Matt Yglesias

28 Responses to “FreedomWorks: Astroturf Organizing for Dick Armey’s Lobbyist Clients”

1. shooter242 Says:
   April 14th, 2009 at 8:08 pm

   So what?

2. Ed Marshall Says:
   April 14th, 2009 at 8:21 pm

   There is never going to be a right wing MoveOn or anything else that’s actually grassroots. That they don’t even comprehend the difference is telling all on it’s own.

   #1) They are spoiled, they are never going to invest their sweat or money into political projects because they are used to having some interest do it for them.

   #2) It’s just against everything they are supposed to be about. Grassroots organizing is communitarian, and if they were communitarians they wouldn’t find anything attractive about the right agenda.

3. Ed Marshall Says:
   April 14th, 2009 at 8:30 pm

   Well, I take that back, the money cons can’t and won’t do it. The social cons can but they aren’t going to give a damn about tea bag day.

4. zach Says:
   April 14th, 2009 at 8:34 pm

   Because there’s totally a grassroots motivation behind opposing Net Neutrality (well, there is in some circles where they totally have no clue what the bill does).

   Curious what fraction of FreedomWorks funding is corporate vs. personal; MoveOn definitely has big donors but they aren’t really corporate interests.

   FWIW, the Tea Party movement is about as authentic grassroots as it gets, or at least it was until FreedomWorks tried to take credit for it.

5. Judd Says:
   April 14th, 2009 at 9:01 pm

   Do you seriously want to bring up astro-turfing when David Axelrod is sitting in the white house?

6. James Robertson Says:
   April 14th, 2009 at 9:41 pm

   You mean like MoveOn tracks pretty close to what Soros wants? I think what bothers Matt and the left most is the idea of a protest movement that isn’t on the left. It’s just too hard for the left to wrap its collective head around.

7. Ed Marshall Says:
   April 14th, 2009 at 10:09 pm

   Yeah, I can’t tell you how many MoveOn action alerts I get to go protest moves to regulate the carry trade or things like that.

   That you can’t figure out the difference is the story here, you guys are the most chowderheaded, thick, fools this planet has ever coughed out.

8. Freddie Quimby Says:
   April 14th, 2009 at 10:16 pm

   It’s pronounced chowdeeeeeeeeerheaded.

9. Aatos Says:
   April 14th, 2009 at 10:21 pm

   Ya because corporate executives, lawyers and lobbyists are just plain folk like you and me. That bundle of privileges, immunities and limited liabilities doesn’t mean a thing.

10. James Robertson Says:
    April 15th, 2009 at 12:06 am

    What you’re not getting is that a ton of average people are pretty angry about the level of spending. Yes, Obama is personally popular. However, there’s a huge undercurrent of anger over the level of spending. It built all through Bush’s time, and it’s bubbling over now that people see that “change” means mostly “even more spending than before”

11. 24AheadDotCom Says:
    April 15th, 2009 at 12:13 am

    1. I’d like to personally thank Lee Fang for wasting a lot of my time trying to track down exactly what Armey did for MX. As it turns out, I was unable to find anything he personally did. And, considering that “his” firm is one of the largest law firms in the U.S. and he’s just a director of some section it’s not really “his” firm, now is it?

    2. The problem here is that they aren’t really protesting spending. They’re protesting taxation, with a distinct “greed is good”/”I’ve got mine, Jack” undercurrent. I’ve called out several people for using the phrase “mean-spirited” in other contexts, but that certainly applies in the case of some of those protesting. Some or many don’t care about the best policies for the U.S., they only care about themselves. Even if you agree, that’s not exactly a winning message.

12. Adam Says:
    April 15th, 2009 at 12:44 am

    What you’re not getting is that a ton of average people are pretty angry about the level of spending.

    The problem is, you just say this and assume everyone else accepts it as fact. I think people generally understood Obama’s domestic agenda, and understand that something like, oh, the economy collapsing requires some spending to get out of it. In fact polls bear this out as well.

    However, there’s a huge undercurrent of anger over the level of spending.

    Again, citation needed.

