymous St Louis Pushes Back smear blog to edited video to the Twitter arguments he uses to get attention, Shriver has spent thousands of hours attacking private citizens in the last two years. He did so without first hand knowledge or even the most basic interviews of the principals involved. He knows that a public debate at Wash U would showcase his lies to his employer. He could never accept such a debate. He can only make vague threats and then whine about the conditions when it is accepted by a leading media figure in Andrew Breitbart.
The St Louis Tea Party is focused on politicians and lobbyists and far left paid progressive activists. We have little concern about Shriver's ankle biting, and we're not dumb enough to provide the photos, videos, witness testimony, and cross-examination of his sources that would be useful to SEIU in the civil trial. We'll save those for Gladney's attorney, as we have for the last two years.
We know the game is to twist the information we put out, and then have it amplified by Media Matters, the Riverfront Times, and Crooks and Liars (but we repeat ourselves). What we know is that tables are now turned. D'Agrosa won't be playing the junior varsity squad. It's doubtful he'll even be involved. This time, an experienced attorney will be ready. We wish Kenneth the best of luck.
The St. Louis Tea Party would like to see a Tea Party Caucus formed in the Missouri House of Representatives. Our plan is to duplicate the Tea Party Caucus on the national level and adopt a similar group for the legislators on the state level. This is a novel idea on the state level and the reaction by legislators has been supportive.
The rules of the Missouri Senate foster individualism and with filibuster power the Senators have displayed the tea party spirit. The House of Representatives is a different animal and many votes come down along party lines. The St. Louis Tea Party would like to mitigate party influence on future house votes and sees a Tea Party Caucus as a means of achieving that goal.
The election results from November’s contest gave republicans an overwhelming majority in the Missouri House of Representatives. Legislators and citizens credit tea party support as the reason for the resounding victory. A Tea Party Caucus will give fiscal conservatives across the state the ability to identify legislators who share our values and wish to identity with the tea party movement.
The issues we wish to present are simple and will not be based on social or partisan issues, but based on both state and federal constitutional principles with an emphasis on fiscal responsibility.
I've begun asking house members about their interest in this caucus and my expectations have been surpassed. I categorized each legislator I've spoken with into one of following: Yes, Leaning, Interested, and No. I initially expected a commitment of 8 to 10 legislators, but of the 28 republican house members I've spoken with so far, 21 wish to join the caucus far exceeding expectations. I fully anticipate more house members to join as I recruit in the upcoming weeks. No democrats have expressed an interest, but I will continue to recruit in a bi-partisan attempt to seek members of both parties who share tea party ideals.
Word has come through the grapevine that a local school district used their school buses to transport students to Jeff City to participate in the MoveOn.org Rally. Please check through your cameras to see if you happened to find anything related, and forward to PM@24thstate.com
Update 2: Alert reader and citizen journalist Jackie sent along the following:
I just got a call back from Janet Winterrose at the Clayton School district. She is listed as the contact person for the school board and states she is the assistant to the superintendent. She confirmed that a high school teacher informed her that they went to a "speech and debate" meeting AT the Capitol. I asked where at in the Capitol. She replied, "I didn't ask the teacher that information, but I can call you back and let you know." I then got on the phone and called the state Capitol and spoke to Mandy who is in charge of events (I got transferred twice). She stated there was NOT any speech or debate meeting or competition at the capitol this past weekend. She told me the only events at the capitol were the Tea Party Rally, Moveon.org and a CoffeeParty meeting on Saturday. And something about Missing People or children on Sunday. I have looked at the calendar of events at the school district and there is nothing about any speech and debate competition or meeting at the capitol this weekend.
Update 3: A Facebook message is now saying that Bob McCarty got confirmation from the district that the schoolbuses were there for a separate event. I do want to apologize for the slapdash nature of this post. There were several different editors contributing information that was second-hand sourced, and information wasn't shared as it was posted. Call it growing pains. We'll try to do better. We're also creating separate identities separate from the main account for each of the contributors.
24thstate is growing into the community site Jim always envisioned for it, but it's taking some doing to get everyone on board correctly.
Do you recall the end of the Matrix? You hear a phone ring. It's picked up and connected to a modem. And then you hear Neo (Keanu Reeves) say:
I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid. You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change. I don't know the future. I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell you how it's going to begin. I'm going to hang up this phone, and then I'm going to show these people what you don't want them to see. I'm going to show them a world … without you. A world without rules and controls, without borders or boundaries; a world where anything is possible. Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you.
The message is a powerful one, even if it is yoked to a science fiction movie, and it's worth exploring in context of the Tea Party and modern politics. It's not for the you, the successful American people who stood up and took a step towards greater freedom. It's for the statists, and the bureaucrats, and the global governance types who just can't stand the idea of a free people shrugging off its chains.
