2014 June 15 Sunday
Tea Party Movement Captured By Usual Special Interests
Populist movements are frequently captured by elites for elite purposes. The Tea Party movement is no exception. Ann Coulter says the biggest national Tea Party groups have already been totally captured by the cheap labor lobby.
In fact, however, the tea party had nothing to do with Brat's victory. Only the small, local tea party groups stand for anything anymore, but they're as different from the media-recognized "tea party" as lay Catholics are from the Catholic bishops.
National tea party groups did not contribute dime one to Brat. Not Freedom Works, not Club for Growth, not the Tea Party Express, not Tea Party Patriots. They were too busy denouncing Sen. Mitch McConnell -- who has consistently voted against amnesty.
As I have been warning you, the big, national tea party groups are mostly shysters and con-men raising money for their own self-aggrandizement. (Today, they're blast-faxing "media availability" notices to television networks claiming credit for Brat's victory.)
Open Borders advocate spent $5 mil on his primary and got beat by Dave Brat with $150k. Big money versus popular outrage over immigration.
By Randall Parker at 2014 June 15 08:46 PM
I'd already noticed. So I was pleased to see Ann mention it. Any Tea Party group that pushes 'immigration reform' has been bought. Of course, the leftist movements are pure astro-turf. You should read the history behind Soros' campaign finance reform scheme. What people failed to realize is that campaign finance reform was never a struggle between Dems and GOP. It was an effort by Soros and his cronies to capture the Democratic Party. And they did. I've despised McCain ever since he co-sponsored it. This is a post I wrote about it almost three years ago titled, How radicals do their laundry.
This elite takeover occurred pretty quickly. If not elitists, then opportunists saw the opportunity for self-aggrandizement. When the Tea Party movement first started is seemed like a manifestation of what Sam Francis termed the MRA (Middle American Revolution). Perhaps this is still a possibility, but unless the movement coalesces around immigration, culture and the radical displacement of the legal/native population, I don't see there being any more traction. I for one don't care to spend time or money on a movement with loose objectives focused on "government spending" and the like.
I don't even recall Brat being described as a Tea Party candidate until he won. He himself hasn't described himself as a Tea Party candidate, so yeah, at the large organization level, the Tea Party has been "bought." On the other hand, most of those large organizations that describe themselves as Tea Party organizations, like Club for Growth or FreedomWorks existed long before the Tea Party.
"The Tea Party" has been, from day one, the Emmanuel Goldstein of the establishment's war on the Nation of Settlers. Those who followed the Ron Paul campaign circa 2007-2008 (when "Tea Party" was synonymous with the effort by the Nation of Settlers to break through the media blackout of their concerns with the sheer force of a one-day "money bomb" that would, itself, make news) knew that it was an astro-turfed attack on the incipient movement of the Nation of Settlers to retake the country. Of course the Austrian School of Economics was, and is, itself, a diversion, but there needed to be a more domesticated version.
Now that the beltway control organizations have totally captured the "Tea Party" label, any time the establishment wants to marginalize some actual victory by the Nation of Settlers, it just slaps "Tea Party" on it.