April 28, 2014

Washington Post: Major Tea Party Groups Spend Very Little on Direct Electioneering Efforts; Most Expenditures Are Paid to Combination of Personnel, Consultants, Fundraising and Direct Mail
— Ace

I was trying to figure out a take on this but I honestly don't have one and I guess it's time to just post it.

A Washington Post analysis found that some of the top national tea party groups engaged in this year’s midterm elections have put just a tiny fraction of their money directly into boosting the candidates they’ve endorsed.

The practice is not unusual in the freewheeling world of big-money political groups, but it runs counter to the ethos of the tea party movement, which sprouted five years ago amid anger on the right over wasteful government spending. And it contrasts with the urgent appeals tea party groups have made to their base of small donors, many of whom repeatedly contribute after being promised that their money will help elect conservative politicians.

Out of the $37.5 million spent so far by the PACs of six major tea party organizations, less than $7 million has been devoted to directly helping candidates, according to the analysis, which was based on campaign finance data provided by the Sunlight Foundation.

...

Roughly half of the money — nearly $18 million — has gone to pay for fundraising and direct mail, largely provided by Washington-area firms. Meanwhile, tea party leaders and their family members have been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting fees, while their groups have doled out large sums for airfare, a retirement plan and even interior decorating.

The lavish spending underscores how the protest movement has gone professional, with national groups transforming themselves into multimillion-dollar organizations run by activists collecting six-figure salaries.

Three well-known groups — the Tea Party Patriots, the Tea Party Express and the Madison Project — have spent 5 percent or less of their money directly on election-related activity during this election cycle. Two other prominent tea party groups, the Senate Conservatives Fund and FreedomWorks, have devoted about 40 percent of their money to direct candidate support such as ads and yard signs.

On average, super PACs had spent 64 percent of their funds on directly helping candidates by roughly this stage in the 2012 election cycle, according to Federal Election Commission data.

I have several questions. Many of the organizations object that while they are not spending money on traditional electioneering efforts (donating to candidates directly, buying ads in support of a candidate), they are instead spending money on non-traditional efforts, chiefly "training activists" and sponsoring/conducting rallies and bus tours around the nation.

This Washington Post piece makes no effort to determine if that is true or not. It seems the piece was largely written before seeking comment from the tea party groups, then comment was gotten just a few hours before they went to press, leaving them no time to follow-up on these claims.

So the piece just reports that this is what the groups say-- and then spends zero time analyzing this claim.

It sure would be nice to know if an examination of the their 990s and other campaign documents do in fact show they are spending money in different, non-traditional ways -- or this claim is itself exaggerated.

Another claim made is that it is harder, and more expensive, to raise money from the grassroots (as opposed to courting big-money donors), and this accounts for the large fraction of funds being used only for more fundraising.

I don't know if that's true or not, either, and the Washington Post does not provide any reporting to suggest it's true or false.

I do know that a lot of organizations wind up spending most of their resources on simply fundraising for more resources -- just as an animal's first priorities are food, water, and shelter, so too is a "charitable organization's" first priority to provide for its own staff and further its own survival.

I'm not saying that's a good thing. In fact, that's why I rarely suggest donating to such groups. I have no idea how much of any donated dollar is being spent on simply securing more donated dollars, and how much just to pay the organization's principals a nice salary, and etc.

Oh: I'm not sure that comparing the 40% spent directly on candidates by Freedom Works and the Senate Conservative Fund this cycle to 2012's 64% average is an apt comparison.

It could be -- and in fact it seems likely to me -- that it's relatively easier to raise money in presidential election years. You spend more to fundraise, but you get a bigger bang for each buck. You spend more, but you raise a lot more.

This would make a presidential year's averages an apples-to-orange comparison, when of course an apples-to-apples comparison is what is needed.

Once again the Washington Post spends no time or thought on this question. In fact, this particular thought never occurs to them at all.

My own guess is... well, when I say "guess" I mean my own bias.

My own bias is this: I sort of suspect that a lot of this is true, because I think the System is inherently corrupting, and I think people who believe that their own Moral Compass is going to insulate them from those corrupting effects are self-deluding.

Many people have entered politics thinking their Values would keep them clean, and then have wound up being part of the System within... two or three years.

Matthew Continetti used a witticism in describing Harry Reid's accumulation of a fortune: Many people come to DC to do good, but stay to do well.

When I hear people declaiming loudly about their own Impregnable Wall of Personal Integrity, I tend to wonder if their integrity and values have actually ever been put to the test.

Because when they are put to the test, people tend to discover, to their chagrin, that they're not quite as impregnable as they'd previously imagined.

The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak, one Respect Source opines.

And that's true for all men, at least to some extent.

Another thing that occurs to me is that there is, inherently, a difference between an amateur and a professional, and it's this: Professionals get paid.

Amateurs -- though often derided -- aren't doing it for the money. They're true believers. They're doing this in their off-hours, for reasons having nothing to do with money.

But the moment you become professional -- the moment this becomes Your Day Job -- well, you're gettin' paid, Jack.


Posted by: Ace at 09:49 AM | Comments (361)
Post contains 1123 words, total size 7 kb.

1 It may be true of some groups, but this piece reads like 'vote suppression' to me.

Posted by: JEM at April 28, 2014 09:51 AM (o+SC1)

2 So they're exactly like the Red Cross?

Posted by: Bigby's Typing Hands at April 28, 2014 09:52 AM (3ZtZW)

3 Nice work if you can get it.

Posted by: EC at April 28, 2014 09:52 AM (GQ8sn)

4 The Post is garbage. You may quote me.

Posted by: backhoe at April 28, 2014 09:52 AM (ULH4o)

5 This is just a cheap-shot accusation against the Tea Party. The WaPo can't effectively refute their positions, so they have resorted to a de facto ad hominen attack.

Posted by: Zombie John Gotti at April 28, 2014 09:53 AM (nj9sX)

6 The Tea Party is an idea, not an organization. I don't know or care how orgs with Tea Party in the name spend their money, they aren't The Tea Party. I always suspected they were just scammers glomming onto something that would get them power/dough, so I can't say I'm surprised in the least.

Posted by: arminius at April 28, 2014 09:53 AM (cDnhR)

7 I do know that a lot of organizations wind up spending most of their resources on simply fundraising for more resources -- just as an animal's first priorities are food, water, and shelter, so too is a "charitable organization's" first priority to provide for its own staff and further its own survival.
That is ridiculous. Every member of the Horde knows that the first two priorities are boobehs and Val U Rite. Yeah, I saw that piece and I was all so organizations are focused on advancing those organizations' own interests first. Quelle surprise. Also, doesn't the Clinton Foundation spend like 2% of its money on actual charitable stuff as opposed to overhead? I think that a comparison of all kinds of these types of organizations would be most interesting indeed.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at April 28, 2014 09:53 AM (mf5HN)

8 Eh, it's WaPo. They were waiting for the Tea Party to go away in 2010. http://classicalvalues.com/2014/04/gorillas-in-the-mist-part-93672/

Posted by: talldave2 at April 28, 2014 09:54 AM (/s1LA)

9 I only give directly to candidates I support. No middlemen. No groups. Currently I am down to supporting only one candidate currently standing for election. I have pretty much lost interest and/or passion for anyone other than Scott Walker.

Posted by: grammie winger at April 28, 2014 09:54 AM (oMKp3)

10
o_O

... isnt that the whole crux of the IRS targeting.   That these exempt groups are not SUPPOSED to be directly involve in specific campaigns.

Posted by: fixerupper at April 28, 2014 09:55 AM (nELVU)

11 Takeaway: don't bother contributing to Tea Party PACS, wingnuts, because they'll just steal your money. Progressive PACs, on the other hand, are a fine investment.

Posted by: The Washington Post at April 28, 2014 09:55 AM (8ZskC)

12

The Tea Party organizations are just taking queues from Democrat PACs like OFA who also spend most of their time training 'activists'.

 

And this is WaPo. Forgive me if I think they are leaving out a lot. Like the story.

Posted by: Blindside at April 28, 2014 09:55 AM (WzWmY)

13 How much does the Clinton Foundation spend annually on thongs?

Posted by: tsj017 at April 28, 2014 09:56 AM (4YUWF)

14 We're just trying to help out you Tea Partiers. You're welcome.

Posted by: The Washington Post at April 28, 2014 09:56 AM (8ZskC)

15 I'm sure some of these Tea Party X things are charlatans. I'm sure some of them are doing great work. I don't really know how to tell the difference.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at April 28, 2014 09:56 AM (ZPrif)

16 You'd think they'd be spending the majority of their cash fighting the IRS?

Posted by: garrett at April 28, 2014 09:56 AM (OuLGN)

17 This is WaPo concern trolling the Tea Party. Of course, they might be correct. Hard to tell.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at April 28, 2014 09:57 AM (ZPrif)

18 Or else it's just a disguised hit-job.

Posted by: joncelli at April 28, 2014 09:57 AM (RD7QR)

19

Who gives a damn? So I should instead give to OFA because my money will be better spent?

Note to tea party supporters everywhere - don't take advice from your adversaries.

 

Posted by: West at April 28, 2014 09:57 AM (1Rgee)

20

>>>but it runs counter to the ethos of the tea party movement

 

Asserted without honestly detailing the ethos of the Tea Party. Yes, we want to curtail wasteful spending. We also want to fire them all. We switched tactics from street-level protest towards organizational and structural methods. And the "major" Tea Party outlets? Those were always NOT grassroots

Posted by: Bigby's Typing Hands at April 28, 2014 09:58 AM (3ZtZW)

21

It sure would be nice to know if an examination of the their 990s and other campaign documents do in fact show they are spending money in different, non-traditional ways -- or this claim is itself exaggerated.

 

I have an idea that will revolutionize the newspaper business.  Have them hire people with some writing talent, and train them in interviewing techniques and rigorous dispassionate analysis.  The you put these people on the streets or working the phones to get information from directly from sources instead of press releases.

 

Since these people would be reporting the news, we could call them "reporters".  And their job, if done with integrity, would serve as a bulwark of our freedoms.

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at April 28, 2014 09:58 AM (JtwS4)

22 >hey are instead spending money on non-traditional efforts, chiefly "training activists" and sponsoring/conducting rallies and bus tours around the nation. Professional activism? So basically this is a criticism of the tea party for pursuing politics with the same unconventional strategies that got Barack Obama elected?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Now Posting From Chrome at April 28, 2014 09:58 AM (0q2P7)

23 "Boobehs and valu rite" I prefer rum, personally

Posted by: Samwell Tarly, asoiaf moron at April 28, 2014 09:58 AM (RTQgm)

24 I've gotten personally burned in tangible ways by both the Americans for Prosperity group and the Tea Party Patriots group.

Posted by: grammie winger at April 28, 2014 09:58 AM (oMKp3)

25 Those bus tours cost a lot of money. Gas, food, lodging...the TP group leaders usually put those all on a credit card and reimburse themselves from the donations. Not saying some of the TP groups aren't opportunistic money-grabbers, but...

Posted by: Citizen X at April 28, 2014 09:58 AM (7ObY1)

26 The Tea Party is an idea, not an organization. *ding ... ding .... ding*

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at April 28, 2014 09:58 AM (vPid2)

27 This isn't really news. I've read that with progressive "environmental" groups, something like 99% of the money is spend on self-sustaining perpetuation of the group. Once you go pro, you squander the dough. That said, this is how tech startups "spend" their original money too -- they use it to grow and grow, before even putting out their first product. The theory is to get big, so that eventually 10% of your huge income being spend on effective stuff is better than 90% of your tiny income being spent on effective stuff.

Posted by: zombie at April 28, 2014 09:58 AM (mizYg)

28

And in other news updates---

 

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., is disputing a story in her local newspaper that characterized her view on Obamacare as "here to stay" and "unlikely to be repealed." The Spokesman-Review, of eastern Washington state, made national news and earned a prominent link on the Drudge Report with a story headlined: "McMorris Rodgers says ACA likely to stay." The article, dated April 25, further reported that the House Republican Conference chairwoman, during a meeting with the newspaper’s editorial board, "said it’s unlikely the Affordable Care Act will be repealed." But McMorris Rodgers was not actually quoted in the story as saying either....

Posted by: polynikes at April 28, 2014 09:59 AM (m2CN7)

29

"donating to candidates directly, buying ads in support of a candidate"

 

Would donating to candidates directly even be legal? I'm not sure how the law works on that. They could do random 'issue' ads I guess.

 

But any time you give money to an organization, you do need to look at how they spend it. There are tons of charities that have similar issues. (like Clinton's charity, right?)

Posted by: Lea at April 28, 2014 09:59 AM (lIU4e)

30 The Washington Post is drawing on its deep reserve of credibility and its reputation for integrity when it looks out for the interests of the Tea Party.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at April 28, 2014 09:59 AM (8ZskC)

31 We're not "saying" saying, ya know. Just sayin'....

Posted by: WaPo at April 28, 2014 09:59 AM (gOoFi)

32 All non-profits should be given 5 years to operate before having to reapply after a round of audits.

Posted by: garrett at April 28, 2014 10:00 AM (OuLGN)

33 After Palin decided to use my donations to finance her move to Arizona and not run for office (that is, whatever was left over after she gave it to rock-solid conservatives like, um...Juan McLame, Marco Amnestio and Kelly Ayotte) I've pretty much sworn off giving much in the way of donations. To anyone.

Posted by: Citizen X at April 28, 2014 10:00 AM (7ObY1)

34 i wonder what their motivation in running this story was, he asked innocently.


Posted by: redc1c4 at April 28, 2014 10:00 AM (q+fqH)

35 I stopped altogether donating to political "causes". It coordinates well with my "let it burn" ensemble. Though my wife says it make my thighs look photoshopped.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at April 28, 2014 10:01 AM (BZAd3)

36 So the Tea Party spends most of its money on activism and not so much on actual candidates. Sounds good to me. So how did the IRS determine that they are partisan while Organizing for Obama is a not?

Posted by: mugiwara at April 28, 2014 10:01 AM (zcSad)

37 Also, we believe Jeb Bush would make a wonderful Republican candidate for president in 2016. Don't thank us.

Posted by: The Washington Post at April 28, 2014 10:01 AM (8ZskC)

38 35 I stopped altogether donating to political "causes". It coordinates well with my "let it burn" ensemble. Though my wife says it make my thighs look photoshopped. Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at April 28, 2014 03:01 PM (BZAd3) Pics or it didn't...never mind.

Posted by: joncelli at April 28, 2014 10:02 AM (RD7QR)

39 The left's obsession with the "Tea Party" probably fits several DSM definitions. The only thing i've seen that is more manic is some people's unbelievably wierd fear of firearms.

Posted by: Czar Peter at April 28, 2014 10:03 AM (SkgyR)

40

Navigating the political swamp of Washington is made convulted and expensive by design.    It helps keep the newbies out and the regulars in control.

 

OT:  The Weekly standard has up a little story that Rep. McMorris Rogers' statements about ObamaCare may not have actually been said by her.  There was no recording of her meeting with a paper's editorial board, just notes.

 

 

Whew!  Glad to see we didn't go all off all-half-cocked!

