Skumbag Leftist Foes of Tea Party Movment Infiltrate Rallies, Skew Media

[michaelintp]

Curtis, there is no nefarious intent underlying my question.  My question is not a "loaded question" in the least. It is a very straightforward question.  I've framed the facts accurately, based on the news story.  Once answered, my intent was not to then go "Ah-haa, gotcha, then X."  

Are people on the Forum so terrified of agreeing with michaelintp on anything, for fear that they will be tainted forever, that whenever I pose a question they'll do anything they can to evade responding or not respond at all?  Anything, to avoid the taint of agreeing with michaelintp!  (Hahahahahaha!).  

I am just sincerely curious what the view of Forum members is on this kind of tactic.  Because the truth is, from my past experience working with some very extreme Leftists on some issues (yes, we did work hand in hand on some issues), I am certain that some of them would have no moral reservations in posing as Conservatives and creating phony racist incidents for the Media, if they deemed that doing so would serve their cause. For them, I know, the end justifies the means. On the other hand, like you, I would assume that most folk, including most folk on the Forum, do find this tactic objectionable. That is the response I expected, from you and others on the Forum, including Reginald Hudlin, and with one exception (Emperorjones), I did not get.  Emperorjones exemplified the kind of principled approach that I applaud, to honesty express his counter-views, clearly revealing who he is and what he stands for. Not pretending be a member of a group that he is not, in order create (as an impostor) racial incidents for the Media or (by acting as an impostor) portraying his opponents as retards for the Media.

Moor, as to the ACORN situation, the actors did not pretend to be ACORN workers or activists, and then (for the Media) proclaim that as ACORN representatives their goal is to assist in illegal prostitution, child prostitute smuggling, and the like. That would be the precise parallel to what we are talking about here.  Instead, they just acted out a hypothetical question to see how the actual ACORN workers would respond, and the ACORN workers spoke for themselves.  The workers could have just as easily said, "Get your ass out of here."

[Emperorjones]

Michael,

Let me say something about black conservatives. To be respected, you've got to give respect, and that's something that many black conservatives have not done in regards to the black community. Supported by white right wing institutions, be it the Heritage Foundation, Manhattan Institute, newspapers, FOX News, or other right wing organs many black conservatives lambaste the black community largely for the benefit of their white patrons instead of honestly trying to build bridges in the black community or using conservative solutions to address continuing community problems. Browbeating the group you say you want to convince to join your side is not the best approach.

So, what you call vilification, I call telling it like it is. Don't get me wrong, many liberal blacks are also supported by white patrons too, but at least the Democratic party has made symbolic gestures and thrown the occasional policy bone in the black community's direction. They have made an effort to at least speak the language of the community, if not fully understand its heart, respect its mind, or acknowledge, and value its soul. What has the GOP done, or the black conservatives, in particular, to garner the black vote? Merely called the GOP the party of Lincoln and that's that. They don't even talk about enterprise zones anymore, their one major urban initiative that seemed at least heartfelt though its effectiveness was doubtful. To be honest, I don't think a majority of white GOP politicos want black votes. They've had too much success playing of white fears about black people to really want black votes. Almost any attempt at outreach is to allay the concerns of some white independents about the GOP's specious racial past.

A few years ago I would've contended that the GOP would also feel Latino voters were more desired than black votes, because they could still use a modified Southern Strategy with Latinos to keep them separated from blacks, but with this hue and cry about immigration, I'm not sure that's the case anymore. Well, with the moderate, corporate side of the GOP I could see more interest in securing Latino votes because they are thinking long term. But the GOP moderates are receding into the background and allowing the louder, angrier, nativists among the GOP to emerge.

It's funny that many black conservatives and their white allies will say these people are being victims for being 'independent' and 'bold' bu turn a blind eye to any talk about the root causes of poverty or the idea that racism didn't end in 1965. The only black people who are victims are black conservatives. And for many white right wingers, IMO, the only true victims today are white folks. Now some might say its white working class folks, but I believe a lot of the GOP elite believe the white middle class and the white elite are the true victims. The white poor and working class are just chess pieces they move on a board.