    It built all through Bush’s time

    Not from Republicans it didn’t. They cheered him every step of the way as they praised massive deficits from tax cuts, called anyone who questioned massive off-budget war runovers a traitor, and thought (and still thinks) that spending more than the rest of the world combined on defense is absolutely crucial. In fact this undercurrent started exactly on January 20, when their guys weren’t doing the spending anymore.

    and it’s bubbling over now that people see that “change” means mostly “even more spending than before”

    It’s bubbling over because they’re opposing whatever Obama does. It’s the incoherent rantings of people who suddenly find themselves out of power and are throwing a tantrum about it.

    I’m really amused at that line though. Because the last Republican, the supposed party of low spending and low deficits, did exactly the opposite, and Obama promised “change”, that means now that he’s supposed to enact this mythical libertarian economic policy? Just to be different from Bush? What an idiotic thing to say.

    And besides, none of these people are the ones who “believed in change” and are now outraged. Damn near every single person at these protests has hated Obama from long before the election. If you haven’t noticed the approval ratings for him and his economic policies are well above what they were on November 3rd. These are the same people protesting who were at the Palin rallies, and all they’re doing is throwing a tantrum because they can’t have their way anymore. Enough with the populist bullshit.

13. Max424 Says:
    April 15th, 2009 at 4:27 am

    The interesting question is where do FOX NEWS, Rush, the Right, and the Republican Party go form here?

    Clearly the Tea Bag movement is a complete farce and will amount to nothing. FOX NEWS was bored and either created Tea Bagging or learned a few clowns were tipping tea sacks into a waterway, filmed it, and Neal Cavuto or some other bright exec at FOX watching the footage had the bright idea to promote it.

    The Right is sinking and grasping at straws. Their only message, tax cuts, has been stolen from them. The realization they have no message left has not quite set in yet, so they are reduced to yelling it louder, “TAX CUTS!” What else can they do? A one trick pony, by definition, has only one trick.

    You have to give the Obama campaign credit for foresight. I think they were looking way beyond the election. The promise of middle-class tax cuts helped win the election by mitigating the opposition’s primary message, but it has the potential to wreck the Republican party. The GOP’s go to guy, the Michael Jordon of their platform, tax cuts, is now playing for the opposition. All the Republican squad has left are a sad bunch of bricklayers.

14. James Robertson Says:
    April 15th, 2009 at 6:25 am

    Clearly, Max424, like Matt, simply cannot conceive of a grassroots movement that didn’t come from the left.

15. rea Says:
    April 15th, 2009 at 7:55 am

    So what?

    Well, becasue (it cannot be repeated too often) if you are going to organize teabaggings all around the country, you will truly need a Dick Armey . . .

    (Thank you for making my week, Mr. Shuster!)

16. rea Says:
    April 15th, 2009 at 7:57 am

    cannot conceive of a grassroots movement that didn’t come from the left.

    Well, that’s tautalogical.

17. Ted Says:
    April 15th, 2009 at 8:04 am

    @14: clearly James is just too lazy to provide any of the evidence that Adam requested @12. Leaving us to conclude that his “grassroots movement” is a man-bites-dog story of the day, and astroturfed to boot.

18. DTM Says:
    April 15th, 2009 at 8:06 am

    Charles Franklin at Pollster has an interesting post about how the GOP has backed itself into a corner on tax cuts:

    http://www.pollster.com/blogs/the_irony_of_tax_cuts.php

    The upshot is that anti-tax sentiment appears to have worked for the GOP in the past, but the problem is that they have actually gotten the tax code to the point that anti-tax sentiment is much lower. Meanwhile, Obama is doing a better job appealing to the remnant of people with anti-tax sentiment, and for whatever reason those with lower taxes as a result of prior GOP policies are showing no particular loyalty to the GOP. And in a final irony, there is now grumbling within the GOP about people whose taxes are too low.

    So, in short, tax policy has become a political dead end for the GOP, and they need to come up with something new. Of course, the self-delusion of people like James Robertson is preventing them from doing so.

19. James Robertson Says:
    April 15th, 2009 at 8:14 am

    Ted,

    I’m making the wild assumption that you can figure out the interface to Google. Looks like I assumed too much. As to DTM’s comments, it’s not tax cuts that have backed the GOP up; it’s how far removed from their base they’ve allowed themselves to become. Never fear; Pelosi and Reid are leading the Dems in the same kind of “away from our base” direction as well – it seems to be endemic to the political class right now.