Posted by: Mikey NTH - Let the Warmth of Spring Grow your Rage at the Outrage Outlet at April 28, 2014 10:03 AM (hLRSq)

41 "After Palin decided to use my donations to finance her move to Arizona and not run for office (that is, whatever was left over after she gave it to rock-solid conservatives like, um...Juan McLame, Marco Amnestio and Kelly Ayotte) " That '12 summer was a weird one.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at April 28, 2014 10:03 AM (gOoFi)

42 Didn't Dick Armey get into a pissing match with one of these PACs? Anyway, Tea Party groups are mainly good for trolling RINOs and Concerned Christian Conservatives. Giving money to Sarah Palin directly has about the same effect and she doesn't need as much of an entourage. Or, you know, donate to the candidates, and buy the books of the more effective activists.

Posted by: boulder t'hobo at April 28, 2014 10:03 AM (RTQgm)

43 Well I certainly won't be voting for any tea party candidates now./

Posted by: Velvet Ambition, the guy that will push that button at April 28, 2014 10:03 AM (R8hU8)

44      Those dirty, uppity Teabaggers....

USDA Made $6.2 Billion in Improper Payments Last Year

     Who do they think they are, tryina' make money and shit?

$6 Billion Goes Missing at State Department

     Spending money from dupes on themselves like that?

Government books $41.3 billion in student loan profits

...

Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i][/b] at April 28, 2014 10:04 AM (ujux6)

45 'Pissing Match' (1999) is, arguably, Dick Armey's best album.

Posted by: garrett at April 28, 2014 10:04 AM (OuLGN)

46 "McMorris Rodgers" - this is a genus of weasel

Posted by: boulder t'hobo at April 28, 2014 10:04 AM (RTQgm)

47

Damn TPINOs !

 

Hey that sounds like an Italian restaurant.

Posted by: polynikes at April 28, 2014 10:05 AM (m2CN7)

48 Many of the organizations object that while they are not spending money on traditional electioneering efforts... ------------------------------ Hmm... Nepotism, high salaries, travel, expense padding - sounds pretty traditional to me. Want to help a candidate? Give him money so he can buy ads and pay his staff. Donating to the Conservative General Goodness Initiative seems like a really uninteresting way to piss away your money.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at April 28, 2014 10:05 AM (CJjw5)

49 You know who I trust to give me fair and unbiased coverage of the Tea Party? WaPo, that's who. WaPo and Harry Reid. And Nancy Pelosi.

Posted by: gm at April 28, 2014 10:05 AM (/kBoL)

50 I saw Pissing Match open for Night Ranger in 1987.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at April 28, 2014 10:05 AM (OWjjx)

51 The Tea Party organizations haven't spent a lot in this election cycle because it's a bit too early to be spending on ads. When the midterms are over, we can get an honest picture of how much each raised and spent. This obvious hit piece is an insult to anyone who follows politics.

Posted by: jwest at April 28, 2014 10:06 AM (u2a4R)

52 Anna Puma and the rest of you MS Morons/Moronettes, hope you have the hatches battened down.  Looks like it's getting really nasty over there.

Posted by: Zombie Curly Bill Brocius at April 28, 2014 10:06 AM (L8r/r)

53 The left's obsession with the "Tea Party" probably fits several DSM definitions. The only thing i've seen that is more manic is some people's unbelievably wierd fear of firearms. Posted by: Czar Peter at April 28, 2014 03:03 PM (SkgyR) KOCH BROTHERS KOCH BROTHERS KOCH BROTHERS

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at April 28, 2014 10:07 AM (mf5HN)

54 This seems totally in line with what a 501c4 is supposed to be doing, that is NOT spending on purely political campaigns but rather focusing on issues and public policy. Suck It Lois !!

Posted by: McCool at April 28, 2014 10:07 AM (nCSwS)

55 Off sock!

Posted by: Country Singer at April 28, 2014 10:07 AM (L8r/r)

56

>>>Didn't Dick Armey get into a pissing match with one of these PACs?

 

Dick Armey runs one of them, I think

Posted by: Bigby's Typing Hands at April 28, 2014 10:07 AM (3ZtZW)

57 This article has driven me right back into the loving arms of the GOPe The one branch of the Party that I can trust to support my conservative based commitment to enforcing current emigration law. And....they promise to not do that thing in my mouth.

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at April 28, 2014 10:08 AM (X2NEw)

58 Between Drew's earlier post and this one, is it safe to say we have officially started the "Piss on All of the Candidates - Even One's we may sort of actually agree with " Season v. 2014? Cause we are gonna have to get an early start to exceed the amount of whinning, moaning and pissing we did in 2012!

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at April 28, 2014 10:08 AM (OWjjx)

59 Though my wife says it make my thighs look photoshopped. I hate when that happens.

Posted by: eleven at April 28, 2014 10:08 AM (GXZgZ)

60
So your saying this was from the Washington Post then?

Wonder if there mighta sorta maybe have been some massaging of numbers and such going on there.

Nah, couldn't be.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at April 28, 2014 10:08 AM (hJauc)

61 No doubt the Wash Compost has their usual agenda here, but I do belive some of this is true.  Also, I consider the Senate Conservative Fund a conservative group, not a TEA Party group.  Of course, there is a lot of overlap.

Posted by: Countrysquire at April 28, 2014 10:10 AM (eEBON)

62 "Cause we are gonna have to get an early start to exceed the amount of whinning, moaning and pissing we did in 2012!" I have not yet begun to whine and piss and moan.

Posted by: Voters at April 28, 2014 10:10 AM (gOoFi)

63 All the Tea Party groups need to do is develop a really cool hashtag like we do.

Posted by: The 3 Teenagers Running the State Department at April 28, 2014 10:10 AM (OWjjx)

64 Eh, I've never been a huge fan of a lot of these groups but the problem here is the same as when people start criticizing charities for spending so much on overhead: good people and good logistics cost money. An organization with a well-trained leadership and with a solid infrastructure in place is going to cost more to maintain (and have less available for "the mission") than a corner-cutting effort manned by 20-something volunteers. Group B might look better on paper ("We spend 95% of fundraising dollars building orphanages!") but Group A is probably better at what they do.

Posted by: Paul at April 28, 2014 10:10 AM (9qDRl)

65 Leveraging Bush's No Child Left Behind stupidity. NCLB has several impossible mandates -- like mandating 100% of students be proficient in reading and math. Obama gives waivers to States from the impossible mandates -- if they implement Common Core and other bits of ed policy he wants. Basically, if States don't do what the Feds tell them, then the hammer of the impossible NCLB mandates is brought down. That's the sword hanging over their heads, forcing them to comply. Obama’s Lawless Ed-Reform Push http://natl.re/1hELVSo via @NRO

Posted by: Separate but Stupid at April 28, 2014 10:10 AM (ZPrif)

66 The Tea Party is dying. They can only support six or so self-serving PACs.

Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at April 28, 2014 10:11 AM (WX3R9)

67 Yes -- the Post explaining the Tea Party is dubious at best. Where's that Gwen Ifill report on Sarah Palin?

Posted by: eleven at April 28, 2014 10:11 AM (GXZgZ)

68 "Major Tea Party Groups Spend Very Little on Direct Electioneering Efforts;"

Perhaps there is no one worth supporting directly.  I'd kind of be surprised if there were.


Posted by: Simon White-Thatch Potentloins at April 28, 2014 10:11 AM (NnjE8)

69 well, you're gettin' paid, Jack. I read this à la Jon Lovitz on Seinfeld.

Posted by: Waterhouse at April 28, 2014 10:11 AM (gXDIE)

70 KOCH BROTHERS KOCH BROTHERS KOCH BROTHERS

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at April 28, 2014 03:07 PM (mf5HN)

 

I know Harry is trying to do to them what was done to Romney in 2012, but I forget - what offices are they running for again?  I'm fairly politically minded and I go for days without thinking about George Soros, I can only imagine what people who are only slightly aware of politics think about the Koch Brothers for the nano-second it flashes through their consciousness.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - Let the Warmth of Spring Grow your Rage at the Outrage Outlet at April 28, 2014 10:11 AM (hLRSq)

71 >>>Between Drew's earlier post and this one, is it safe to say we have officially started the "Piss on All of the Candidates - Even One's we may sort of actually agree with " Season v. 2014? to be honest with you, I think part of the problem is an unrealistic expectation regarding human behavior. Personally I expect this kind of shit. A couple of years ago, maybe three, I started hearing about how crap really worked in DC on the Republican side, and I was surprised (and bothered). But by now it's just Baked into the Cake as far as my own expectations. Human beings are always going to be self-serving -- always. Well, almost always. I'll allow some space there for your favorite saints. It's just what people are. With any system, you have to expect there are going to be self-serving motives and self-dealing. So honestly, when I see a piece like this, I need data on a Standard of Comparison. I can't just say "These people are corrupt and self-dealing; F*** 'em." I need data on the Industry-Standard Baseline of Corruption. I need to be able to see if this is more corrupt, MUCH more corrupt, etc. The fact that there is some corruption in politics doesn't bother me anymore. That's why I keep (in this post) asking for more data. I need to see how this deviates from the accepted standard of self-dealing.

Posted by: ace at April 28, 2014 10:13 AM (/FnUH)

72 ( sticks hand up.... )

Founding member of Island and Mainland chapters of the Tea Party.

We do grassroots activism. Trying to kick out the "good old boy network" that plagues the Golden Isles. Had some success with it. We figure trying "top down" does not work very well- so we are going from the bottom up.

Posted by: backhoe at April 28, 2014 10:14 AM (ULH4o)

73 Send your $25 donation to the Tea-o-J Express today. Because whores, booze and bacon-flavored cocaine aren't free. Just like freedom.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at April 28, 2014 10:14 AM (CJjw5)

74 Hmm. Not sure it is relevant, but I note that on this date in 1789, there was a mutiny on the HMS Bounty.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at April 28, 2014 10:14 AM (aDwsi)

75 If the leaders of my once party were not intent on butt sexing me at every opportunity, I be quite willing to pay the squeeze to get them elected. As it stands now, no.

Posted by: toby928 at April 28, 2014 10:14 AM (QupBk)

76

>>>KOCH BROTHERS KOCH BROTHERS KOCH BROTHERS

 

MARSHA MARSHA MARSHA

Posted by: Jan Brady at April 28, 2014 10:15 AM (3ZtZW)

77 Get back to me when WaPo does an in-depth article into the finances of OFA. Wait, don't bother. I wouldn't believe what it said anyway.

Posted by: Lady in Black at April 28, 2014 10:15 AM (efqbt)

78 >>>Eh, I've never been a huge fan of a lot of these groups but the problem here is the same as when people start criticizing charities for spending so much on overhead: good people and good logisticscost money. An organization with a well-trained leadership and with a solid infrastructure in place is going to cost more to maintain (and have less available for "the mission") than a corner-cutting effort manned by 20-something volunteers. ... Eh, I tend to think salaries are directly correlated with how flush an organization is with fundraised dollars, and not correlated much at all with actual performance.

Posted by: ace at April 28, 2014 10:15 AM (/FnUH)

79 Not sure it is relevant, but I note that on this date in 1789, there was a mutiny on the HMS Bounty. Topless South Pacific island babes for all!

Posted by: Waterhouse at April 28, 2014 10:15 AM (gXDIE)

80 Progressive PACs, on the other hand, are a fine investment.
***
In all seriousness, I can't think of a better investment if you are already wealthy then a Democrat political candidate.

If Harry Reid can make himself a millionaire, imagine what he can do working for someone who actually understands how the economy works?

Posted by: 18-1 at April 28, 2014 10:16 AM (78TbK)

81 the Industry-Standard Baseline of Corruption. to coin a phrase

Posted by: toby928 at April 28, 2014 10:16 AM (QupBk)

82 NEVER give your money to a 3rd party... Always give it DIRECTLY to the candidate you want to support.

Posted by: Joshua at April 28, 2014 10:17 AM (+Slh8)

83 Yeesh, Pitcairn Island. *that* is what a rape culture looks like. I guess the dispute on the ship was whether to call it the "HMS Booty"

Posted by: boulder t'hobo at April 28, 2014 10:17 AM (RTQgm)

84 So does this mean my recent $35 contribution to the Tea Party Express was a waste of money? Perhaps. But better than sending $35 to the RNC and being spit in the face and punched in the balls.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 28, 2014 10:17 AM (HVff2)

85 Just five dollars a day will give this Tea Party candidate shoes, a cardboard sign, and most importantly, hope. And a driver. Hope and a full-time driver. Won't you help?

Posted by: Sally Struthers at April 28, 2014 10:17 AM (8ZskC)

86 Cause we are gonna have to get an early start to exceed the amount of whinning, moaning and pissing we did in 2012! Hey, y'all have fun with that, 'cause my folks for Congress are pretty solid, and the locals are...manageable. So yeah, have fun with all that. Page me in '16 if someone manages to field a credible candidate, 'cause I'm done pissing in the wind.

Posted by: Brother Cavil, KERMIT partisan at April 28, 2014 10:17 AM (rt3TY)

87 This Washington Post piece makes no effort to determine if that is true or not. Of course. They don't care. Their objective is to back Democrats, so whatever is going on with Democrats' opposition is likely to either get some sort of mention with no details, or be a hit piece.

Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at April 28, 2014 10:17 AM (vd7A8)

88 Ace, I think your analysis is spot-on.  In addition to the self-serving human nature, I think a lot of the active, younger members of the movement liked being part of the 'cool kids club', based on what I saw when I regularly participated on Twitter a few years ago.

Posted by: Countrysquire at April 28, 2014 10:17 AM (eEBON)

89 That's why I keep (in this post) asking for more data. I need to see how this deviates from the accepted standard of self-dealing.

Posted by: ace at April 28, 2014 03:13 PM (/FnUH)

 

 

And politics has always been this way; this country was founded by men and they played politics.  Example:  The first six frigates for the US Navy were each built in a different shipyard in a different state.  Why?  To spread around the construction dollars, buying votes for the new navy bill.

 

Is that corrupt?  Well, not really; but darn it - it is real-life politics.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - Let the Warmth of Spring Grow your Rage at the Outrage Outlet at April 28, 2014 10:17 AM (hLRSq)

90 73 Send your $25 donation to the Tea-o-J Express today. Because whores, booze and bacon-flavored cocaine aren't free. Just like freedom. Posted by: Empire of Jeff at April 28, 2014 03:14 PM (CJjw5) Wait. You have bacon-flavored cocaine? And you're not sharing with the Horde?

Posted by: joncelli at April 28, 2014 10:17 AM (RD7QR)

91 funny that all these politicians are like a devoted Ice Cream lover of say peach And along comes some Chocolate or Lemon and wham.. They junkied up with the rest of the working girls.

Posted by: 7 Days in May at April 28, 2014 10:18 AM (5V+Di)

92 I gave $15 to Panda Express, should I be worried?

Posted by: Separate but Stupid at April 28, 2014 10:18 AM (ZPrif)

93 I saw Bacon Flavored Whores open for Lucious Jackson in 1983.

Posted by: fluffy at April 28, 2014 10:18 AM (Ua6T/)

94 is it safe to say we have officially started the "Piss on All of the Candidates

Texas primary is done, except for a runoff, so it is that time here.

