Apparently Michael Steele wanted to jump on the Tea Party bandwagon a little too late. This comes from the DontGo Movement:
A few days ago Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele asked to speak at the Chicago Tax Day Tea Party. He was thanked for finally reaching out to the movement but denied to speak.
National Communications Director Juliana Johnson states, “Steele hasn’t shown any interest in this movement until now, until the cameras are rolling. We denied his invitation. In addition, this is a nonpartisan event, not an RNC event.”
Eric Odom, Director of the DontGo Movement, said in his letter to Steele’s people, “…We’re still excited to know that Chairman Steele will be in Chicago and we hope, after knowing that he’ll be in the city, that he’ll stop by and mingle with the Americans who will be rallying on April 15th. This will also present a fantastic time for Chairman Steele to LISTEN to what we have to say and perhaps gather some thoughts on what the RNC needs to be doing moving forward.”
As I made clear before, we as a local party have no official role in the Tax Day Tea Party proceedings in Salisbury but many of us will be there as private citizens and fed-up taxpayers. That’s something which transcends party lines in our neck of the woods.
But some of the DontGo people were even less kind about the GOP getting involved.
Is the Tea Party tied to the GOP? Of course not.
In fact, that couldn’t be further from the truth. The reality is, the RNC has been about as effective as a lead balloon in actually engaging the free-market minded grassroots with regards to political action. The RNC, as well as all but two Republican members of Congress, have been eerily silent over the past few weeks.
RNC Chairman Steele’s office did reach out to me on Tuesday (although rumor has it that he is now denying such a conversation took place) morning and the person I spoke with asked if we would be interested in having him speak at the Chicago Tea Party. This request was, of course, at the last minute and only after national media eyes became involved.
But that was the first time the RNC had really injected itself at the national level into any part of the Tea Party Movement. (Emphasis in original.)
And I can see why the Tea Party organizers seem wary of a political party and apparatus getting involved. It’s politicians of both stripes who have placed our nation in the situation we find ourselves in, and while Republican principles run toward fiscal conservatism their voting patterns of late haven’t always lent themselves to backing up their words with deeds.
Instead, we have a huge proportion of Americans who have washed their hands entirely of politics, much to their detriment. The cynicism and mistrust many look to those fat-cat politicians with is well-earned and has been pretty much since our Republic was formed. Even in the day of our Founding Fathers there were unscrupulous men who sought only their own enrichment in the public arena.
In the end, one day of protest isn’t going to make a huge difference. We’ll get together, hear a few speeches, and have an opportunity to vent our frustration. However, the next day we’re all going to wake up and little will have changed in the free-spending ways of Congress, the legislative bodies in the several states, and local jurisdictions everywhere.
To make a lasting difference will take more than a one day rally, and the involvement is going to take its toll along the way. Our original revolution was years in the making as was the war between the states. In this particular era thus far we’ve managed to make our changes by ballot and not by bullet. Sometimes I think the best we can hope for is that these widening differences between the government and governed don’t come to bloodshed.
What I love most about this Tea Bagging “movement” is how the right-wingers who have started it (because, let’s be honest… this isn’t a truly populist grass roots movement), rail against both parties, yet never had a Tea Bagging party until a Democrat was elected President. Bush spent more money than any other President in history, yet no Tea Baggings happened over the last 8 years.
Does anyone else find this interesting?
Ask Rick Santelli about that, it was his rant that got this whole thing started. From what I understand he’s a fairly left-wing guy and an Obama supporter.
I think the frustration reached a head when the government began taking over private businesses and this has only come to the forefront in recent months. On April 15, 2008 the government bailouts weren’t really on the radar screen yet but they are a fact of life now.
It’s not going to take Obama too long to eclipse Bush as the “biggest-spending” President (maybe one term!) That’s not to excuse Bush 43 but it’s how things are going, and people are starting to wake up.
But Michael, the government was “taking over private business” with Bear Stearns last year AND the $700 BN bank bailout in September… yet, no Tea Bagging until Obama becomes President. As for Santelli, he’s a Conservative. The guy you’re thinking about is Jim Cramer. He was an Obama supporter. In addition, the website newamericanteaparty was bought LAST year, far in advance of Santelli’s rant.
Sorry, I smell astro-turf, not grass-roots.
You’re right, I got Cramer and Santelli confused. Honestly I don’t watch CNBC so I was going by reputation and Cramer had disagreed with some of Obama’s agenda too.
However, even with the timeline you present the fact remains that spending is way out of control. As I recall, John McCain had a few interventionist ideas like buying up all the bad mortgages – thus, the tea party idea may have still been in force had McCain won and followed through on some of those ideas.
The point of my article is that the organizers wanted the Tea Parties to be relatively apolitical. That’s not to say there won’t be a political component (after all, only government has the power to levy taxes and fees) but I’m thinking a large portion of those present at the Tea Parties won’t be those you’d see at the typical Republican (or Democratic) club meeting.
I’m curious what your objection to the concept is? Would you like larger and more intrusive government to “level the playing field”?
Your side (yes, I know I’m grouping Conservatives together here, but it’s to make a point) regularly uses the old canard of being “for” or “against” “big government”. I know of no one.. NO ONE.. who is “for” big government. I do, however, find it pretty telling that the Conservative mantra is “small government at any cost”. Cost to infrastructure. Cost to healthcare. Cost to society. Etc. ad infinitum.
Liberals aren’t “for” big government, we’re for EFFECTIVE government. Where you see government as a completely evil entity that must be downsized drastically (if not completely eliminated in the case of some extremist Conservatives), we see a tool that can be used for good OR for ill. Government serves a purpose, and can be used effectively to handle things that the private sector cannot. The military, police, and fire departments come to mind.
And what I find extremely interesting is how Conservatives constantly deride Government as being the problem, yet they want control of it. Isn’t that like letting the head of Greenpeace run ExxonMobil? 🙂
Now, my objection to the concept of the tea bagging is that it’s a fabricated partisan event meant to look like a truly populist grass roots campaign. In addition, I’m a Keynesian who believes you spend in a recession and draw down debt in the boom years. Therefore, the entire concept of protesting increased government spending in this economic crisis is poorly thought out, IMO.
Thanks for the space to explain my points.