A Growing "Tea Party" Movement?
This story was written by Jonathan V. Last.
Last May, the Wall Street Journal ran a front-page story about AngryRenter.com, a website which served as a rallying point for disgruntled souls opposed to a prospective Bush administration foreclosure bailout. AngryRenter.com had collected 44,500 signatures for a petition, but Journal reporter Michael Phillips discovered--by clicking on the site's "About Us" link--that it wasn't actually a people-powered uprising. Instead, AngryRenter was the product of FreedomWorks, a group run by Dick Armey and Steve Forbes.
Phillips spent several paragraphs detailing all the deluxe homes owned by Armey, Forbes, and others associated with FreedomWorks, making the point that only wealthy, cynical Republicans would object to helping those unfortunates caught in the maw of foreclosure.
But that was a long time ago. Before Lehman Brothers. Before TARP. Before the Detroit bailout and Obama's trillion dollar stimulus package. Now the new administration has put forward its Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan, a $275 billion scheme to save certain people from foreclosure, and a real opposition movement may be building.
With almost $2 trillion in emergency government spending doled out since October, Obama's Home Affordability measure can be considered small beer. And at the end of the day, it's as much about creating a backdoor bailout for the banks who hold the mortgages as it is about "saving" people's homes. But as a political matter, it's something else.
On the morning of February 19, CNBC reporter Rick Santelli ranted about the plan from the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade. "This is America!" Santelli cried on the air. "How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?" The traders milling around started booing and then gathered closer as he continued. Before he was done, Santelli had called for a "Chicago tea party" to protest the bailout. During the next few hours, Santelli's rant led the Drudge Report, was replayed on all of the cable networks, and was seen more than a million times on YouTube.
Santelli-inspired websites quickly appeared attempting to organize tea parties. ChicagoTeaParty.com bills itself as the official home of Santelli's tea party. The site belongs to Zack Christenson, a Chicago radio producer. Christenson had bought the domain last August, thinking it might be a good name for a group. Within 12 hours of Santelli's rant, Christenson had retooled the site, and 4,000 people quickly signed up. On Facebook, dozens of Santelli groups formed, ranging from fan clubs to draft-president movements to tea party plans for Chicago, Texas, New York, and Los Angeles.
Anthony Astolfi bought the domain reTeaParty.com about 10 hours after Santelli's rant. Astolfi is a 24-year-old web designer and small-time political consultant who dabbled in the Ron Paul world last cycle. He thought the tea party idea had a chance to catch on and decided to organize them for July 4. Working with his roommate and a cousin, they finished building a website by midnight. Then they turned to promoting the project. They did Google searches for "Santelli" and left comments pointing to their new site on high-ranking result pages. They spent a couple hundred dollars on a small number of Google and YouTube ads and finally went to bed around 5 A.M. They awoke to 40,000 emails, their site having become a minor sensation. Astolfi says they now have 11,000 people a day coming to reTeaParty.com. Ten thousand people have signed up to get information on the tea parties, and 5,000 have "pledged" to attend one of so-far eight tea parties on July 4.
Two days after Santelli's tirade, John Shilling, an 18-year-old student in Hilton Head, South Carolina, launched a site called 92percentgroup.org. Its sole mission is to oppose the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan. "We feel like 92 percent of the country has been paying their mortgage on time, and we've been a silent majority this whole time," Shilling says. "We're hoping to get enough people together to take a stand so we can send a message through action, not a petition." What action would that be? Shilling isn't sure, though he thinks withholding taxes or mortgage payments might work. In a way, the 92 Percent Group is instructive: It's run by an 18-year-old who doesn't have a mortgage and has yet to even decide what he wants to organize (or how to do it). Yet within 72 hours of launching the site, it received 150,000 visits.
There seems to be real bitterness about the idea of forcing people to subsidize the imprudent housing choices of their neighbors. That bitterness is on display on other websites, such as StopTheHousingBailout.com, which urges readers not to get stuck "paying for other people's greed & ignorance" and encourages them to lobby their congressmen.
Much of the opposition to the bailout, however, comes from people who are only tangentially interested in the politics of the matter. Beginning in 2005, hundreds of websites and blogs sprouted up warning about the housing bubble. At the time, these people were often viewed as doomsayers or cranks. Thoroughly vindicated, many of their sites are now de facto rallying points against Obama's plan, purely on grounds of economic prudence.
The blog FlippersInTrouble, for instance, gives exhaustive data on the losses being racked up by speculators in Sacramento, which won't help build sympathy for the beneficiaries of the bailout. HousingDoom.com, a site which began by looking at economic aspects of the bubble in 2006, is now saying, "What the market needs is more foreclosures." There is no obvious political pattern to the bubble bloggers. Some are freemarketeers. Others, such as those who run HousingPanic.com, are Democrats who see the bubble as one more failure of the Bush administration. Yet nearly all of the bubble sites, left, right, and center, are now lined up against the bailout.