Posted by: SpongeBobSaget at April 28, 2014 10:18 AM (L02KD)

95 Eh, I tend to think salaries are directly correlated with how flush an organization is with fundraised dollars, and not correlated much at all with actual performance. ---------------------------- Hang on. It's like you're saying Ronan Farrow's humanitarian award from Refugees International was somehow undeserved, unearned and irrelevant.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at April 28, 2014 10:18 AM (CJjw5)

96 Between Drew's earlier post and this one, is it safe to say we have officially started the "Piss on All of the Candidates - Even One's we may sort of actually agree with " Season v. 2014? Cause we are gonna have to get an early start to exceed the amount of whinning, moaning and pissing we did in 2012! Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at April 28, 2014 03:08 PM

And WHO, pray tell, are these candidates we "may sort of actually agree with"? Would they be Jebbie Booosh, or TPaw, or Poppin' Fresh's idol, Rick Santorum?

I know some folks here are high on Trey Gowdy, Ted Cruz and Whatsername, the ex-Governor of Alaska. Or maybe Scott Walker.

But in the main, these potential candidates strike me as being slightly to the right of John Boner, willing to stifle objections to the Prophets of Choom just a wee bit so nobody gets unhappy. In short, they are politicians first, supporters of what once was the United States second.

If that sounds like I am seriously disinclined to vote for anyone right now, so be it.

Nobody gets a dime or a vote from me unless I'm convinced they've earned it. Calling themselves "Tea Party Conservatives" does not move me at all, unless or until they show some actual principles. Until then, fuggedaboutit.

Posted by: MrScribbler at April 28, 2014 10:19 AM (dDzOj)

97 "I think the System is inherently corrupting, and I think people who believe that their own Moral Compass is going to insulate them from those corrupting effects are self-deluding."

This should be carved in stone in the Senate and House chambers.

Bravo!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 28, 2014 10:19 AM (QFxY5)

98 FLASHBACK: Liberal NAACP Awards Donald Sterling “Lifetime Achievement Award”… He was scheduled to receive his second lifetime achievement award from the NAACP but it has been cancelled in the wake of the comments he made to his girlfriend. Weasel Zippers: File this under: Ya can't make shit like this up

Posted by: Nevergiveup at April 28, 2014 10:19 AM (t3UFN)

99 Good work if you can get it... and possess a fair amount of ethical flexibility: Her twin salaries put her on track to make more than $450,000 this year, a dramatic change in lifestyle for the tea party activist, who had filed for bankruptcy in 2008 and then cleaned homes for a period of time to bring in extra money.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 28, 2014 10:19 AM (SY2Kh)

100 Between Drew's earlier post and this one, is it safe to say we have officially started the "Piss on All of the Candidates - Even One's we may sort of actually agree with " Season v. 2014? Cause we are gonna have to get an early start to exceed the amount of whinning, moaning and pissing we did in 2012! Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at April 28, 2014 03:08 PM (OWjjx) A visual representation of my response to the upcoming election season. http://bit.ly/1lq6Mdj

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at April 28, 2014 10:19 AM (mf5HN)

101 Even if there's a baseline corruption index people still need to get swatted with a rolled up magazine.

Posted by: eleven at April 28, 2014 10:20 AM (GXZgZ)

102

Can we look upon the article as a data point instead?

 

Such as: Is it signalling a newer direction for steamrolling the GOP in the MSM? Or just a feeler to see what angle produces best?

Posted by: Bigby's Rodeo Hands at April 28, 2014 10:21 AM (3ZtZW)

103 >>13 How much does the Clinton Foundation spend annually on thongs?

Posted by: tsj017 at April 28, 2014 02:56 PM (4YUWF)<<



Thongs, hell. It's kneepads, baby!

Posted by: Horny Bill Clinton at April 28, 2014 10:21 AM (OZmbA)

104 A visual representation of my response to the upcoming election season. http://bit.ly/1lq6Mdj Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at April 28, 2014 Hmm, pussy on pussy with pussy standing guard. There has to be a theme here. Where the fuck is the corgi?

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 28, 2014 10:21 AM (HVff2)

105 He was scheduled to receive his second lifetime achievement award from the NAACP but it has been cancelled in the wake of the comments he made to his girlfriend. Also, FYI we're sending someone by to pick up the first one.

Posted by: The NAACP at April 28, 2014 10:21 AM (8ZskC)

106 In the Burning Times, I think you want to Tea Party folkes on yo' side...

Posted by: The Obvious Sock at April 28, 2014 10:21 AM (W6iIX)

107
Eye theeenk maybe eye weel vote for the Republikan porque they weel make me a citizen.

Posted by: Juan Juano at April 28, 2014 10:22 AM (OZmbA)

108

Jeb Bush in 2016, baby!

 

for victory

Posted by: The Obvious Sock at April 28, 2014 10:23 AM (W6iIX)

109 I think everybody here believes it's just another " Hit Piece " in a long line of hit pieces.

But given how candidates have been supported by Tea Party groups , win elections and then to have them " Pull a Peter " , do a 180 , and deny knowing the values of the tea party. I think these current groups are cautious of who they support and will spend their dollars in September and October.

Posted by: AmericanDawg at April 28, 2014 10:23 AM (p6iIL)

110 Now that I think about it, if the State Media is trying to convince people not to donate to the Tea Party PACs, that could be a mark in their favor.

Posted by: toby928 at April 28, 2014 10:23 AM (QupBk)

111 >>Even if there's a baseline corruption index people still need to get swatted with a rolled up magazine. yes, I just don't want to go off half-cocked. Also, "professionals get paid" -- this corruption applies to me, since this is My Day Job. So I write the post in a circumspect way, balancing, in my head, the competing interests and audiences. I might have gone off half-cocked, just ripping these organizations, if I weren't thinking about the politics. Politics is inherently corrupting. OTOH, I'm not sure a half-cocked Riot Act post would be a good thing.

Posted by: ace at April 28, 2014 10:23 AM (/FnUH)

112 Re #28, I thought: Oh, that's just her covering her butt. Then I read: "But McMorris Rodgers was not actually quoted in the story as saying either...." I mean, she might be the squishiest of RINO squishes, but let's get the story right, OK media?

Posted by: AmishDude at April 28, 2014 10:23 AM (T0NGe)

113 "He was scheduled to receive his second lifetime achievement award from the NAACP but it has been cancelled in the wake of the comments he made to his girlfriend. " Isn't this the part where they tell me that what takes place in private should remain in private? On a serious note, are they gonna strip him of his first award?

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at April 28, 2014 10:23 AM (X2NEw)

114 Interesting. http://tinyurl.com/m4khla4 Male Scent May Compromise Biomedical Research "Scientists have found that mice feel 36% less pain when a male researcher is in the room, versus a female researcher. The rodents are also less stressed out. The effect appears to be due to scent molecules that male mammals (including humans, dogs, and cats) have been emitting for eons. The finding could help explain why some labs have trouble replicating the results of others, and it could cause a reevaluation of decades of animal experiments: everything from the effectiveness of experimental drugs to the ability of monkeys to do math. Male odor could even influence human clinical trials."

Posted by: Separate but Stupid at April 28, 2014 10:24 AM (ZPrif)

115 I made a record donation to United Way today. My sister gave me her copy of Killer on CD, so I dropped off my vinyl version at the downtown office this morning.

Posted by: Oglebay at April 28, 2014 10:24 AM (dmcx3)

116 I don't know about all this crazy talk that people act in their own best interest. I've been assured here a number of times that elected officials are in office for the pure motive of public service - that no amount of salary and bonus could influence their decisions. We need to cut representative's pay to $10 a day plus a bus pass for transportation. That will insure we get our taxpayer's money worth.

Posted by: jwest at April 28, 2014 10:24 AM (u2a4R)

117 Never go off half-cocked.

Posted by: Anthony Wiener at April 28, 2014 10:24 AM (8ZskC)

118

Also:

The basis for the WaPo believing it would have any deleterious effect on Tea Party morale is *their* caricature of Tea Partiers being naif stick-up-the-butts who are either 100% or Nuthin' on every issue.

Posted by: Bigby's Rodeo Hands at April 28, 2014 10:24 AM (3ZtZW)

119 98 FLASHBACK: Liberal NAACP Awards Donald Sterling “Lifetime Achievement Award”… He was scheduled to receive his second lifetime achievement award from the NAACP but it has been cancelled in the wake of the comments he made to his girlfriend. Weasel Zippers: File this under: Ya can't make shit like this up Posted by: Nevergiveup at April 28, 2014 03:19 PM (t3UFN) You've gotta love an organization that gives two lifetime achievement awards to the same guy. It's like they're racism profiteers or something.

Posted by: AmishDude at April 28, 2014 10:25 AM (T0NGe)

120 Rand Paul now saying it will be difficult to repeal Barrycare. http://tinyurl.com/kw7gamn

Posted by: ManWithNoParty at April 28, 2014 10:25 AM (ojnk6)

121 Hmm, pussy on pussy with pussy standing guard. There has to be a theme here. Where the fuck is the corgi? Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 28, 2014 03:21 PM (HVff2) I am reasonably confident this represents the Horde discussing this topic. http://uproxx.it/1ixM4HU

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at April 28, 2014 10:25 AM (mf5HN)

122 Does anyone believe any thing the MSM says??

Posted by: The Obvious Sock at April 28, 2014 10:25 AM (W6iIX)

123 Are there no honest men left?

Posted by: saul goodman at April 28, 2014 10:25 AM (D+5pt)

124 Half-cocked?  Not my kind of post Ace.

Posted by: Sandra Fluke at April 28, 2014 10:26 AM (eEBON)

125 You've gotta love an organization that gives two lifetime achievement awards to the same guy. It seems fair that Sterling should have to die and come back for the second one.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at April 28, 2014 10:26 AM (8ZskC)

126
Bill was more or less half-cocked.

Posted by: Hillary Clinton, I go both ways at April 28, 2014 10:27 AM (OZmbA)

127 I am reasonably confident this represents the Horde discussing this topic. http://uproxx.it/1ixM4HU Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD Why yes, yes indeed. Thank you Your Highness.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 28, 2014 10:27 AM (HVff2)

128 Gee, maybe they've had to spend a lot of money compiling detailed data for those intrusive IRS questionnaires from Los Lerner? Also probably costs money to retain lawyers to fend off audits from other agencies and sue the IRS over all of this nonsense. I'm not assuming all Tea Party activity is clean, but I'm not about to start taking the Washington "Macaca-Ni**erHead-Mitt's Homophobic HS Haircut" Post's angle on it.

Posted by: Lizzy at April 28, 2014 10:27 AM (8zTpe)

129 Are there no honest men left? Where's my lamp?

Posted by: Diogenes at April 28, 2014 10:27 AM (8ZskC)

130 Update: Kip Hill, the Spokesman-Review reporter who wrote the original story, tells TWS that there was no recording of the interview with the paper's editorial board. Asked to explain his story's characterization that McMorris Rodgers says repeal of Obamacare isn't likely, Hill referred to his notes. One member of the editorial board asked the congresswoman, "Is Obamacare here to stay?" and, according to Hill, McMorris Rodgers replied, "Probably."

McMorris Rodgers's office has argued that the headline of the story, "McMorris Rodgers says ACA likely to stay" is "not an accurate or representative portrayal of what the congresswoman said in the interview."

The congresswoman's office has not yet responded to a request for comment on the Spokesman-Review reporter's claim.

Posted by: jeannebodine at April 28, 2014 10:28 AM (2LJqa)

131 When I was a political activist I pretty much told the members of our group that "We don't want your money. We want your time and your effort." I put people to work making things, building things, participating in events, and actually distributing literature, you know, actual politicking. Money was just a headache, and what bit people insisted on contributing (some would rather put money into the pot instead of work) we would use for Television/Radio/Newspaper advertisements. I also noticed a lot of organizations spent a hell of a lot of time talking about bylaws and points of order. We were pretty informal. If you had a piece to say, we'd give you the time to say it, but we needed to focus on attainable goals, and we encouraged any suggestions that might advance our principles.

Posted by: D-Lamp at April 28, 2014 10:28 AM (bb5+k)

132 I demand a full-cocked response!

Posted by: Barack Obama at April 28, 2014 10:28 AM (ZPrif)

133 " Where the fuck is the corgi? " Speaking of which, a neighbor went walking by earlier with her Corgi/Shepard mix pup. Body size of a Corgi, facial features and ears of a shepard. Cute as hell. The mating ritual must have been a bitch though

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at April 28, 2014 10:28 AM (X2NEw)

134

>>>Also, "professionals get paid" -- this corruption applies to me, since this is My Day Job.

 

 

And now we see the corruption inherent in the system!

Posted by: Dennis the Peasant at April 28, 2014 10:28 AM (3ZtZW)

135 "A visual representation of my response to the upcoming election season.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at April 28, 2014"


*considers ginger pussy joke*

*considers the looks coming from the Ravage*

Nah...I got nuthin'.

Posted by: RedMindBlueState at April 28, 2014 10:28 AM (knoK7)

136 Does anyone believe any thing the MSM says??
___
Um, like, the news? Those guys? I don't normally watch'em but they are cool brah.

Posted by: The LIVs who decide elections at April 28, 2014 10:28 AM (78TbK)

137 Where's my lamp? Posted by: Diogenes at April 28, 2014 03:27 PM (8ZskC) Right here. Late is better than never.

Posted by: D-Lamp at April 28, 2014 10:29 AM (bb5+k)

138 Don't get all wee wee'd up.

Posted by: King Barry USA (originally Indonesia) at April 28, 2014 10:29 AM (OZmbA)

139 "NEVER give your money to a 3rd party... Always give it DIRECTLY to the candidate you want to support."

This.

The downside here is that, by definition, unorganized outside dissident blocs are unorganized. Thus we see the spectacle of RINO incumbents like Graham and Cornyn coasting through their primaries because the opposition was unable to gel effectually around a single challenger.

Posted by: torquewrench at April 28, 2014 10:29 AM (noWW6)

140

I've been assured here a number of times that elected officials are in office for the pure motive of public service - that no amount of salary and bonus could influence their decisions.

 

Posted by: jwest at April 28, 2014 03:24 PM (u2a4R)


No  people here said that  we need people in office who understand that  holding office is not a money making life time job  enterprise but indeed a public service   that holds great responsiblity  and an honor to serve.   

By  the way,  Romney  took no salary as Governor.  

Posted by: polynikes at April 28, 2014 10:30 AM (m2CN7)

141 The Weekly standard has up a little story that Rep. McMorris Rogers' statements about ObamaCare may not have actually been said by her. There was no recording of her meeting with a paper's editorial board, just notes.


The Weekly Standard = Bill Kristol = Circle the Wagons = She said it.

Posted by: grognard at April 28, 2014 10:30 AM (/29Nl)

142 "...this corruption applies to me, since this is My Day Job."

Posted by: ace at April 28, 2014 03:23 PM (/FnUH)

That makes no sense.

You are paid for your analysis of current political events. Your level of  "corruption" is only the extent to which you accept payment for spinning the analysis.

I assume that does not occur......