And now with McConnell and Barbour and the Confederate veterans issue, it just shows how tone deaf the GOP continues to be regarding black people, and how some appear to be gleeful in dismissing black people-either their history or their concerns. Black support is strong for Obama because he is the first black president, but also because of his campaign positions, and the historical relationship the Democratic party has developed with the black community since the 1960s. Despite what Rush Limbaugh and others infer, blacks aren't mindless drones who vote based on race alone. Douglass Wilder, Carol Moseley Braun, and Al Sharpton didn't get much black support in the Democratic primaries at all, and black people didn't bolt from the party when Jesse Jackson was passed over even for a VP nod in 84 and more importantly in 88. And Alan Keyes probably got zero to negative black support during his presidential runs. Who Obama was, what he represented, and what he seems to embody, inspired many African Americans to support him in record numbers. But they also gave strong support to Kerry, Gore, and Clinton before Obama.

I find it funny that some whites can easily see how blacks are always racially motivated, but can never fathom if they themselves are in turn, when it comes to politics or anything else. Some whites are quick to charge blacks or other non-whites with playing the race card, but never believe that whites could play this 'card'. Personally I've never liked the terminology because it reduces real pain and loss caused by discrimination into some type of cynical game that non-whites inflict on hapless, innocent whites, which is bullsh*t IMO. If there is a race card, some elite whites centuries ago created the card, heck, they created the whole deck.

One more thing....about the town halls. I think you glossed over the fact that many of the people causing a commotion at the town halls weren't simply their to talk about their concerns or state a case, they were there to hurl insults at Congresspeople and accuse them of being communists, socialists, or Nazis. Of course they have the First Amendment right to do so, but let's be real and call it like it is. I don't have a problem with people expressing their displeasure in a public forum, but at the same time, some of these people were out there just to cause a disturbance and prevent other citizens from speaking, expressing their views, or allowing the Congressperson to explain health care legislation.

It's not about soft balling people or not talking hard questions, of course you're totally oblivious to the warm and fuzzies Hannity gave Dick Cheney during the Bush years or the T-ball games he played with Sarah Palin. And I'm sure you got steamed about how the leftist media mistreated poor Sarah Palin. But you're not so sanguine in terms of seeing skewered treatment of President Obama. It's about being respectful and acting like a responsible citizen, which I felt many who participated in the health care forums did not do. And I feel that some who participate in the Tea Party rallies also do not do.

[michaelintp]

Emperorjones, I moved my response to your post to the "Black Tea Partier" thread, which is where I think that discussion really belongs.

Focusing on the topic of this thread: It is bizarre that people on this Forum, with the exception of you, have been unwilling to answer my simple question regarding what they think of those who would conspire to infiltrate the Tea Party Movement in order to create racist or embarrassing incidents for the Media.

[moor]

Emperorjones, I moved my response to your post to the "Black Tea Partier" thread, which is where I think that discussion really belongs.

Focusing on the topic of this thread: It is bizarre that people on this Forum, with the exception of you, have been unwilling to answer my simple question regarding what they think of those who would conspire to infiltrate the Tea Party Movement in order to create racist or embarrassing incidents for the Media.

Aside from splitting hairs over what "role" the deceivers attempted to play - the intent was to elicit a particular response/negative action on behalf of the targeted group - Substitute ACORN for TPM, and you probably would have had more responses.  Regardless, I told you what I thought.  For me - the two scenarios were/are analagous.. if not precisely parallel... and heinous.   Infiltration, Entrapment---tomatoe, tomato

[michaelintp]

So I take it, Moor, that you find highly objectionable the tactics advocated, and conspired, to impersonate Tea Party activists to behave in racist, stupid or offensive ways, for purposes of created fabricated incidents for Media coverage.  Yes?

I don't see a parallel to the ACORN situation, other than they happen to have the common aspect of impersonation.  But critical is that the actors who posed the hypothetical question to ACORN workers did so to see how the ACORN workers would really respond, and their efforts proved to be revealing.  They did NOT pretend to be ACORN workers, and then as ACORN worker impersonators, advocate the support of illegal conduct to the Media.  The real ACORN workers did this very effectively, on their own.  I'm sorry, but yes, I do see this as apples and oranges.

[moor]

So I take it, Moor, that you find highly objectionable the tactics advocated, and conspired, to impersonate Tea Party activists to behave in racist, stupid or offensive ways, for purposes of created fabricated incidents for Media coverage.  Yes?