The power of film is not to be taken lightly. The ability to influence people with pictures and music is well-known, and yet it still retains the power to move us. The modern cinema, just barely a hundred years old, is as valid as medium as the live theater performances of the ancient world. It gives us a common language to discuss the human condition, something to ponder when it's done. It allows you to ask yourself, if I were a character in the movie, what would I have done?
The science fiction and fantasy fiction genres succeed because they make fans confront moral choices in stark contrast. In Star Wars, you're either on the side of the Empire or the Rebels. In Star Trek, you're either an explorer with a good heart or a barbarian/robot intent on destruction or assimilation. In Lord of the Rings, you're either with the Dark Lord or the Men of the West. The storyline revolves around a character or group of characters with the power to make a difference. Some know they have the power, others don't (with that discovery forming the basis of the story), but the end conclusion is the same. Given power, would you use it wisely, even to your own destruction?
The Matrix Trilogy is the same basic plot. A powerful champion discovers his gift, decides to use it for the good of the people, and then discovers that it is not enough. Ultimately he sacrifices himself against all odds and teams up with a former competitor to defeat a greater evil, which turns out to be the amoral Mr. Smith, a being who simply seeks to grow by consuming what others have made. Mr. Smith steals the identity of others and replicates himself, creating a mindlesss mass of automatons in a dark world.
It's still difficult to make definitive statements about Tea Party politics, both because it's so diverse and also because it differs by state and even county.
There is one piece of conventional, or rather media wisdom that is just plain wrong. It's this idea that any group of Tea Partiers are the Republican core.
Both parties are far too focused on their “cores” and not enough on the needs of the majority, who are neither the Tea Party nor Moveon.org types.
Kotkin is pointing out that millennials and Latinos, the fastest growing demographics in voting, go 2:1 for Democrats, and he makes the strong point that Republicans aren't doing themselves many favors in reaching out to these audiences, but it's not particularly good for your analysis to list MoveOn.org and the Tea Party as similar, but opposing poles.
The Tea Party in St Louis, as well as the Tea Party groups surrounding the area and Southwest Missouri and in KC don't represent the Republican core. They never did. The vast majority are new entrants into politics who while representing conservative voting patterns, certainly weren't identified as Republicans. The results in Jefferson County should prove that point. Prior to the election, Jefferson County was known as a Democratic stronghold full of union voters. And yet, Ed Martin won it by 20 points.
Does that sound like an energized Republican core, or an influx of conservative voters involved in politics in a new way?
Take a look at the bloggers, leaders and volunteers who represented the Tea Party movement in the last two years. What is striking is not that Hennessy, Loesch, and Loudon got the lion's share of the press. They were after all in the biggest media market, allowing reporters to know them, get their emails, and call them to get comment. What was striking is the number of people who now own their part of the movement and have built up strong local and issue oriented groups for their own purposes
Check out this list:
Franklin County Patriots
Jefferson County Tea Party
Show Me Patriots
Southern Illinois Tea Party
We the People (St. Francois County)
United for Missouri
K & N Patriots
Eureka Tea Party
I Heard the People Say
Warren County Tea Party
And that only lists some of the local groups. Most of the citizen leaders have just recently decided to get into politics. It is these groups, along with others around the state of Missouri and across the country, making a difference. While some of them have been Republican voters (and some Democrats), the important take-away is that they were not involved in politics prior to the Tea Party. They now are.
They are the core of the Tea Party. The core of the Republican party is found in different groups, different blocks of voters, and different leaders. The Tea Party is something new.
The city clerk has certified five candidates for the Board of Aldermen elections on April 5. Only one of the four races, so far, is contested. Filing closes on Jan. 18.
You cannot have voter accountability if the voters cannot choose.
If you believe in the philosophies of the Tea Party, you should be willing to sacrifice some portion of your livelihood, your lifestyle, and your person to stand for election and to prevent uncontested elections from occurring. Our Branson readers have a week to file. The rest of you have to watch your local races and primaries and if they're uncontested, you need to file.
If only to be the crackpot who believes in the founding fathers' philosophies, limited government, and fiscal responsibility. Run as a Republican. Run as an independent. But keep them honest. Make them win votes.
24th State is named for Missouri, the nation's political bellwether which has the honor of being the 24th state admitted to the union.
From Springfield to Kirksville, from Kansas City to St Louis, we cover the state's news, views, politics, rumors, and elections.
The site is a group blog, run by average citizens from across Missouri with a desire to get involved in the political process. The Editorial Board is a mix of Tea Party members writing collectively.