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 28, 2014 10:30 AM (QFxY5)

143 OTOH, I'm not sure a half-cocked Riot Act . . . . Posted by: ace at April 28, 2014 03:23 PM (/FnUH) *types* *deletes* *types* *deletes*

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at April 28, 2014 10:30 AM (mf5HN)

144 Ginger pussy joke is out?? Ginger pussy joke is...out?????

Posted by: eleven at April 28, 2014 10:30 AM (GXZgZ)

145 120 Rand Paul now saying it will be difficult to repeal Barrycare. http://tinyurl.com/kw7gamn Posted by: ManWithNoParty at April 28, 2014 03:25 PM (ojnk6 Meaning, we would like to repeal it, reform it, fix it. But....we haven't done anything with SS since its inception in the 1940s how the fuck do you think we can change something from 4 years ago. Get ready to eat the Shit Sandwich again. No, not a crap sandwich, but a Shit Sandwich.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 28, 2014 10:30 AM (HVff2)

146 109 I think everybody here believes it's just another " Hit Piece " in a long line of hit pieces. Posted by: AmericanDawg at April 28, 2014 03:23 PM (p6iIL) That was my first assessment as well. If you just assume everything the media does has some sort of evil angle, it saves a lot of time.

Posted by: D-Lamp at April 28, 2014 10:30 AM (bb5+k)

147 So now taking a guess is bias? What a puss.

Posted by: nip at April 28, 2014 10:30 AM (jI23+)

148
KOCH BROTHERS KOCH BROTHERS KOCH BROTHERS
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD




In the foul Black Speech of Mordor:

Ash Koch durbatulûk, ash Koch gimbatul,
Ash Koch thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at April 28, 2014 10:31 AM (kdS6q)

149 If you paid congresspeople based on how much money they didn't spend via the budget we'd be much better off. The more they save us the more they make.

Posted by: Sphynx at April 28, 2014 10:31 AM (OZmbA)

150 I saw Half-Cocked Riot open for Flock of Seagulls in '88.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at April 28, 2014 10:31 AM (8ZskC)

151 Nah...I got nuthin'. Posted by: RedMindBlueState at April 28, 2014 03:28 PM (knoK7) That's what she said.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at April 28, 2014 10:31 AM (mf5HN)

152 Yeesh, Pitcairn Island. *that* is what a rape culture looks like. I guess the dispute on the ship was whether to call it the "HMS Booty"
A very brief documentary via SCTV:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJVfiOA8s10

Posted by: [/i]andycanuck[/b] at April 28, 2014 10:31 AM (D+5pt)

153 That makes no sense. You are paid for your analysis of current political events. Your level of "corruption" is only the extent to which you accept payment for spinning the analysis. I assume that does not occur...... Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 28, 2014 03:30 PM (QFxY5 Looking to get out of your weekend duties?

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 28, 2014 10:32 AM (HVff2)

154 OT, but there is a freaking huge tornado on the ground in Yazoo City, MS.

Posted by: Country Singer at April 28, 2014 10:32 AM (L8r/r)

155 6 The Tea Party is an idea, not an organization. I don't know or care how orgs with Tea Party in the name spend their money, they aren't The Tea Party. I always suspected they were just scammers glomming onto something that would get them power/dough, so I can't say I'm surprised in the least. Posted by: arminius at April 28, 2014 02:53 PM (cDnhR) __________ This.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at April 28, 2014 10:32 AM (0LHZx)

156 "Rand Paul now saying it will be difficult to repeal Barrycare."

I was happy to give Rand a chance to prove he could keep his mouth under control, but the last couple of months have shown that he is definitively his father's son in that regard.

Unfortunately, the Ronulan Empire continue to be extremely active under the radar at small regional GOP events, which means that there will be continued Rand victories in things like straw polls.

Posted by: torquewrench at April 28, 2014 10:32 AM (noWW6)

157 By the way, Romney took no salary as Governor.

Posted by: polynikes

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Some make their fortune before they get into politics, many others after.

Posted by: Countrysquire at April 28, 2014 10:32 AM (eEBON)

158 Bitch set me up. Sounds of Silence, my ass. What I am is what I am, bitch.

Posted by: Paul Simon at April 28, 2014 10:32 AM (ZPrif)

159 Are there no honest men left?
***
You know those ground zero pictures they used to generate of what would happen if the Soviets nuked DC? Well, I think you are going to have to start looking out in the fall out free band to find an honest man in Washington....perhaps somewhere in central Virginia?

On a more serious note, we reward corruption and graft more then almost anything else in our society, so we should not be surprised that we have no shortage of men willing to make a career of it in DC.

Posted by: 18-1 at April 28, 2014 10:32 AM (78TbK)

160 Update: Kip Hill, the Spokesman-Review reporter ... referred to his notes. He doesn't have a smartphone with a record app? Shouldn't be no notes, skippy.

Posted by: AmishDude at April 28, 2014 10:33 AM (T0NGe)

161 We figure trying "top down" does not work very well- so we are going from the bottom up. Posted by: backhoe at April 28, 2014 03:14 PM (ULH4o) It takes time and you're correct. Anyone with a bran knew this would take 5-7 election cycles. That's just one reason the BlamestreamMarxists® are all out to destroy it now. Success is being had at the State and Local level. It all takes time.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at April 28, 2014 10:33 AM (XRWgg)

162 The Half-Cocked Riot was an insurrection of dwarfs that stopped lollipop production in Munchkinland for approximately three weeks.

Posted by: Soledad O'Brien's Earpiece at April 28, 2014 10:33 AM (8ZskC)

163

Ash Koch durbatulûk, ash Koch gimbatul,
Ash Koch thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.

 

============

 

Call to Prayer already? *sheesh*

Posted by: Dennis the Peasant at April 28, 2014 10:33 AM (3ZtZW)

164 120 Rand Paul now saying it will be difficult to repeal Barrycare. http://tinyurl.com/kw7gamn Posted by: ManWithNoParty at April 28, 2014 03:25 PM (ojnk6) I believe "Rationalization" is the search for arguments to avoid doing something you don't want to do anyway. Zero it out in the budget, and it is defacto repealed.

Posted by: D-Lamp at April 28, 2014 10:33 AM (bb5+k)

165 That's what she said. Heyyyyyyooooooooooohhhhhhhhh...........

Posted by: eleven at April 28, 2014 10:33 AM (GXZgZ)

166 I'm the only honest man in Congress.

Posted by: Hairy Reed at April 28, 2014 10:33 AM (OZmbA)

167 "Rand Paul now saying it will be difficult to repeal Barrycare.

http://tinyurl.com/kw7gamn

Posted by: ManWithNoParty at April 28, 2014 03:25 PM (ojnk6) "

 

Well, then, lets treat politicians just like I get treated at work.

 

The difficult I expect immediately. The impossible should only take slightly longer.

 

Posted by: West at April 28, 2014 10:33 AM (1Rgee)

168 OTOH, I'm not sure a half-cocked Riot Act post would be a good thing. Posted by: ace at April 28, 2014 03:23 PM (/FnUH) Umm, is there a chakra involved in this?

Posted by: joncelli at April 28, 2014 10:33 AM (RD7QR)

169

Big money goes around the world
Big money give and take
Big money done a power of good
Big money make mistakes

Big money got a heavy hand
Big money take control
Big money got a mean streak
Big money got no soul

Posted by: Simon White-Thatch Potentloins at April 28, 2014 10:33 AM (NnjE8)

170 OT, but there is a freaking huge tornado on the ground in Yazoo City, MS. George Bush hates Yazoo City.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at April 28, 2014 10:34 AM (8ZskC)

171 "NEVER give your money to a 3rd party... Always give it DIRECTLY to the candidate you want to support." __________ Yes to a certain extent. If you know the 3rd party well, like say NRA, you might be better off giving your money to it as opposed to a candidate. Candidates, especially challengers will say anything to get your money. Once in office they often forget what they said. Well established 3rd parties though, you can trust to keep on saying the same thing.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at April 28, 2014 10:34 AM (0LHZx)

172 Choke me in the shallow water was a metaphor, asshole.

Posted by: Edie Brickell at April 28, 2014 10:34 AM (ZPrif)

173 >>>That makes no sense. You are paid for your analysis of current political events. Your level of "corruption" is only the extent to which you accept payment for spinning the analysis. I assume that does not occur...... ... No I take no money for spinning, of course. But what I'm saying is that sometimes my analysis isn't 100% Pure Ace. I balance it, I self-censor. I thinks particular case, I think self-censorship and "balance" actually served me well, because my first instinct would have been to just rip these guys. For example, Jenny Beth Martin's $450,000 per year salary seems way out of line to me. That seems to be the kind of salary someone "earns" when she herself is voting on her own salary. So that's what I mean by "corrupting." Before I wrote this, I took a breath, considered the various factions in this audience, and wrote something that would be generally acceptable to most (if a bit bland). Though I have to say that kind of "corruption" isn't always bad, unless one postulates that one's first, unconsidered visceral emotional reaction is the "True reaction" which should always be published.

Posted by: ace at April 28, 2014 10:34 AM (/FnUH)

174 You know those ground zero pictures they used to generate of what would happen if the Soviets nuked DC? fap-fap-fap-fap-fap-fap.....

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at April 28, 2014 10:34 AM (XRWgg)

175 /sock

Posted by: Bigby's Semaphore Hands at April 28, 2014 10:34 AM (3ZtZW)

176

Slavery seemed hard to repal too in the 1850's.

 

Posted by: The Obvious Sock at April 28, 2014 10:34 AM (W6iIX)

177 >>13 How much does the Clinton Foundation spend annually on thongs?

Posted by: tsj017 at April 28, 2014 02:56 PM (4YUWF)

<<



Hey, we may be small but if there's one thing we ain't it's half-cocked.

Posted by: The Munchkins at April 28, 2014 10:34 AM (OZmbA)

178 One thing to consider is how Tea Party groups spending efforts are influenced by harassment from the IRS.

Posted by: Null at April 28, 2014 10:34 AM (P7hip)

179 "That's what she said.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at April 28, 2014 03:31 PM"

Aaaaand...that about sums up the Monday I'm having.

Posted by: RedMindBlueState at April 28, 2014 10:35 AM (knoK7)

180 Glad to see that a completely non-partisan, unbiased news organization like the Washington Post is conducting this important analysis. Yes. Sure.

Posted by: Stu-22 at April 28, 2014 10:35 AM (AiYlm)

181 By the way, Romney took no salary as Governor. Posted by: polynikes at April 28, 2014 03:30 PM (m2CN7) I don't believe most people with a $250 million net worth are too worried about governor's salary. I will bet that millionaires would be willing to forego any salary if the lower net worth rabble would stop trying to get into office. Just imagine the fraction of 1% of the budget not paying any elected official would save us.

Posted by: jwest at April 28, 2014 10:35 AM (u2a4R)

182 Get ready to eat the Shit Sandwich again. No, not a crap sandwich, but a Shit Sandwich.
***
Orwell was almost right. Imagine the government shoving shit sandwiches in human faces... forever.

Posted by: 18-1 at April 28, 2014 10:35 AM (78TbK)

183

Posted by: Edie Brickell at April 28, 2014 03:34 PM (ZPrif)

 

is it true you husband is 72yo and you are 48yo?

Posted by: The Obvious Sock at April 28, 2014 10:36 AM (W6iIX)

184 I swear, officer, she'd been walking on slippery rocks. She gets philosophical when she drinks. Ask her, she tell you, she's not aware of too many things.

Posted by: Paul Simon at April 28, 2014 10:36 AM (ZPrif)

185 I don't give money to these groups but I don't see how we compete without something like general issue groups. That's how the left has operated for years.

AFP of PA does some really good work - against Common Core, specific tax issues that come up on the ballot, etc. They sponsor panels on campuses, hold tax day rallies, organize protests outside of specific legislator's offices. They're very active and I've attended a number of their events.

But these groups CAN'T work on behalf of a specific candidate or they lose their tax exempt status (if they are able to get it). So why is that a valid criticism?

Posted by: jeannebodine at April 28, 2014 10:36 AM (2LJqa)

186 Pic of the Yazoo City tornado: http://tinyurl.com/k4tjm9r

Posted by: Country Singer at April 28, 2014 10:37 AM (L8r/r)

187 116 ---Posted by: jwest at April 28, 2014 03:24 PM (u2a4R) ----------------- Leaving aside your strawmen, the notion that paying a Congressman more would help is highly dubious. Is there any correlation between a Cong's financial worth and his cronyism? Does the poorest Cong cut more deals than multi-millionaire Nancy Pelosi? Does Pelosi's fabulous wealth restrain her from exempting American Samoa from the minimum wage laws just so her hubby can make a few more bucks off his tuna cannery? Human beings and "self-interest" are not so simple.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at April 28, 2014 10:37 AM (dfYL9)

188 Oh, and we're being prepared for the GOP punting on repeal of BambiCare. The next meme will be "Fix and extend."

Posted by: joncelli at April 28, 2014 10:37 AM (RD7QR)

189 Just imagine the fraction of 1% of the budget not paying any elected official would save us.
***
If you consider the history of western governments going back to the Renaissance traditionally, government officials purchased their offices with the understanding that they would then find ways to personally profit from them.

And unfortunately by traditionally I mean now.

Posted by: 18-1 at April 28, 2014 10:37 AM (78TbK)

190 Does anyone believe any thing the MSM says?? Posted by: The Obvious -------------------------- Huh? What do you mean?

Posted by: Typical LIV at April 28, 2014 10:38 AM (aDwsi)

191
By the way, Romney took no salary as Governor.
Posted by: polynikes




"In 2006, his last year as governor, Romney spent all or part of 212 days out of state, laying the foundation for his anticipated presidential campaign."

Seems like he got paid what he earned.....

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at April 28, 2014 10:38 AM (kdS6q)

192 The Weekly Standard = Bill Kristol = Circle the Wagons = She said it.

Posted by: grognard at April 28, 2014 03:30 PM (/29Nl)

 

 

Your Faith is Strong.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - Let the Warmth of Spring Grow your Rage at the Outrage Outlet at April 28, 2014 10:38 AM (hLRSq)

193 A 25 thousand dollar voucher to Congressmen would cure everything.

Posted by: toby928 at April 28, 2014 10:38 AM (QupBk)

194 Many people have entered politics thinking their Values would keep them clean, and then have wound up being part of the System within... two or three years. It reminds me of John McCain. The only reason he got on the whole campaign finance reform bandwagon is that he got caught with his hand in the Keating cookie jar. Actually 4 Dems had their hands in the cookie jar, McCain only got a few crumbs on him, but it had to be a bipartisan scandal, so... He was so devastated and so much of the belief that he is a Good Person and that Good People don't do Bad Things that it must be the fault of the system.

Posted by: AmishDude at April 28, 2014 10:38 AM (T0NGe)

195 I'm leaving, if you're just going to compare me to a rock.

Posted by: Edie Brickell at April 28, 2014 10:38 AM (XRWgg)

196 But what I'm saying is that sometimes my analysis isn't 100% Pure Ace. In other words, it is what we used to call manners. You kind of imply something is not quite kosher....instead of just screaming "CORRUPTION" from the first mountaintop you can find. Which is actually refreshing.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at April 28, 2014 10:39 AM (OWjjx)

197 Well it's WAPO so I'll hold fire. I am utterly disgusted at all of it. I used to silently mock and chuckle at people who decried that. "Your vote doesn't really matter and that everything was run with money!" I did not have a cynics heart yet. I've come full circle. The amnesty stab was my last thin firewall of any perception that any of them have any honor.