    What I’d say is possible (not probable, but possible) is the collapse of the GOP and the creation of a new party. If it happens, it will look something like the destruction of the Whigs and rise of the Republicans in the mid 19th century.

    If it happens, the destructive level of federal spending will likely be the catalyst. Note that the issue won’t be tax cuts so much as ramping down spending, period. There are plenty of of people who think we

    – spend way, way too much on maintaining an absurd number of military bases in an absurd number of countries
    – spend way, way too much on medicare, medicaid, social security, and the rest of the liberal social welfare wish list

    Democrats and Republicans are currently stuck thinking we need one but not the other, differing only on which is needed. IMHO, there’s a rising constituency of people who want neither.

20. DTM Says:
    April 15th, 2009 at 8:37 am

    As to DTM’s comments, it’s not tax cuts that have backed the GOP up; it’s how far removed from their base they’ve allowed themselves to become.

    Nonsense. The actual problem is that their base has been cut down to a group fundamentally at odds with the majority of Americans on far too many issues, and yet that group is completely unwilling to consider any sort of new direction for their party. Thus, they systematically drive out anyone who dares suggest such a path forward, further marginalizing themselves. In other words, this nonsense about insufficient loyalty to the base is just a symptom of this disease, and as long as they keep thinking in those terms their downward spiral will continue.

    You are right, though, that if this continues the GOP will go the way of the Federalists and the Whigs. But the result will not be a new party that caters to this same group of people. Rather, this group will become completely marginalized and the new conservative party that rises up to replace the GOP will appeal to a fundamentally different constituency.

    Which would be fine with me. Heck, who knows . . . I might even be able to vote on occasion for members of such a conservative party, and I certainly think its existence would make the United States healthier in the long run.

    If it happens, the destructive level of federal spending will likely be the catalyst. Note that the issue won’t be tax cuts so much as ramping down spending, period.

    Nope. As a mildly libertarian-minded person myself, I long ago made peace with the fact that even including people like me, the libertarian-minded are in a tiny minority in this country. Accordingly, there is no way you can build a competitive national party on opposition to the amount of federal spending per se. Rather, spending only has political relevance if you tie it to something else: taxation, resentment of others, and so on.

    So again, the issue then becomes whether the GOP realizes this in time to save itself, or whether they die off and get replaced by a conservative party which realizes this. And the longer self-deluded people like James are in control
    of the GOP, the more likely it becomes they will die off and be replaced.

21. Ted Says:
    April 15th, 2009 at 8:38 am

    @19: IMHO, one always thinks that there’s a rising constituency of people who want … oh, roughly whatever it is that one wants oneself.

    But I don’t actually disagree about the appeal of radical centrism. I just suspect that Obama is going to do a better job of capturing it (for the next 8 yrs or so) than anyone coming out of the wreckage of the GOP. Healthcare reform is entitlement reform.

    My answer to the question of the year — whither the GOP? — is still “drill, baby, drill.” Energy prices are going to go back up. At the same time, we’re going to have to do something about carbon. That conjunction is a recipe for a kind of ill-informed populist anger that the GOP will know very well how to harness.

22. N Says:
    April 15th, 2009 at 8:41 am

    James Robertson writes:

    There are plenty of of people who think we…
    spend way, way too much on medicare, medicaid, social security, and the rest of the liberal social welfare wish list

    There really aren’t very many people who believe that, in percentage terms. When pollsters ask whether Americans favor spending cuts to Social Security, Medicare, or health care or education in general, the percentage of respondents favoring less spending is generally low (10% or less in the polls I’ve seen, if memory serves).

    On the other hand, there are plenty of people who say they favor cutting government spending, but who have no idea where the government spends its money. When asked to guess what category accounts for the most federal spending, Americans are generally more likely to guess “foreign aid” than Social Security or defense.

    The GOP has gotten a fair amount of mileage from convincing these clueless voters that we can balance the budget by slashing aid to ungrateful foreigners, no longer buying Cadillacs for welfare mothers, eliminating pork-barrel spending, and attacking “waste, fraud, and abuse.” On the other hand, relying overly on the fiscal policy ignorance of the American voter inhibits efforts to propose and follow a coherent ideological program. Hence the vagueness of McCain’s economic policy agenda, the recent absurdity of the Republican “budget” unveiling, and the mysterious failure of an entirely Republican government to actually cut government spending.