But will they create a movement? Last weekend readers of TheHousingBubbleBlog.com went offline and met in Las Vegas for a get-together. There were only 24 of them, but they came from as far as New York and Washington for the chance to vent about the housing market, talk about the bailout plan, and take a bus tour of foreclosed properties and derelict construction sites. Ben Jones runs the site and put together the mini-convention. A few months ago, he says, he was asked to start a PAC to help organize a movement against the bailout. He declined because he believes the administration will do whatever it pleases, regardless of public pressure. "Whether or not there will be organized opposition, I can't say," Jones sighs. "But if there is, it won't make a difference."
He's probably right. Yet at the same time, it's easy to see the groups that might make up a real grassroots movement: the Ron Paul libertarians, renters, housing bubble obsessives, disillusioned Democrats, stat-head financial types, and, of course, rich, heartless Republicans. And then there is Santelli, who, if so inclined, might put himself forward the way Howard Jarvis did with his property tax revolt in California in 1978.
The question is whether or not these people can find each other and figure out a way to push back.
By Jonathan V. Last
Reprinted with permission from The Weekly Standard
Weekly Standard Last May, the Wall Street Journal ran a front-page story about AngryRenter.com, a website which served as a rallying point for disgruntled souls opposed to a prospective Bush administration foreclosure bailout. AngryRenter.com had collected 44,500 signatures for a petition, but Journal reporter Michael Phillips discovered--by clicking on the site's "About Us" link--that it wasn't actually a people-powered uprising. Instead, AngryRenter was the product of FreedomWorks, a group run by Dick Armey and Steve Forbes.
Phillips spent several paragraphs detailing all the deluxe homes owned by Armey, Forbes, and others associated with FreedomWorks, making the point that only wealthy, cynical Republicans would object to helping those unfortunates caught in the maw of foreclosure.
But that was a long time ago. Before Lehman Brothers. Before TARP. Before the Detroit bailout and Obama's trillion dollar stimulus package. Now the new administration has put forward its Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan, a $275 billion scheme to save certain people from foreclosure, and a real opposition movement may be building.
With almost $2 trillion in emergency government spending doled out since October, Obama's Home Affordability measure can be considered small beer. And at the end of the day, it's as much about creating a backdoor bailout for the banks who hold the mortgages as it is about "saving" people's homes. But as a political matter, it's something else.
On the morning of February 19, CNBC reporter Rick Santelli ranted about the plan from the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade. "This is America!" Santelli cried on the air. "How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?" The traders milling around started booing and then gathered closer as he continued. Before he was done, Santelli had called for a "Chicago tea party" to protest the bailout. During the next few hours, Santelli's rant led the Drudge Report, was replayed on all of the cable networks, and was seen more than a million times on YouTube.
Santelli-inspired websites quickly appeared attempting to organize tea parties. ChicagoTeaParty.com bills itself as the official home of Santelli's tea party. The site belongs to Zack Christenson, a Chicago radio producer. Christenson had bought the domain last August, thinking it might be a good name for a group. Within 12 hours of Santelli's rant, Christenson had retooled the site, and 4,000 people quickly signed up. On Facebook, dozens of Santelli groups formed, ranging from fan clubs to draft-president movements to tea party plans for Chicago, Texas, New York, and Los Angeles.
Anthony Astolfi bought the domain reTeaParty.com about 10 hours after Santelli's rant. Astolfi is a 24-year-old web designer and small-time political consultant who dabbled in the Ron Paul world last cycle. He thought the tea party idea had a chance to catch on and decided to organize them for July 4. Working with his roommate and a cousin, they finished building a website by midnight. Then they turned to promoting the project. They did Google searches for "Santelli" and left comments pointing to their new site on high-ranking result pages. They spent a couple hundred dollars on a small number of Google and YouTube ads and finally went to bed around 5 A.M. They awoke to 40,000 emails, their site having become a minor sensation. Astolfi says they now have 11,000 people a day coming to reTeaParty.com. Ten thousand people have signed up to get information on the tea parties, and 5,000 have "pledged" to attend one of so-far eight tea parties on July 4.
Two days after Santelli's tirade, John Shilling, an 18-year-old student in Hilton Head, South Carolina, launched a site called 92percentgroup.org. Its sole mission is to oppose the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan. "We feel like 92 percent of the country has been paying their mortgage on time, and we've been a silent majority this whole time," Shilling says. "We're hoping to get enough people together to take a stand so we can send a message through action, not a petition." What action would that be? Shilling isn't sure, though he thinks withholding taxes or mortgage payments might work. In a way, the 92 Percent Group is instructive: It's run by an 18-year-old who doesn't have a mortgage and has yet to even decide what he wants to organize (or how to do it). Yet within 72 hours of launching the site, it received 150,000 visits.
There seems to be real bitterness about the idea of forcing people to subsidize the imprudent housing choices of their neighbors. That bitterness is on display on other websites, such as StopTheHousingBailout.com, which urges readers not to get stuck "paying for other people's greed & ignorance" and encourages them to lobby their congressmen.
Much of the opposition to the bailout, however, comes from people who are only tangentially interested in the politics of the matter. Beginning in 2005, hundreds of websites and blogs sprouted up warning about the housing bubble. At the time, these people were often viewed as doomsayers or cranks. Thoroughly vindicated, many of their sites are now de facto rallying points against Obama's plan, purely on grounds of economic prudence.