Posted by: Minnfidel at April 28, 2014 10:39 AM (/KiIU)

198 "Pic of the Yazoo City tornado: http://tinyurl.com/k4tjm9r" God Almighty.....

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at April 28, 2014 10:39 AM (gOoFi)

199 I'm the rock. I'm a freakin' island.

Posted by: Paul Simon at April 28, 2014 10:40 AM (ZPrif)

200 A 25 thousand dollar voucher to Congressmen would cure everything.

Posted by: toby928© at April 28, 2014 03:38 PM (QupBk)


-----


I thought it was a pay raise..... but I have a hard time keeping these things straight....

Posted by: fixerupper at April 28, 2014 10:40 AM (nELVU)

201

Give no money to either PACs or Candidates!

Give ALL monies directly to ACE and he shall spend it wisely for us. Magically, the world will sort itself out.

f'rinstance, I've foregone much-needed surgeries and wound up homeless, but ACE sent me this magical prayer rug that my mouse sits on and, well, now all is right with the world

Posted by: Bigby's Semaphore Hands at April 28, 2014 10:40 AM (3ZtZW)

202 Another thought about conservative ineffectuality in primaries:

We wouldn't have Senator Ted Cruz if not for the runoff rules in Texas primaries.

Changing the rules to make primaries runoff friendly in other states that currently do not have runoffs would open things up, allow conservative support to coalesce during the runoff stage, and make RINO incumbents more vulnerable.

Instant-runoff is particularly interesting. And it's cheap to implement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

Posted by: torquewrench at April 28, 2014 10:40 AM (noWW6)

203 Posted by: ace at April 28, 2014 03:34 PM (/FnUH)

Well, I disagree with your choice of the word, "corruption," but I see your point.

But "100% Pure Ace" is exactly what we got. Your tone seems to be moderated from an initial radical stance in many of your posts, which allows a more analytical reading (at least for me).

If I want foaming-at-the-mouth lunacy I'll just read the comments.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 28, 2014 10:40 AM (QFxY5)

204 187 116 ---Posted by: jwest at April 28, 2014 03:24 PM (u2a4R) don't feed the troll.....

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 28, 2014 10:41 AM (HVff2)

205 I did not have a cynics heart yet. I've come full circle. The amnesty stab was my last thin firewall of any perception that any of them have any honor. Don't despair. Never give up. *positions football again*

Posted by: Lucy at April 28, 2014 10:41 AM (8ZskC)

206 I give all my money to Zombie Reagan.

Posted by: eleven at April 28, 2014 10:41 AM (GXZgZ)

207 Rocks have feelings, you know....

Posted by: Edie Brickell at April 28, 2014 10:41 AM (XRWgg)

208 "In 2006, his last year as governor, Romney spent all or part of 212 days out of state, laying the foundation for his anticipated presidential campaign."

Seems like he got paid what he earned.....

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at April 28, 2014 03:38 PM (kdS6q)

 

That 'part of' portion of that sentence should tell you something.  But haters gotta hate. 

Posted by: polynikes at April 28, 2014 10:41 AM (m2CN7)

209 Nice scam!  Wish I'd thought of this!

This is why nothing should be tax deductible.  Get rid of ALL 401(xx) charities unless religious.  Get rid of ALL deductions period.

If you want to volunteer your time to do something political, fine.. do it.. if someone wants to send you some money to do it.. fine.. but they don't get a tax deduction, and it's all personal income to you.

Posted by: Chi-town Jerry at April 28, 2014 10:42 AM (Z7PrM)

210 The Tea Party should be protesting in front of these pols homes 7x24. Like the leftists. I brought this up at our local TP meeting. It was not received well and was the last meeting I attended.

Posted by: NSA at April 28, 2014 10:42 AM (thLL8)

211 149 If you paid congresspeople based on how much money they didn't spend via the budget we'd be much better off. The more they save us the more they make. Posted by: Sphynx at April 28, 2014 03:31 PM (OZmbA) --------------------------------- Maybe-----but more likely they would find that cronyism pays even more. And it may be more fun.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at April 28, 2014 10:42 AM (dfYL9)

212 Oh, and we're being prepared for the GOP punting on repeal of BambiCare. The next meme will be "Fix and extend." Or they're acknowledging the obvious reality that it's going to take 60 votes in the Senate, a House majority and a Republican president for repeal, and that those stars aren't going to align in the near future.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 28, 2014 10:42 AM (SY2Kh)

213 The next meme will be "Fix and extend." Posted by: joncelli at April 28, 2014 03:37 PM (RD7QR) The Rand Paul thing just shows how worthless libertarians are. If self-professed libertarians can't be trusted to roll back government programs, then what the hell good are they? This thing is horribly unpopular and nobody's really hooked on it yet. Well, nobody that's not voting Dem anyway. (That's the "problem", government programs operate under the same theory as a drug dealer.) You scrap it in exchange for a minor expansion of Medicaid, call it "Obamacare" and let President wee wee claim victory.

Posted by: AmishDude at April 28, 2014 10:42 AM (T0NGe)

214 Jeez, and now Tupelo, MS about to take a multi-vortex.

Posted by: Country Singer at April 28, 2014 10:43 AM (L8r/r)

215 Fucking spook sock off.

Posted by: Behind Enemy Lines at April 28, 2014 10:43 AM (thLL8)

216 One thing to consider is how Tea Party groups spending efforts are influenced by harassment from the IRS. Posted by: Null ---------------- The IRS has done nothing wrong. So, no, I will not respond to any pointed questions or data that indicate otherwise, because shut up.

Posted by: Lois Lerner and Quisling Dems. at April 28, 2014 10:43 AM (aDwsi)

217 Look, I know what I know. Who am I to blow against the wind? I'm Paul Fucking Simon, that's who!

Posted by: Paul Simon at April 28, 2014 10:43 AM (ZPrif)

218

If I want foaming-at-the-mouth lunacy I'll just read the comments.

 

Another cheap shot from you, joo h8r.

Posted by: the guy who will not let go of this meme at April 28, 2014 10:44 AM (JtwS4)

219 206 I give all my money to Zombie Reagan. Posted by: eleven at April 28, 2014 03:41 PM (GXZgZ) If you started a PAC called "Zombie Reagan", you'd probably clean up. *thumbs through PAC Start-Ups for Dummies*

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at April 28, 2014 10:44 AM (XRWgg)

220 Alternate post title: Irony: WaPo Claims Tea Party Orgs Operate Just Like Big Government

Posted by: Soothsayer at April 28, 2014 10:44 AM (j4y5j)

221 Male odor could even influence human clinical trials.


I know when the third-world fuckers who don't bathe get on the train, all of the other men want to kill them with fire.

There's an impromptu trial for you.

Posted by: grognard at April 28, 2014 10:44 AM (/29Nl)

222 218 If I want foaming-at-the-mouth lunacy I'll just read the comments. Another cheap shot from you, joo h8r. Posted by: the guy who will not let go of this meme at April 28, 2014 03:44 PM (JtwS4 SNORT

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 28, 2014 10:44 AM (HVff2)

223 Give no money to either PACs or Candidates!
Give ALL monies directly to ACE and he shall spend it wisely for us. Magically, the world will sort itself out.
Posted by: Bigby's Semaphore Hands
.........
Hookers and Val-U-Rite would be better spending of donations than these pretend conservatives giving themselves 6 figure salaries.

Posted by: Chi-town Jerry at April 28, 2014 10:44 AM (Z7PrM)

224 Instant-runoff is particularly interesting. And it's cheap to implement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting Posted by: torquewrench at April 28, 2014 03:40 PM (noWW6) Been advocating that for several decades. First learned how inherently screwed up is our normal voting in the book "Archimedes Revenge." http://www.amazon.com/Archimedes-Revenge-Joys-Perils-Mathematics/dp/0393327752 Numbered Voting would have prevented that worthless piece of shit Bill Clinton from ever being President.

Posted by: D-Lamp at April 28, 2014 10:44 AM (bb5+k)

225 Posted by: Paul Simon at April 28, 2014 03:43 PM (ZPrif)

http://tinyurl.com/m56ddpe

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 28, 2014 10:45 AM (QFxY5)

226 *thumbs through PAC Start-Ups for Dummies* Posted by: 98ZJUSMC ------------ Be sure you have the latest edition. It includes IRS 'keywords' to be avoided.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at April 28, 2014 10:46 AM (aDwsi)

227 Man, in couple of days they're gonna take me away when the press lets the story leak.

Posted by: Paul Simon at April 28, 2014 10:46 AM (ZPrif)

228 Posted by: the guy who will not let go of this meme at April 28, 2014 03:44 PM (JtwS4)

This never gets old.

Thank you for the chuckle.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 28, 2014 10:46 AM (QFxY5)

229 Or they're acknowledging the obvious reality that it's going to take 60 votes in the Senate, a House majority and a Republican president for repeal, and that those stars aren't going to align in the near future.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 28, 2014 03:42 PM (SY2Kh)

 

 

So, you're trying to reason people out of a position they emotioned themselves into?  Good luck.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - Let the Warmth of Spring Grow your Rage at the Outrage Outlet at April 28, 2014 10:46 AM (hLRSq)

230 On a serious note, are they gonna strip him of his first award? Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at April 28, 2014 03:23 PM (X2NEw) No, according to the current NAALCP president, who also made sure everyone knew that he wasn't the one who gave Sterling the first award.

Posted by: Jen at April 28, 2014 10:46 AM (/CN/i)

231 Astroturf, bitches. R

Posted by: akula51[/b][/i][/s] at April 28, 2014 10:47 AM (sAXJ5)

232 "Does Pelosi's fabulous wealth restrain her from exempting American Samoa from the minimum wage laws just so her hubby can make a few more bucks off his tuna cannery? " Pelosi is a product of the congressional pay system we have in place now. Only those who have nothing or those with net worth in the millions can afford to run for national office. The vast majority of people who would be qualified and desirable in the congress or senate have lifestyles and commitments that couldn't be maintained on the current salaries. Doctors, farmers, small businessmen, accountants, etc. couldn't leave their professions and maintain their current expenses along with additional expenses of living in D.C. on less than they are making today. Once there, why not try what has worked since the dawn of mankind - a bonus for performance. The only thing holding back a plan like that is people's personal jealousy of someone making more money than they do.

Posted by: jwest at April 28, 2014 10:48 AM (u2a4R)

233 Or they're acknowledging the obvious reality that it's going to take 60 votes in the Senate, a House majority and a Republican president for repeal, and that those stars aren't going to align in the near future. Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 28, 2014 03:42 PM (SY2Kh) Tell that to Tip O'neill. He would have zeroed it out of the budget, and said "Fuck you very much." Of course our side plays the game like a bunch of pussies.

Posted by: D-Lamp at April 28, 2014 10:48 AM (bb5+k)

234 Be sure you have the latest edition. It includes IRS 'keywords' to be avoided. Posted by: Mike Hammer at April 28, 2014 03:46 PM (aDwsi) gasp! *checks back cover* IRS Approved Edition Fuck.......

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at April 28, 2014 10:48 AM (XRWgg)

235 Payin us more money means we teech the kidz bettah.

Posted by: chicago teachers union at April 28, 2014 10:49 AM (D+5pt)

236 You know how people used to call you the human trampoline? That wasn't a compliment. To hell with this. I'm going to Graceland.

Posted by: Paul Simon at April 28, 2014 10:49 AM (ZPrif)

237 This is why I never give a dime to any "official" tea party anything ...

Posted by: Janetoo at April 28, 2014 10:49 AM (L3Itw)

238 Once there, why not try what has worked since the dawn of mankind - a bonus for performance.

The only thing holding back a plan like that is people's personal jealousy of someone making more money than they do.

Posted by: jwest at April 28, 2014 03:48 PM (u2a4R)

 

Now you change it to a bonus for performance.  What happened to the big increase in salary  position?

Posted by: polynikes at April 28, 2014 10:49 AM (m2CN7)

239 Pic of the Yazoo City tornado: http://tinyurl.com/k4tjm9r That is what is commonly known as an EF-Holyshit tornado. What. A. Monster.

Posted by: Brother Cavil, KERMIT partisan at April 28, 2014 10:50 AM (rt3TY)

240 IRS Approved Edition Fuck....... Posted by: 98ZJUSMC --------------------- Good thing you guys have us Doggies to think for you.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at April 28, 2014 10:50 AM (aDwsi)

241 "I know Harry is trying to do to them what was done to Romney in 2012 ..." When will the Koch brothers run ads asking the question: "How did Harry get his money?"

Posted by: Arbalest at April 28, 2014 10:50 AM (FlRtG)

242
But haters gotta hate.
Posted by: polynikes



I'd have mentioned that Romney's Lt. Gov didn't take a salary either, but that might tarnish the halo that some are trying to place upon St. Mitt.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at April 28, 2014 10:51 AM (kdS6q)

243 Why am I soft in the middle? Cause the rest of my life is so freakin' hard. D'you know what I mean? Do ya?

Posted by: Paul Simon at April 28, 2014 10:51 AM (ZPrif)

244 Have gotten to to read the comments or the main piece of propaganda but did they do any comparison to how similar liberal groups appear to spend their money? Because right now to me this just seems like another hitjob for "see it's a good thing that the irs was investigating these shady groups!!!!"

Posted by: Buzzion at April 28, 2014 10:51 AM (z/Ubi)

245 Of course our side plays the game like a bunch of pussies.
___
That's cute.

Its like you think we are trying to "win".

Oh wait, I mean totally, just vote in, uh, 435 Republicans to Congress and we will get rid of Obamacare. And gravity. So remember to give me some money. For the kids. Uh, failing and such.

Posted by: Speak Boehner at April 28, 2014 10:51 AM (78TbK)

246 The GOP is telling us a) they won't repeal Obamacare and b) they will pursue amnesty. Onward loyal soldiers!

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at April 28, 2014 10:51 AM (X9npt)

247 Doctors, farmers, small businessmen, accountants, etc. couldn't leave their professions and maintain their current expenses along with additional expenses of living in D.C. on less than they are making today. Posted by: jwest at April 28, 2014 03:48 PM (u2a4R) You've perhaps heard of Tom Coburn? Dr. Tom Coburn?

Posted by: D-Lamp at April 28, 2014 10:52 AM (bb5+k)

248 Of course our side plays the game like a bunch of pussies. Posted by: D-Lamp at April 28, 2014 03:48 PM (bb5+k) Why, I looked up in Webster's Dictionary the definition of pussy. It told me The Republican Party also known as the GOP.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 28, 2014 10:52 AM (HVff2)

249 So is the author(s) related to anyone at the WH or one of their associates, such as Media Matters or CAP? Their recent Koch hit job comes to mind.

Posted by: Lizzy at April 28, 2014 10:52 AM (8zTpe)

250

Mitt Romney is a looser and a wimp.

John McCain is a looser and a wimp( current era).