23. joe from Lowell Says:
    April 15th, 2009 at 8:53 am

    That they don’t even comprehend the difference is telling all on it’s own.

    Exactly, Ed. Just look at the comments on this thread. David Axelrod? Huh?

    Clearly, Max424, like Matt, simply cannot conceive of a grassroots movement that didn’t come from the left. Sure we can. Think of the “old ladies in tennis shoes” in Orange County circa 1964. Hell, think about the KKK. History is full of examples of genuine grass-roots movements from the right. They look very different from the Teabaggers.

24. DTM Says:
    April 15th, 2009 at 9:02 am

    N,

    Obviously we mostly agree, but I think it is crucial to note that the ignorance you are describing is a willful ignorance, deliberately encouraged by the GOP. Specifically, it isn’t a coincidence that people tend to overestimate how much we spend on foreigners, poor people, artists, and so on . . . all that is the result of a politics of resentment being practiced by the Republican Party.

25. N Says:
    April 15th, 2009 at 9:18 am

    DTM writes:

    I think it is crucial to note that the ignorance you are describing is a willful ignorance, deliberately encouraged by the GOP. Specifically, it isn’t a coincidence that people tend to overestimate how much we spend on foreigners, poor people, artists, and so on .
    Quite right, of course.

    If one were to make a list of the reasons that the Republican party is currently kinda ridiculous, near the top would be their past decision to base their economic policy agenda on both exploiting and promoting massive public misperceptions of the actual spending priorities of the federal government. That can work for short term political gains, but pretty much rules out respectability in the long run.

    That unfortunate trade-off may be one of Reagan’s most significant and durable legacies.

26. Adam Says:
    April 15th, 2009 at 10:22 am

    it’s not tax cuts that have backed the GOP up; it’s how far removed from their base they’ve allowed themselves to become.

    I’d just like to echo DTM and say how incredibly, utterly incorrect this is. I know it’s popular among the true believers these days to say that Republicans only failed because they were Democrat-lite (which they weren’t). They’ve failed because they have become a party with very few ideas, and what few there are are pretty bad. It’s hard to win an election when you can’t articulate any reasons why you should be voted for other than “Democrats suck”.

    Look at their budget for the best evidence of this. Or McCain’s economic plan. There’s absolutely nothing there of any substance. They have absolutely no idea how to cut the deficit or balance the budget, or if they do they won’t say it because they know how incredibly unpopular it would be.

    Now, you claim there’s a rising tide of people who want deep cuts to both defense spending and entitlements. I am incredibly unconvinced of this. Ron Paul had very vocal, very committed supporters, and still ran 4th-5th in most primaries. He wouldn’t do much better this year (and I love the guy, bless his heart). And there’s literally not a single other Republican politician suggesting cutting defense spending even a bit, let alone in half like it needs to.

    In any case, Ron Paul supporters are not the base. The base is the social conservatives, they have been for some time now, and I can assure you the GOP did not distance themselves from that faction. You screwed yourself hitching the party to that post, and it’s going to be a painful wandering in the wilderness while you guys figure out that’s your fatal flaw.

27. DTM Says:
    April 15th, 2009 at 11:08 am

    By the way, apparently Club for Growth’s Pat Toomey has officially declared in the PA Senate primary. I suggest James watch as the GOP base in PA applies his proposed loyalty test to Specter, and then watch to see how Toomey does in the general. And then I suggest James think a bit more carefully about whether he has really scripted out a plausible future for a national party.

28. Max424 Says:
    April 15th, 2009 at 3:15 pm

    @14: “Clearly, Max424, like Matt, simply cannot conceive of a grassroots movement that didn’t come from the left.”

    When Max424 thinks about “grassroots organizations” Max424 thinks only of the Right. Max424 thinks the Left needs guidance in order to organize something as simple as a tea party at gramma’s house. Max424 believes the Left is incapable of spontaneous movements of any kind.

    No, when Max424 thinks grassroots, he thinks Right Wing. Max424 thinks beer bellied white men in tight T-shirts that read “the Plantation System is the Free Market PERSONIFIED,” gathering on a whim, firing twin fifties and RPG’s at a helpless hybrid car about 220 yards off on jury rigged rifle range.