The blog FlippersInTrouble, for instance, gives exhaustive data on the losses being racked up by speculators in Sacramento, which won't help build sympathy for the beneficiaries of the bailout. HousingDoom.com, a site which began by looking at economic aspects of the bubble in 2006, is now saying, "What the market needs is more foreclosures." There is no obvious political pattern to the bubble bloggers. Some are freemarketeers. Others, such as those who run HousingPanic.com, are Democrats who see the bubble as one more failure of the Bush administration. Yet nearly all of the bubble sites, left, right, and center, are now lined up against the bailout.
But will they create a movement? Last weekend readers of TheHousingBubbleBlog.com went offline and met in Las Vegas for a get-together. There were only 24 of them, but they came from as far as New York and Washington for the chance to vent about the housing market, talk about the bailout plan, and take a bus tour of foreclosed properties and derelict construction sites. Ben Jones runs the site and put together the mini-convention. A few months ago, he says, he was asked to start a PAC to help organize a movement against the bailout. He declined because he believes the administration will do whatever it pleases, regardless of public pressure. "Whether or not there will be organized opposition, I can't say," Jones sighs. "But if there is, it won't make a difference."
He's probably right. Yet at the same time, it's easy to see the groups that might make up a real grassroots movement: the Ron Paul libertarians, renters, housing bubble obsessives, disillusioned Democrats, stat-head financial types, and, of course, rich, heartless Republicans. And then there is Santelli, who, if so inclined, might put himself forward the way Howard Jarvis did with his property tax revolt in California in 1978.
The question is whether or not these people can find each other and figure out a way to push back.
By Jonathan V. Last
Reprinted with permission from The Weekly Standard
Recommended
- Many British Muslims Put Islam First
- Top Twelve Most Patriotic Songs Ever
- The Decline and Fall of the American Empire
- Confessions of a former Republican
- Population Decline Is Bad For Us
- Is 60 The New 40 Or Is 40 The New 60?
- Here's Why People Don't Buy Global Warming
- George W. Bush Vs. The Constitution
Poo poo or ignore Tea parties all day long if you like? BUT
MILLIONS (not hundreds or thousands) will protest GOVERNMENT SPENDING on April 15th. AND Again on July 4th.
More than 300 Tea Parties across the USA (in every state) are confirmed for April 15th.
Google: ?Nationwide Tax Day Tea Party? to get the REAL STORY!
I think we are heading for Socialism
when you take away from those
who are willing to work and
give to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson
I am so angry that I AM USING ALL-CAPS.
Many have lost their homes. Millions have lost their jobs. Countless numbers have lost the very life savings and investments that were to provide for their elder years. Families across the land are already fearful of where their next meal will come from. Companies, large and small, are going out of business every day. As a nation, we are already close to financial ruin as we spend ever more while counting on more debt and more credit to save us. Meanwhile, we ever turn to our new savior to provide. Why do I have images of past demigods who allowed countless millions to perish as long as the new social programs grew and central power flourished? In Rome, the Christians were the source of socities problems. In Germany, Hitler chose to blame the Jews. In Russia, it was the Bourgeoisie versus the Proletariats. History shows us the evils of propaganda and the news media when used to selectively target one group while promoting the new ideal. Today, it is the ?rich? and the successful businesses that have become the new group that play the role of the enemy of the government of the people. Are we that easily betrayed? Will the new social goal of total income redistribution be allowed to destroy the very basis for the generation of jobs and, ironically, the holy taxes that feed the rapidly growing monster? Who will then pay the ever-rising taxes that are the key to assuring the principle of from each according to his abilities?to each according to his needs? YOU, the now greatly diminished util of the state. You produce. The state will distribute.
Of course, the schools, the youth corps, the divine church of the new redeemer, and the news media will support the rightness of it all as a new, ever more progressive legion of properly educated ?American Youth? serve to weed out those who might differ. Sound farfetched? It has happened repeatedly and, for those with eyes to see, and ears to hear, it is already beginning here. Is anyone really listening, or is our apathy, laziness, and ignorance that pervasive. I think not! A sleeping lion has awakened and in a few short weeks we have already begun t o net the consequence of unbridled democracy wherein the masses have replaced their opiate of religion with faith in the government. It all sounds so good that it MUST be good!
Our country has already over the past several years devolved to the point that years of greed and self interest have brought us to where we are today, just as surely as even the simplest understanding of the many events that led to the Declaration of Independence finally led to the requirement of the people to respond with this:
?whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security?And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. ?
Today?s need is not one requiring the overthrow of the foundation of the United States government, it is one of fulfilling our requirement as a citizen patriot people to return our government to that Constitutional rule which was its vary basis. Towards this goal we must all pledge our lives, liberty, fortunes, and our sacred honor.
which everyone seems to refiect on going back ,
the president Eishenhower had tax rates
on the rich at 91 %.
Buck up elephants !!
Know your republican history.