 

 

Posted by: The Obvious Sock at April 28, 2014 10:52 AM (W6iIX)

251 98 - his second lifetime achievement award

??  How the hell does someone win a second lifetime achievement award?!

Posted by: Null at April 28, 2014 10:52 AM (P7hip)

252 The GOP is telling us a) they won't repeal Obamacare and b) they will pursue amnesty.
___
And remember, that's just what we are telling you we are going to screw you over with.


Posted by: Speak Boehner at April 28, 2014 10:52 AM (78TbK)

253 Good thing you guys have us Doggies to think for you. Posted by: Mike Hammer at April 28, 2014 03:50 PM (aDwsi) If I ever find the swab jockey that sold me that edition.... Why, I'm gonna... *winds up fist, then grabs for beer*

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at April 28, 2014 10:52 AM (XRWgg)

254 208 "In 2006, his last year as governor, Romney spent all or part of 212 days out of state, laying the foundation for his anticipated presidential campaign."Seems like he got paid what he earned..... Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at April 28, 2014 03:38 PM (kdS6q) That 'part of' portion of that sentence should tell you something. But haters gotta hate. Posted by: polynikes at April 28, 2014 03:41 PM (m2CN7) __________ How many of those days were in New Hampshire which is a 45 minute drive from Boston? And how many were also weekend days? But as you say, haters gonna hate

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at April 28, 2014 10:52 AM (0LHZx)

255 Tell that to Tip O'neill. He would have zeroed it out of the budget, and said "Fuck you very much." And Reagan would've vetoed it.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 28, 2014 10:52 AM (SY2Kh)

256 "Tell that to Tip O'neill. He would have zeroed it out of the budget, and said 'Fuck you very much.'"

Chris Matthews has a new book out on the topic of "When Politics Worked" or some such thing, about the O'Neill era in Congress.

And for liberals, politics DID work in that era. Worked in their favor. Because O'Neill was a lying, cheating, hard-edged, nasty piece of work who delivered the goods for the left. A House equivalent of Harry Reid. For liberals, what's there not to love?

Posted by: torquewrench at April 28, 2014 10:53 AM (noWW6)

257 I really think what happens is that every R and D take a secret solemn oath when they enter Congress -- What happens in Congress, Stays in Congress...unless it's a Republican.

Posted by: Soothsayer at April 28, 2014 10:53 AM (j4y5j)

258 Mitt Romney is a looser and a wimp.
John McCain is a looser and a wimp( current era).
___
Hey, I'm tanned, rested and ready wingnuts.

Let's go get us some Amnesty!

Posted by: Jeb Bush at April 28, 2014 10:53 AM (78TbK)

259 Tell that to Tip O'neill. He would have zeroed it out of the budget, and said "Fuck you very much."


Of course our side plays the game like a bunch of pussies.


Posted by: D-Lamp at April 28, 2014 03:48 PM (bb5+k

 

What budget?  Or do we want to go back to another government shutdown confrontation?  The last time it didn't work out so well for the Republicans as they got blamed for everything because the general voting public - which way outnumbers the Horde - does not want a government shutdown.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - Let the Warmth of Spring Grow your Rage at the Outrage Outlet at April 28, 2014 10:53 AM (hLRSq)

260 The practice is not unusual in the freewheeling world of big-money political groups, but it runs counter to the ethos of the tea party movement, which sprouted five years ago amid anger on the right over wasteful government spending. And it contrasts with the urgent appeals tea party groups have made to their base of small donors, many of whom repeatedly contribute after being promised that their money will help elect conservative politicians. First, how does the practice run counter to the ethos? Because the tea party wants the gov't to spend less, the tea party groups should use more of their donations directly on candidates? Someone please explain the logic there. Is that reporting? Is it a "fact" that the "Tea Party Ethos" is that a higher percentage of donations would go directly to candidates? I hate what passes for thinking and analysis amongst just about everyone I encounter in the world. Next, as someone who agrees mightily with much of "tea party" thought, but who despises most of the GOP, I really have no problem with tea party groups spending much, much, much, much more of their money on pushing conservatism rather than trying to get GOP candidates elected. It seems to me that the GOP is more of a hurdle to the tea party groups' goals than a friend, so I'm not so certain that the best use of tea party money is on direct candidate expenditures. So, again, what part of the "tea party ethos" exactly is being undermined in the tea party groups' expenditures? It is entirely possible that the tea party groups are spending inefficiently, or unwisely, or even that some of the people in the groups are corrupt and featherbedding, but this article - like all hit pieces - does not investigation, finds no facts, in fact offers nothing of value. It merely finds that tea party groups don't use a high percentage of their donations on direct candidate expenditures and then concludes - based on nothing - that the tea party is somehow abandoning its values. Truly pathetic.

Posted by: Monkeytoe at April 28, 2014 10:53 AM (3ZtZW)

261 Now you change it to a bonus for performance. What happened to the big increase in salary position? Posted by: polynikes at April 28, 2014 03:49 PM (m2CN7) I favor a raise in base pay and a bonus for performance, but that's just me. The big point is the $500,000 bonus if the goal of passing a balanced budget that does not exceed 19% of GDP on time is met.

Posted by: jwest at April 28, 2014 10:54 AM (u2a4R)

262 I'd have mentioned that Romney's Lt. Gov didn't take a salary either, but that might tarnish the halo that some are trying to place upon St. Mitt.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at April 28, 2014 03:51 PM (kdS6q)

 

No that just further supports my argument and purpose of my post  in the first place   in response to jwest.    You  just decided you needed to bash Romney again  because again,  haters gotta hate. 

Posted by: polynikes at April 28, 2014 10:54 AM (m2CN7)

263
Your Faith is Strong.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - Let the Warmth of Spring Grow your Rage at the Outrage Outlet at April 28, 2014 03:38 PM (hLRSq)


Sorry, no one in GOP "leadership" gets benefit of the doubt that they haven't earned.  They've done more to piss it away than earn it.


Cute concept, though.

Posted by: grognard at April 28, 2014 10:54 AM (/29Nl)

264 You've perhaps heard of Tom Coburn? Dr. Tom Coburn? Posted by: D-Lamp at April 28, 2014 03:52 PM (bb5+k) **** Or Dr. Rand Paul, Dr. Tom Price and Dr. Ron Paul......

Posted by: ManWithNoParty at April 28, 2014 10:54 AM (ojnk6)

265 "How the hell does someone win a second lifetime achievement award?!"

Remember, this is a culture where Barack Obama could write two autobiographies of himself before he was out of his forties, without being laughed at for it.

Posted by: torquewrench at April 28, 2014 10:55 AM (noWW6)

266 I'd be all for paying politicians $1M a year. When you're making $1M a year legally, there' little incentive to try and make $1M a year via bribes/kickbacks.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at April 28, 2014 10:55 AM (0LHZx)

267 Mitt Romney was against the Arizona bill which would protect businesses who object to jobs due to religious reasons. He can eat a bag of dicks like all the other fascist scumbags.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at April 28, 2014 10:55 AM (X9npt)

268 Havent* gotten Stupid iPhone.

Posted by: Buzzion at April 28, 2014 10:55 AM (z/Ubi)

269 "in this year’s midterm elections" is a key phrase. They are complaining about money not spent in a primary, but spinning it to sound nefarious. Right or wrong as that is...

Posted by: Lumpy at April 28, 2014 10:55 AM (wBXLy)

270 Tornadoes - Count-down to Global Climate Change spin : 10, 9, 8.....

Posted by: Mike Hammer at April 28, 2014 10:55 AM (aDwsi)

271 Or they're acknowledging the obvious reality that it's going to take 60 votes in the Senate, a House majority and a Republican president for repeal, and that those stars aren't going to align in the near future. Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 28, 2014 03:42 PM (SY2Kh) So, you're trying to reason people out of a position they emotioned themselves into? Good luck. Posted by: Mikey NTH - Let the Warmth of Spring Grow your Rage at the Outrage Outlet at April 28, 2014 03:46 PM (hLRSq) Considering that most of the population, INCLUDING many conservatives, etc. like the 'stick it to the insurance companies" provisions such as not being denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions, no lifetime caps, etc.(these same people conveniently forget how that drives up cost) and that the insurance companies have now structured insurance around this law that they have been aware of for the past four years, making a repeal an instant cluster for the insurance companies unless they get another four years to actuary and rework the plans. It seems that the prudent thing to do isn't a complete repeal, but rather a hunt and peck type of situation. Starting with removing the few actual mandates left, and replacing those with carrots, again, that wouldn't be in effect for several years. More changes would have to come, but how do you remove 40,000 pages of regulations in one fell swoop without it causing major damage? This thing is now embedded in our system, and while I believe it is a cancer, simply pulling the plug on it without provisions to address the damage done doesn't seem any smarter than when it was enacted.

Posted by: Jen at April 28, 2014 10:56 AM (/CN/i)

272 Line this Boehner chap up for the second annual Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence award, Smithers.

Posted by: c.m. burns at April 28, 2014 10:56 AM (D+5pt)

273 #teacostsmoneyyo...payupsucker

Posted by: MilitarizedThugCopJoe at April 28, 2014 10:56 AM (s+Cb9)

274

>>>The GOP is telling us a) they won't repeal Obamacare and b) they will pursue amnesty.

 

Nice platform you got there, fellas

Posted by: Bigby's Semaphore Hands at April 28, 2014 10:56 AM (3ZtZW)

275 And Reagan would've vetoed it. Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 28, 2014 03:52 PM (SY2Kh) Sure he would have, but the next budget submitted would have still had it. Oh, and Reagan DID get the blame for shutting down the government.

Posted by: D-Lamp at April 28, 2014 10:56 AM (bb5+k)

276 Hell, this is probably a GOPe hit piece, not a Dem hit piece. Haven't the GOPe been on this bandwagon for months. The only time the MSM is willing to carry the GOP's water is when it's against the Tea Party or the grassroots because that might a threat to the Ruling Class.

Posted by: jeannebodine at April 28, 2014 10:56 AM (2LJqa)

277 198?
Gawd a'mighty indeed. Prayers sent. Can't hurt.

Posted by: backhoe at April 28, 2014 10:56 AM (ULH4o)

278 I favor a raise in base pay and a bonus for performance, but that's just me. The big point is the $500,000 bonus if the goal of passing a balanced budget that does not exceed 19% of GDP on time is met.

Posted by: jwest at April 28, 2014 03:54 PM (u2a4R)

 

Yes that bonus system  worked well at the VA.  

Posted by: polynikes at April 28, 2014 10:57 AM (m2CN7)

279 Dumb: Dem Rep. Keith Ellison Decries Money In Politics – Dumber: While Soliciting Money For A Union Front Group… Oh Keith, why must you make it so easy? Weasel Zippers: Dumb bastard

Posted by: Nevergiveup at April 28, 2014 10:57 AM (t3UFN)

280 Why are we arguing about Mitt Romney? He is not going to run and if he did, well, Mitt, I have bad news for you. 2016 is not going to be 2012......you will not be running against the Rick Santorums and Michelle Bachmanns of the world (o.k.....maybe against Santorum....but he isn't going anywhere either).

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at April 28, 2014 10:57 AM (OWjjx)

281 Psst. Hey, don't give any money to those teabaggers. They're just as corrupt as the GOP.

Posted by: Wapooper at April 28, 2014 10:57 AM (yn6XZ)

282 Sorry, no one in GOP "leadership" gets benefit of the doubt that they haven't earned. They've done more to piss it away than earn it. Cute concept, though. Posted by: grognard at April 28, 2014 03:54 PM (/29Nl) Noooooo....no, no, no. Long gone.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at April 28, 2014 10:57 AM (XRWgg)

283 1) Promise not to fix problem that you plan to ride on a wave to victory. 2) Promise to pass a bill that will kill you in the future and enrage your voters. 3) Expect giant victory. 4) Lose 5) Think problem is you were too rightwing. Push to nove leftward.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at April 28, 2014 10:58 AM (X9npt)

284 I'd be all for paying politicians $1M a year. When you're making $1M a year legally, there' little incentive to try and make $1M a year via bribes/kickbacks.
***
When was the last time a federal politician with a D by his name was sent to prison for bribes/kickbacks?

Sure idiots like Jackon jr get caught stealing campaign funds but the smarter ones like Pelosi or Reid know they are never going to pay a price.

Start throwing those guys in jail and you'll see an immediate change...

Posted by: 18-1 at April 28, 2014 10:58 AM (78TbK)

285 266 I'd be all for paying politicians $1M a year. When you're making $1M a year legally, there' little incentive to try and make $1M a year via bribes/kickbacks. Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at April 28, 2014 03:55 PM (0LHZx) That's the funniest fucking thing I've ever seen you say. You actually believe that? What an idiot.

Posted by: Buzzion at April 28, 2014 10:58 AM (z/Ubi)

286 You've perhaps heard of Tom Coburn? Dr. Tom Coburn? Posted by: D-Lamp at April 28, 2014 03:52 PM (bb5+k) Dr. Tom Coburn apparently has been successful enough to not worry about his reduced income. Otherwise, Mrs. Colburn would have certainly told him to keep seeing patients instead of fucking around with politics.

Posted by: jwest at April 28, 2014 10:59 AM (u2a4R)

287 So, again, what part of the "tea party ethos" exactly is being undermined in the tea party groups' expenditures? Nothing, assuming their "ethos" is to enrich themselves financially. I'm pretty sure that's not what Grandpa had in mind when he donated money to them though.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 28, 2014 10:59 AM (SY2Kh)

288

Nothing wrong with paying people to do political work. Idealism is worthless if by 'idealism' you mean right-thinking people sitting around all day thinking idealistic thoughts and fantasizing what they'll do when and if they finally attain real political power. I mean, when in the hell did conservatives become starry-eyed idiots thinking goals could be accomplished without, you know, actually forking over some hard cash?

 

Here's the downside to professional operatives and consultants: some of them aren't worth a damn. I understand Romney's campaign hired whole platoons of high-priced consultants and media experts polling specialists and the like. Their failure was monumental, but Romney was the man in charge.

 

Speaking of which, I'd done giving Mitt Romney a pass on his miserable performance in the last presidential election. Now, whenever I think of  Romney's deplorable campaign with ORCA and all that other crap, all I can think about is that Alec Baldwin Glengary Glen Ross monologue: "Nice guy? I don't give a shit. Good father? Fuck you! Go home and play with your kids. You wanna work here - close!" 

 

No harder game than politics. I don't care if the GOP or the Tea Party or NRA or whomever else I support uses professionals or amateurs, rides first class, buys new china or spends it all on hookers and blow, as long as they win.

Posted by: troyriser at April 28, 2014 10:59 AM (V9ol4)

289 279 Dumb: Dem Rep. Keith Ellison Decries Money In Politics – Dumber: While Soliciting Money For A Union Front Group… Oh Keith, why must you make it so easy? Weasel Zippers: Dumb bastard Posted by: Nevergiveup at April 28, 2014 03:57 PM (t3UFN) *crickets*

Posted by: MSM Now, with Glycerin Vibrafoam! at April 28, 2014 10:59 AM (XRWgg)

290 I'd be all for paying politicians $1M a year. When you're making $1M a year legally, there' little incentive to try and make $1M a year via bribes/kickbacks. Having $1M would decentivize you from wanting $2M?