I don't see a parallel to the ACORN situation, other than they happen to have the common aspect of impersonation.  But critical is that the actors who posed the hypothetical question to ACORN workers did so to see how the ACORN workers would really respond, and their efforts proved to be revealing.  They did NOT pretend to be ACORN workers, and then as ACORN worker impersonators, advocate the support of illegal conduct to the Media.  The real ACORN workers did this very effectively, on their own.  I'm sorry, but yes, I do see this as apples and oranges.

"Tea party crashers should use misspelled protest signs, make wild claims during interviews or other actions that would damage public opinion of the party, the Web site encouraged."


I guess this bears repeating for the third time -  I'm not condoning... in fact, I find it downright sad that this guy couldn't find enough fundamentally wrong with the idea of grown adults so intellectually and emotionally stunted that they can't engage in spirited and thoughtful discussion with their peers and have retreated to some misguided sense of "patriotism" and jaded notion of neo-colonialism masquerading as nationalism that he had to resort to -- the same intellectually and emotionally stunted type of behavior in kind.   

But I'm sorry, Michael, I just don't possibly see how you can reasonably say that one set of tactics is less reprehensible than the other.  Apples to Oranges, arguably - both still rotten.   Mr. O'Keefe purposefully misrepresented himself as a potential client to a ACORN, an organization whose everyday function was to take walk-in clients off the street, and asked questions solely designed for the express purpose of eliciting responses that would discredit the organization.  Although noone from ACORN actually filled out paperwork for him or made representations on his behalf, one employee was found to have answered his "hypothetical" questions.  In comparison, Mr. Levin advocated persons unknown going out and joining the TPM for the express purpose of misrepresenting themselves as bigots, illiterates and racists solely to discredit the organization.

Inalagous??  We'll just have to agree to disagree here, I'm afraid.

I'm a bit more bothered by the moral high ground that you've taken with respect to the aggrieved TPM (although as far as I can tell - there has been no real injury here.  It's all hypothetical)  I think, for starters, you've adopted a very unwarranted, dismissive attitude toward the like-minded tactics employed by Mr. OKeefe against ACORN last summer- if I'm not mistaken, he tried several times rather unsuccessfully to spring his ruse upon ACORN offices up and down the East Coast until he found 1 employee in the Baltimore office who he was succesfully able to solicit.. and that person was later fired by ACORN officials.  Do you think that isolated, aberrance is justification for demonizing an entire organization? 

By the logic you've displayed in arguing for objective examination of the TPM it would not, since the damning actions of such bad seeds can't necessarily be imparted upon the whole.. 

Now, some Oregonian junior-high school teacher wanted to rally people to join the TPM and deliberately sow discontent by misspelling signs, and acting like fools on TV.  By your own logic and argument, wouldn't such behavior be frowned upon by right-minded (no pun) members of this movement almost immediately?  Wouldn't someone...anyone... in the crowd have the gall to say, "Heeeyyy wait a minute, buddy!  That's not what we are about!"     Such actors would (righfully) be ostracized as anathema to the movement, yes? 

But what if nothing was said?  What if no one moved to condemn such actions in a public setting?  Wouldn't such silence in the face of such stupidity have been tantamount to an adoption of such behavior or viewpoints?  Would it substantiate some of the closely-held criticisms by the majority of people in this country that something about the TPM just seems a bit... off?

Since the site has been taken down, and none of the solicitations of this individual have bore any fruit, this discussion is probably academic, but perhaps people find your argument disingenuous due to the fact that the TPM was already associated with misspelled, racist signs and bad behaviour BEFORE this guy even suggest it in his blog?  Similar to Mr. Okeefe - don't you think it's possible, dare I say, reasonable to bet Mr. Levin was trying to fan flames of bad behavior that many believed were already smoldering?  I notice he never advocated going out and spitting on Congressmen, calling them at home, or threatening them directly.

[michaelintp]

My understanding is that no participant at a Tea Party rally has the authority to require that another participant tear up his sign.  It is a grassroots movement, without one central "authority" to mandate what can, and cannot, be expressed.

As to ACORN, more than one office was implicated.

But I'm glad you don't condone the tactics advocated by the Tea Party Impostor group.

Finally, I am NEVER disingenuous on the HEF. What would my purpose be? Do you think I really believe I'm going to change anyone's mind on any issue?  If, as a fluke, great, but I'm not holding my breath.