Posted by: eleven at April 28, 2014 10:59 AM (GXZgZ)

291
I love when Dems have to do contortions to fit their ideology....

Latino Assemblyman:  Asians are not people of color.

http://tinyurl.com/md9gykh


link stolen from insty.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at April 28, 2014 10:59 AM (hJauc)

292 Damn, the Tupelo tornado is bad enough that it's left "debris signature" on radar.

Posted by: Country Singer at April 28, 2014 11:00 AM (L8r/r)

293 But as you say, haters gonna hate Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at April 28, 2014 03:52 PM (0LHZx) If the Bovine Bloviator says so.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 28, 2014 11:00 AM (HVff2)

294 I guess I will point out the obvious.  It is better to give to a Tea Party group which doesn't spend a dime on an election than to the Republican party which spends a metric butt ton on getting people elected who have every intention of betraying you.  Some investments just have a negative return and you would be better off burning the money.

You need to give your money directly to candidates and not organizations if you want to control who you support.

I also wouldn't believe a single word printed in a mainstream newspaper in the US.  Pravda was a more honest broker of information than our press is under Obama.  Did they even mention a metric of how groups of similar size operate?

Posted by: Thatch at April 28, 2014 11:00 AM (qYvEa)

295 As Rebbe Hunter S. Thompson of Aspen said, "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro".

Posted by: Sign me 'Confused" at April 28, 2014 11:00 AM (1/4XQ)

296 Dr. Greg Brannon is the Tea Party challenger in the NC Senate primary.

Posted by: Lincolntf at April 28, 2014 11:00 AM (ZshNr)

297 Money fight!!!

Posted by: c.m. burns at April 28, 2014 11:00 AM (D+5pt)

298
Latino Assemblyman: Asians are not people of color.
***
Technically every human being is "of color". Hell, ask a crayola box.

Posted by: 18-1 at April 28, 2014 11:01 AM (78TbK)

299 I'd love to see them put ONE PERCENT of this effort into investigating their own side.

Sure, there are people who'll take advantage of any situation. OTOH, how much dough are we talking about here? Probably a tiny percent of what gets spent on THEIR political activities.

Bahum Bug.

Posted by: Beverly at April 28, 2014 11:01 AM (mj/RF)

300 And Reagan would've vetoed it. Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 28, 2014 03:52 PM (SY2Kh) I'm not sure you are getting the concept of "commitment." Let's suppose we were talking about internment camps for Japanese Americans. Would you be willing to fuck the President on the budget regarding those? Would you be willing to keep sending him THE SAME FUCKING BILL EVER SINGLE TIME IF THAT WERE THE ISSUE? If the answer is yes, then you grasp what I mean by being committed. Obamacare is fundamentally wrong, and on par with Japanese internment in terms of it's evilness, and instead of trying to modify it, people need to take the stance that we are going to destroy it at all costs, and using any legal trick in our arsenal. You don't like a budget with Obamacare zeroed out? FUCK YOU! You aren't going to get a different one.

Posted by: D-Lamp at April 28, 2014 11:01 AM (bb5+k)

301 When was the last time a federal politician with a D by his name was sent to prison for bribes/kickbacks? --------------------- Actually, it happens fairly regularly, but at the local level. See: Mayor of Charlotte Meanwhile his predecessor who engaged in a defaulted $10 MILLION loan to fund the Dem Convention, gets cushy job as Sec. Transportation.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at April 28, 2014 11:01 AM (aDwsi)

302 Some of this can be misleading, especially "Consulting" expenses. Many consulting firms get outsourced entire classifications of duties and the budgets thereof. In particular, consulting firms might be paid for things that have money passing from you to them to some vendor for something expensive. For instance, you might hire a firm to place your internet or TV ads and give them a budget to buy them with, or a firm for your voter targeting and they have to pay for polling and data out of the budget you give them. This isn't always how its done, but it can lead to misleading data.

Posted by: A_Dude at April 28, 2014 11:01 AM (NM/r0)

303
I also wouldn't believe a single word printed in a mainstream newspaper in the US. Pravda was a more honest broker of information than our press is under Obama. Did they even mention a metric of how groups of similar size operate?
___
You said Obama and didn't include PBUH. I'm calling racism.

Posted by: The State Media at April 28, 2014 11:02 AM (78TbK)

304 Latino Assemblyman: Asians are not people of color. Heh..... When parody is actually life. *finishes off beer with one long swig*

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at April 28, 2014 11:02 AM (XRWgg)

305 So, again, what part of the "tea party ethos" exactly is being undermined in the tea party groups' expenditures? Nothing, assuming their "ethos" is to enrich themselves financially. I'm pretty sure that's not what Grandpa had in mind when he donated money to them though. Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 28, 2014 03:59 PM (SY2Kh) and you have proven this is what is happening? Based on what? The article certainly does not prove this. I agree that if it is proven that they are just using the money to enrich themselves, that is bad (as if every other PAC, etc. doesn't have high paid operatives, directors, etc. working for them). But you have not proved this. All you have shown is that less of the money is going directly to candidates. As I think the GOP is not remotely friendly to the smaller gov't, less spending cause - why should the tea party give money to GOP candidates? You - and the author of this piece - make a lot of assumptions. No facts though.

Posted by: Monkeytoe at April 28, 2014 11:02 AM (3ZtZW)

306

Having $1M would decentivize you from wanting $2M?

 

How much money is "enough"?

Posted by: Bigby's Semaphore Hands at April 28, 2014 11:02 AM (3ZtZW)

307 As to the TEA Party - there are people who try to cash in on everything. You have to watch everybody. The only guarantor of your freedom is you. Republics are flawed in this way. They encourage people to not pay attention.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at April 28, 2014 11:02 AM (X9npt)

308 >>Hell, this is probably a GOP hit piece, not a Dem hit piece. Or really, a DC insider hit piece. The author, Matea Gold, is a former reporter in the New York bureau of the Los Angeles Times, and is married to John Lenzner, an assistant US Attorney in Maryland, is the son of Margaret and Terry Lenzner; his father is former assistant chief counsel of the Senate Watergate Committee. Old guard slapping down pesky red state upstarts?

Posted by: Lizzy at April 28, 2014 11:03 AM (8zTpe)

309

I'd have mentioned that Romney's Lt. Gov didn't take a salary either,

 

Here's my completely gratuitous Kerry Healey anecdote.  She did a meet and greet in my town.  I mutt and grutt her.

 

Kerry Healey has a really cute derriere.

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at April 28, 2014 11:03 AM (JtwS4)

310 You don't like a budget with Obamacare zeroed out? FUCK YOU! You aren't going to get a different one.
***
And if the Republican party actually believed what they claim in fund raising letters this is exactly what they would be doing.


Posted by: 18-1 at April 28, 2014 11:03 AM (78TbK)

311 "What budget? Or do we want to go back to another government shutdown confrontation? The last time it didn't work out so well for the Republicans as they got blamed for everything"

Actually, no.

The majority of the polls showed that the public was apportioning a large share of blame for the shutdown on the administration as well as on Congress and the GOP.

Then one of the alphabet networks ran a poll with absolutely ridiculously skewed internals that stacked Democrats ten high in the sample (entirely by accident you can be sure) and gave it heavy airtime.

The brave, brave Sir Robins of the Beltway GOP immediately wet themselves in fear and rushed in panic to rescind the shutdown, handed Obama a huge victory on the optics.

What should be done next time is for the House to pass a budget. Putting the budget in a glass box on the steps of the Capitol with a hammer attached to it, and a big sign. Sign reading: "THIS BUDGET FULLY FUNDS ALL NECESSARY GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS AT REASONABLE LEVELS. INCLUDING SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE AND THE MILITARY. IF THE GOVERNMENT STAYS SHUT DOWN, IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF US."

The House should then adjourn and go home, leaving the box with the budget, hammer, and sign.

Posted by: torquewrench at April 28, 2014 11:03 AM (noWW6)

312 Hmmm... New employment plan. Hey horde, I'm forming the "Ace of Tea Party" PAC. It's going to be a 501(c)Me. Who's in for a grand?

Posted by: tsrblke (tablet) at April 28, 2014 11:04 AM (a8eFL)

313 The Washington Post is also a professional political organization and is demonstrably corrupt. I call shenanigans and bullshit on the entire story.

Posted by: Inspector Cussword at April 28, 2014 11:04 AM (Qp0nB)

314 To me, this issue is not an ideological one, but I genuinely believe most of these Tea party groups are fleecing donors and have no real political goals other than providing them and their staffs a paycheck.  I'm sure you could say the same thing about many "Establishment" groups also.

How is that I'm a registered Republican, actively vote in every primary, donate money, volunteer, etc yet I don't think I've ever gotten so much as a single piece of mail from a Tea Party group, much less ever seen a commercial.  It's money going down the toilet.

FWIW, I have a friend that works for one of the Koch offshoots.  It would make you sick to see where the money goes.  It mainly just enriches a few consultants and they're incredibly ineffective.

I think you're best bet is to directly fund candidates you believe in.

Posted by: McAdams at April 28, 2014 11:04 AM (oPM2M)

315 Leave it to the Post to assert without evidence what the "ethos" of the "Tea Party" is. The ethos, such as it is, is to support candidates who oppose big government spending. To that end, they raise money. The Post's false equivalence tries to establish that because Post writers think of Tea Party members as unsophisticated rubes who oppose the leverage that money provides, they're unsophisticated rubes who oppose any big-ticket venture. Like using money to leverage politics. The Washpost would be confirmed in their bias if the rubes would just knit and smoke cheroots and leave all the retail politics to them big money people. That an editor didn't scold the chump who led the article with that dumb, baseless assertion tells you all you need to know about my hometown fishwrap.

Posted by: General Zod at April 28, 2014 11:04 AM (2+bRt)

316 How much money is "enough"? Posted by: Bigby's Semaphore Hands at April 28, 2014 04:02 PM (3ZtZW) If somebody wants to drop $40Mikes on me? I'll quit there.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at April 28, 2014 11:04 AM (XRWgg)

317 And for liberals, politics DID work in that era. Worked in their favor. Because O'Neill was a lying, cheating, hard-edged, nasty piece of work who delivered the goods for the left. A House equivalent of Harry Reid. For liberals, what's there not to love? Posted by: torquewrench at April 28, 2014 03:53 PM (noWW6) Exactly right. Tip O'neill, a shit did not give for what the opposition wanted. He did what *HE* wanted. Remember Gramm-Rudman? Pounded the gavel and declared that they had met the requirements when they clearly had not. The point is, Tip O'neill showed us that it CAN BE DONE. All we have to have is the stomach for a fight.

Posted by: D-Lamp at April 28, 2014 11:05 AM (bb5+k)

318 Washington Post...was that not at one time a professional organization?

Posted by: Dr. NO NO at April 28, 2014 11:05 AM (fUMTh)

319 Heh. I just muttered 'Pelosi' under my breath, and the cat immediately hacked up a giant gobby hairball.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at April 28, 2014 11:05 AM (aDwsi)

320 Actually, it happens fairly regularly, but at the local level. See: Mayor of Charlotte Meanwhile his predecessor who engaged in a defaulted $10 MILLION loan to fund the Dem Convention, gets cushy job as Sec. Transportation. Posted by: Mike Hammer at April 28, 2014 04:01 PM (aDwsi) A laid back friend of mine would say, good work if you can get it. My guess is someday the "D" in prison will be pardoned and life will be hunky dory for him once again. Does the name Elcie Hastings ring a bell to anyone? If not he was a Federal Judge impeached, later elected to a House of Rep seat. Like I said, good work if you can get it.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 28, 2014 11:05 AM (HVff2)

321 271 Or they're acknowledging the obvious reality that it's going to take 60 votes in the Senate, a House majority and a Republican president for repeal, and that those stars aren't going to align in the near future. Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 28, 2014 03:42 PM (SY2Kh) So, you're trying to reason people out of a position they emotioned themselves into? Good luck. Posted by: Mikey NTH - Let the Warmth of Spring Grow your Rage at the Outrage Outlet at April 28, 2014 03:46 PM (hLRSq) __________ Do you EVER hear liberals talk like this? 20 years ago when the idea of gay marriage was laughable, did you hear gay activists talk in defeatist language? No. They were always fighting and their language was a fighting language. You don't win battles by starting out saying, well it probably won't work. Not just politics in general. You think Steve Jobs ever told his employees that the iphone probably wouldn't be a good product?

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at April 28, 2014 11:05 AM (0LHZx)

322 Misanthropic - Marion Barry

Posted by: Mike Hammer at April 28, 2014 11:06 AM (aDwsi)

323 12 Hmmm... New employment plan. Hey horde, I'm forming the "Ace of Tea Party" PAC. It's going to be a 501(c)Me. Who's in for a grand? Posted by: tsrblke (tablet) at April 28, 2014 04:04 PM (a8eFL I told you like I told the Tea Party last week when they called. You will like your $35 or you won't get anything. The same goes for you my friend :-)

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 28, 2014 11:07 AM (HVff2)

324 Who's in for a grand? Posted by: tsrblke (tablet) at April 28, 2014 04:04 PM (a8eFL) SuperPlatinum® membership included? *digs for checkbook*

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at April 28, 2014 11:07 AM (XRWgg)

325 Having $1M would decentivize you from wanting $2M?

How much money is "enough"?

Posted by: Bigby's Semaphore Hands at April 28, 2014 04:02 PM (3ZtZW)


Pelosi was worth about 21 million at the time of the infamous Visa IPO.  $1M just gives them more money for insider trading.

Posted by: grognard at April 28, 2014 11:07 AM (/29Nl)

326 ?? How the hell does someone win a second lifetime achievement award?! Posted by: Null at April 28, 2014 03:52 PM (P7hip) Back when I worked for the old firm, the Big Boss was starting to get all kinds of lifetime achievement awards from various charities and whatnot. I mentioned to him one day how I thought it was really great that his efforts were being recognized. His response? "They're only doing this because I'm going to die soon." I will admit to being kind of um um um no! No, you are not! Let's just say I was not overly convincing in my response.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD/Orion Death Star 2016 at April 28, 2014 11:08 AM (mf5HN)

327 What budget? Or do we want to go back to another government shutdown confrontation? The last time it didn't work out so well for the Republicans as they got blamed for everything because the general voting public - which way outnumbers the Horde - does not want a government shutdown. Posted by: Mikey NTH - Let the Warmth of Spring Grow your Rage at the Outrage Outlet at April 28, 2014 03:53 PM (hLRSq) Naw, that was just the media manipulating public opinion. When Reagan vetoed the Budget, the Public blamed Reagan. When Bill Clinton vetoed the budget, the public blamed the "Republican Congress." (AKA Newt Gingrich) Who the public blames is entirely decided by the Democrat Propaganda corps known as the "media."

Posted by: D-Lamp at April 28, 2014 11:08 AM (bb5+k)

328 I think you're best bet is to directly fund candidates you believe in. This x 1000. I got a call from a 'TEA party' group in Washington who wanted to sue the IRS and wanted me to help pay for the legal fees. There was, of course, no mention of dividing up the settlement to people who paid the legal bills, or of them even being compensated. So I thought: here's a group that is asking me for money to take money from the government that will come out of my taxes.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at April 28, 2014 11:08 AM (obTkq)

329 I'd be all for paying politicians $1M a year. When you're making $1M a year legally, there' little incentive to try and make $1M a year via bribes/kickbacks.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo


How many congressional campaigns are run for less than $1mill?

I'm going with none.

Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i][/b] at April 28, 2014 11:08 AM (ujux6)

330 Nood

Posted by: Buzzsaw at April 28, 2014 11:09 AM (tf9Ne)

331 You don't like a budget with Obamacare zeroed out? FUCK YOU! You aren't going to get a different one. As has been pointed out many times, the law that passed Obamacare also funded it. Zeroing out its funding would have little effect. People keep looking for some super secret magic spell that could be used to stop Obamacare if only they were willing to chant loud enough. That somehow the GOP could somehow repeal it if only they had the will. No such magic exists. If reality offends your sensibilities, it's time to rethink you expectations.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 28, 2014 11:09 AM (SY2Kh)

332 Having $1M would decentivize you from wanting $2M? Posted by: eleven at April 28, 2014 03:59 PM (GXZgZ) __________ A lot more than having $190K.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at April 28, 2014 11:09 AM (0LHZx)

333 My solution?  Amend the constitution so that they would all be up for re-election every six months.  They're all conservatives at election time.

Posted by: Countrysquire at April 28, 2014 11:10 AM (eEBON)

334 329 I'd be all for paying politicians $1M a year. When you're making $1M a year legally, there' little incentive to try and make $1M a year via bribes/kickbacks. Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo So is Mr. Moo Moo actually jwest? Fuck, I need a score card to keep up with the trolls and/or idiots.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 28, 2014 11:11 AM (HVff2)

335 This thing is now embedded in our system, and while I believe it is a cancer, simply pulling the plug on it without provisions to address the damage done doesn't seem any smarter than when it was enacted. Posted by: Jen at April 28, 2014 03:56 PM (/CN/i) I personally believe that fucking over the mostly Democrat constituencies that signed up for it is a feature, not a bug. Someone wanting a free lunch from government? It is our duty to fuck them up.

Posted by: D-Lamp at April 28, 2014 11:11 AM (bb5+k)

336 How many congressional campaigns are run for less than $1mill? I'm going with none. Posted by: weft cut-loop at April 28, 2014 04:08 PM (ujux6) _____________ Actually I would bet quite a few.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at April 28, 2014 11:12 AM (0LHZx)

337 Something will have to change. Their rate of delta T is calibrated very carefully to avoid the leaping frog problem, but, worse-to-worst, there just won't be that many scalded frogs. (Except, probably, in New England, where most long for George III or something like it, and will do anything to avoid frontier gibberish or chest thumping. Their politesse, you know....) http://preview.tinyurl.com/3bsmh2a

Posted by: April 19, 1775 at April 28, 2014 11:12 AM (1/4XQ)

338 Do you EVER hear liberals talk like this? 20 years ago when the idea of gay marriage was laughable, did you hear gay activists talk in defeatist language? The point you should be taking away from that is they were patient and played the long game. FACT: Obamacare isn't going to be repealed while Obama is President and the Dems have enough votes to filibuster. There's plenty to criticize the Republican party for, but their inability to accomplish the impossible shouldn't be one of them.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 28, 2014 11:13 AM (SY2Kh)

339 Dr. Tom Coburn apparently has been successful enough to not worry about his reduced income. Otherwise, Mrs. Colburn would have certainly told him to keep seeing patients instead of fucking around with politics. Posted by: jwest at April 28, 2014 03:59 PM (u2a4R) I would suggest that we should prefer the smart and successful ones over the not-so-smart and unsuccessful ones.

Posted by: D-Lamp at April 28, 2014 11:13 AM (bb5+k)

340 nother thing that occurs to me is that there is, inherently, a difference between an amateur and a professional, and it's this: Professionals get paid. Amateurs -- though often derided -- aren't doing it for the money. They're true believers. They're doing this in their off-hours, for reasons having nothing to do with money. But the moment you become professional -- the moment this becomes Your Day Job -- well, you're gettin' paid, Jack. Posted by Ace at 02:49 PM Comments This is why I'm so very proud of the morons and ettes who volunteer for the AOSHQDD. Ya'll do this for free and we consistently out-report a "professional" news organization that actually charges other news organizations to use their tabulations. The bigger and more bloated, the slower and screwier.

Posted by: CAC at April 28, 2014 11:14 AM (K2NF9)

341 271 - then you destroy everyone on the other side. DESTROY. Obamacare is the Government in charge of YOU. Of your time off, your beliefs, your diet, your sex, your sleep, your free time, your work, your location, your recreation - EVERYTHING affects health and they can abrogate the Constitution with the "overriding Government Interest". With Obamacare YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS. If you support doing nothing, you are supporting the enslavement of yourself and everyone else. Now - do you understand how incensed people get with your "get along to get along" attitude? You give up and allow slavery to march on. The RNC should be shouting from the rooftops and organizing mass marches and mass disruptions and mass civil disobedience and start publishing the names and addresses of EACH apparatchik and Parks Ranger, IRS agent, FBI Agent, and EPA agent involved with the illegal seizure of power in the US. But we get YOU. Your smug, sneering, content attitude instead. And you yell at us, saying 'Don't rock the boat, it's rude! You will lose. Enjoy your condition and those are not chains!' Those who do not do all to erase Obamacare are collabos.

Posted by: Inspector Cussword at April 28, 2014 11:15 AM (Qp0nB)

342 They're all conservatives at election time. Posted by: Country ----------------- Amazingly, Kay Hagan has called for an investigation into why the roll-out of Obamacare was so expensive. Shameless hubris.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at April 28, 2014 11:15 AM (aDwsi)

343 "I was trying to figure out a take on this..." The angle is that Tea Party groups were not spending money on politicians and ads as was suggested by Democrats defending IRS actions against the Tea Party so they are trying to make Tea Party supporters angry at how the funds are being spent in order to gain support for government actions against these groups.

Posted by: wodun at April 28, 2014 11:15 AM (fbqZE)

344 Allow me to give 3 cheers for "activist training"!!! I find that the best Activist Training takes place in Las Vegas, preferably along with a $500 per diem. Payable in Chips, please.

Posted by: Tom Servo at April 28, 2014 11:15 AM (8Fa5Z)

345 The point you should be taking away from that is they were patient and played the long game. FACT: Obamacare isn't going to be repealed while Obama is President and the Dems have enough votes to filibuster. There's plenty to criticize the Republican party for, but their inability to accomplish the impossible shouldn't be one of them. Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 28, 2014 04:13 PM (SY2Kh) ___________ Sure, the long game is how you get things done. But part of playing the long is is you don't say we'll never be able to do this. Liberals NEVER say this type of shit. Even if after they lose, they act like they win with, their rhetoric. That's the takeaway.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at April 28, 2014 11:16 AM (0LHZx)

346 342 They're all conservatives at election time. Posted by: Country ----------------- Amazingly, Kay Hagan has called for an investigation into why the roll-out of Obamacare was so expensive. Shameless hubris. Posted by: Mike Hammer at April 28, 2014 04:15 PM (aDwsi) The problem with that statement is she doesn't know what that means.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 28, 2014 11:17 AM (HVff2)

347 Romney and Bush? What isn't Nixon available?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at April 28, 2014 11:19 AM (t3UFN)

348 I personally believe that fucking over the mostly Democrat constituencies that signed up for it is a feature, not a bug. Someone wanting a free lunch from government? It is our duty to fuck them up. Posted by: D-Lamp at April 28, 2014 04:11 PM (bb5+k) It isn't the mostly Democrat constituency that signed up for it. The free shit crowd is who makes up the majority of the Medicaid expansion that Obamacare provided and almost 1/3 of the states took advantage of the pot of money. So in repealing it, if all these states now face non funding of the expansion, are they actually going to start kicking these people off the rolls of Medicaid in their state? And face the hospital who found that having a teenage mom with three kids on Medicaid at least gets them some kind of payment with they show up at the ER on Fri. night with a fever than when they have zero insurance. Many of the majority of actual sign ups(who knows what you can actually believe regarding the numbers) were people who lost their insurance. They already had insurance through work, etc. so screwing them over doesn't seem to have much appeal, since they weren't rabid supporters of the law anyway. And causing them to lose their insurance once again, only to be told now when it is time to sign up for the new improved, Non-Obamacare-its-been-repealed insurance that it won't cover pre existing conditions that they acquired during their last insurance go round won't endear these people to our side.

Posted by: Jen at April 28, 2014 11:21 AM (/CN/i)

349 Note for Hollowpoint - ignore the insults I wrote - I went off the tracks there and I apologize. I'm furious about the blase' attitude the RNC and other GOPe show towards Obamacare. I disgree with you that the RNC can't do anything but what they are doing. I believe they can, should, and without doing it they are dooming the US to literal death. If we do not try, we accede. If we do not resist, we bow before the lash.

Posted by: Inspector Cussword at April 28, 2014 11:23 AM (Qp0nB)

350 Or really, a DC insider hit piece. The author, Matea Gold, is a former reporter in the New York bureau of the Los Angeles Times, and is married to John Lenzner, an assistant US Attorney in Maryland, is the son of Margaret and Terry Lenzner; his father is former assistant chief counsel of the Senate Watergate Committee. Old guard slapping down pesky red state upstarts? Posted by: Lizzy at April 28, 2014 04:03 PM (8zTpe) Oooooohhhh! Good sleuthing. It certainly implies something like that.

Posted by: D-Lamp at April 28, 2014 11:23 AM (bb5+k)

351 Pretty much every time a progressive congress or president is elected, they trash so much in the way of policy, foreign policy, the economy, etc. that when all the damage finally becomes readily apparent to the masses, the Republicans get elected and start trying to clean up the mess. There is no way though, to actually clean up all the mess and put things on a good path in the amount of time available until one of the progressive's good intentioned booby traps goes off(think of the mortgage crisis) and everyone thinks it is the Rep. who created it, thanks to the media. And the cycle starts over again, except we are a little farther down the rabbit hole. This incremental slippage is how we are where we are today. Obamacare is just another giant mess that is built in such a deliberately tangled way so as not to be repealable with horrendous collateral damage, and not fixable without leaving in some of the progressive push down the hole.

Posted by: Jen at April 28, 2014 11:29 AM (/CN/i)

352 If ObamaCare passed with under 60 votes in the Senate (remember Scott Brown) than it can be repealed with a simple majority.

Also, ObamaCare was ruled as a "tax", which also means it doesn't need 60 to clear the Senate because its budgetary in nature.

It's incredibly stupid for a Republican leader to say its unrepealable, but I will of course concede that as long as Obama is President, it's not going to be repealed.  That's just common sense.  Let's make him veto bills to get rid of it, but he's obviously never going to admit his signature issue was a Earth-shattering failure.

But I do think there will be a point where Democrats will be the ones begging to get rid of it, probably the day after he leaves office.

Posted by: McAdams at April 28, 2014 11:31 AM (oPM2M)

353 Ace, what a coinky dink.  Slime magazine had the very same story in the last issue.  Ya think there's some JournOlist type chit going on to depress Tea Party types?  I do.

Posted by: eureka! at April 28, 2014 11:43 AM (q7DBM)

354 These people took the Tea Party name and used it for their own benefit, as I've been complaining all along. They don't speak for me or anyone else who was actually at the rallies, we took no votes there, and appointed no leaders. Keep sending them money, Suckers! After all, they use "Tea Party" in their name or in their fundraising appeals, right?

Posted by: Adjoran at April 28, 2014 11:48 AM (QIQ6j)

355 The bigger and more bloated, the slower and screwier.

Posted by: CAC at April 28, 2014 04:14 PM (K2NF9)

 

Outside of religious vocations, people who are paid for doing what they love are more motivated, more committed, more efficient, and more fulfilled than those not being paid. That is an immutable fact of human nature. All statements to the contrary are happy talk.

 

The Democrats have spent decades building an interlocking, nationwide door-to-door canvassing, telephone and direct mail network, which is manned by hundreds/thousands of paid canvassers and administrative staff.  Think ACORN. Think Citizens Action Coalition. Nine to Five. Dozens of others, comprising what used to be called the Hudson Bay Network (but maybe named something differently now). They generate millions for the professional Left and facilitate the Leftist agenda and narrative. In response, what've we got? Self-congratulatory pap about the joys of amateurism.

 

When confronted by a giant political machine, you either adopt and adapt and learn from that machine or you lose to it, plain and simple.

Posted by: troyriser at April 28, 2014 11:49 AM (V9ol4)

356 IRS designations unmentioned? Restrictions setforth therein. Percentage of revenue allowed to certain outflows.

Posted by: jk76 at April 28, 2014 11:57 AM (VKkox)

357 wait, these are the same groups that were forced to sit out the 2012 election because of the IRS's intimidation tactics...I'm sorry, illegal intimidation tactics?

Posted by: joeindc44 at April 28, 2014 12:08 PM (FQLT3)

358 I find this believable. In the past I donated some small amounts to these groups, and to charities, hoping to "save the country" and "make the world a better place". My reward was a megaton of junk mail to recycle and so many solicitation calls that I've had to turn off my phone. I tell them to stop, but they won't. I still get mail several times/year from a charity I donated to once twenty years ago. They have all dishonored my donations and pissed off a one-time ally.

Posted by: whoever at April 28, 2014 12:48 PM (pjMym)

359 I know for a fact that Tea Party Patriots has spent money on training and materials for education on the constitution and such.  I was invited to attend, and did attend one of their training sessions in Corpus Christi, Tx.  They had workbooks to be used for children, DVD's of lessons on the constitution and founding of the country and these were free to the attendees.  The two people leading the session were paid by the organization and probably so was their travel and associated expenses.   I felt I certainly got more than my money's worth, of course I didn't pay a dime.  But the session was a good one, the supplies shown were good ones and I appreciated their effort.  I also get many emails from them with offers of other training sessions I have not attended because I would have to travel to them, CC was close by.
I also get emails and mail outs from other tea party groups.  They definitely have a huge presence on the internet.  Check out all the tea party sites on Facebook, many more than most would want to join. 

Posted by: Ruth H at April 28, 2014 01:12 PM (AoUdG)

360 I blame President Obama. Seriously. Had he not sicced Lois Lerner and the IRS on anyone who so much as put the words "liberty", "patriot" or "freedom" in the name of their 501(c)(3) organization, there would be a slew of newer Tea Party organizations that supporters of the movement could contribute to. Instead, we are stuck with the dozen or so groups that sneaked in before the application rules were changed, and can operate without competition from newer groups and people who are more closely tied to the grassroots.

Posted by: Irving Washington at April 28, 2014 03:20 PM (M3QBc)

361 When TEA Party groups sought guidance and training from traditional Republican Party wonks and 'experts' such as Freedom Works, as one example, they were already finished. When you hire the people who bear guilt in causing the problem you've rebelled against... Well, let's just say that the barbarians are inside the gates... They showed you a fancy wooden pony and you thought it was a gift.

Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at April 29, 2014 04:27 AM (q6kaG)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled.
262kb generated in CPU 0.28, elapsed 1.3857 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.1727 seconds, 597 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.