Skip to main content

Tea Party-backed Republicans spur party switches


Ellen Wulfhorst
Reuters US Online Report Politics News

Oct 28, 2010 01:01 EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - For lifelong Republican Joe Errigo, deciding to cross party lines and support a liberal Democrat for New York governor wasn't nearly as difficult as one might expect.

Republican candidate Carl Paladino -- backed by the conservative Tea Party movement -- raised such political hackles he spawned a "Republicans for Cuomo" movement supporting Democrat Andrew Cuomo.

Similar groups can be found in heated races elsewhere nationwide, often those featuring Tea Party-endorsed candidates, attacked by Democrats and some moderate Republicans as extreme.

"When I saw his website, I said nobody could be that dumb," said Errigo, an upstate New York Assemblyman, of Paladino, a Buffalo developer and political newcomer.

"He has alienated every group that I could think of," said Errigo. "He should write a book on how to lose an election."

In Delaware, where Christine O'Donnell has Tea Party support, Republicans backing Democrat Chris Coons include a former state judge and former U.S. Congressman. A "Republicans for Coons" Facebook site reads: "Because we just can't support Christine O'Donnell."

In Arizona, "Republicans for Giffords" are backing Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords over conservative Iraq War veteran Jesse Kelly.

In Nevada, incumbent Democrat Sen. Harry Reid, who faces Tea Party favorite Sharron Angle, counts among his Republican supporters an array of influential gaming and casino executives.

"Mainstream Republicans are refusing to support the latest crop of insurgent candidates in the Republican Party because of their extremist beliefs," said Deirdre Murphy, spokeswoman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in Washington.

"A TREMENDOUS OPPORTUNITY FOR REPUBLICANS"

In New York, Paladino has riled fellow Republicans, from his view that average Americans cannot understand adjustable mortgages, his spat with a reporter that went viral on the Web, to his plan to "take a baseball bat" to the state capital.

"This was a tremendous opportunity for the Republicans this year," said Onandaga County, New York, Executive Joanie Mahoney, a Republican whose support for Cuomo marks the first time she has supported a Democrat.

"But we can't just have fighting and rhetoric," she said. "I just didn't have the sense, knowing what I know about state government, that sending somebody there with a baseball bat was going to move the ball forward."

Other names in "Republicans for Cuomo" are former state party chairman J. Patrick Barrett and hedge fund manager Anthony Scaramucci, who handled finances for Republican Rick Lazio, who was defeated by Paladino in the primary.

Plenty of Republicans are supporting Cuomo but keeping quiet, said Mahoney.

"I have had people tell me things privately that I don't think they're willing to say publicly," she said.

The latest poll, released on Wednesday, showed Cuomo with a 20-point lead over Paladino, with 7 percent undecided.

Mahoney earned criticism from state Republican Chairman Ed Cox, who called her endorsement of Cuomo a "shallow act" that showed "poor judgment."

"It was a very difficult decision personally," she said. "I knew I would take some heat from my party which I have."

What came as more of a surprise, she said, was the number of Republicans who got in touch to say: "We know why you did it, and we're with you."
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Have you ever considered, parties aside, how dramatically different our country's politics would be if politicians only had "money on hand" to spend and had to balance the budget without being able to print new cash? It can boggle the mind and I suspect that (when taking a closer look at the average "Tea Party" supporter) is what a lot of people are considering this election cycle. Margaret Mead said it best, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever does".
quote:
I think we need to wait a few more days before we declare the TEA party dead. Check back with us next Wednesday.


That really depends on how you define the Tea Party, "Tea Party backed" candidates have demonstrated that they are nothing more than an attempt at re-branding the Republican Party. They are neither a grass-roots movement or a means of change in Washington politics. If they all win, it's a win for the Republican Party, not small government.
quote:
What do you consider a grassroots movement?


I don't have an exact definition, but once any movement has the unconditional support of a news network and significant financial backing it ceases to be a grassroots movement. Among the first people to use the Tea Party identity were those who staged rallies for Ron Paul when he was excluded from Republican primary debates. It was grassroots then. When the former Republican nominee for Vice President is counted as a Tea Party leader, it isn't grassroots.

quote:
What is your idea of a means to change Washington politics?


Where do I begin? The point isn't what I would do. The point is that these candidates won't do anything beneficial.

quote:
If they all lose would that be a win for small governmment?


No, and that's where we all lose.
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
quote:
When the former Republican nominee for Vice President is counted as a Tea Party leader, it isn't grassroots.


It is not an official party on the ballots. It is a grassroots movement.


I grabbed the first definition of "grassroots" I found online.

of or involving the common people as constituting a fundamental political and economic group

The financial backing and media backing for the current crop of Tea Party candidates do not meet that definition.
quote:
I do not see where any mention of funding is in that definition.


"Common people" do not receive funding.

quote:
It was and is a loose group of people sharing ideas. It has no unified organization, no leader, no hierarchy of any kind.


Maybe at first, but I think you're being a little naive if you really don't think that this whole thing has been co-opted for some time.

As for the Coffee Party, I've never heard of it, so I don't know.
quote:
Common people don't donate to a grassroots effort?

Are you trying the 'Glenn Beck run's it' theme?


You're straying from my original point. I have no doubt that "common people" have donated. I do not think "Glenn Beck runs it." I think the Republican Party has taken it over, that's all. Any grassroots element that once existed is gone.
quote:
I think it's more the other way around. The Tea Party has infiltrated the rep party. However, it is still not being funded or backed by any group because as I said, it has no main organization. They are all independent.


I don't dispute that the Tea Party as a whole is loose-knit and unfunded. However, the PACs funding the "Tea Party backed" candidates are well-funded and well-organized. I really don't think this is disputable.
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
I think it's more the other way around. The Tea Party has infiltrated the rep party. However, it is still not being funded or backed by any group because as I said, it has no main organization. They are all independent.


I don't dispute that the Tea Party as a whole is loose-knit and unfunded. However, the PACs funding the "Tea Party backed" candidates are well-funded and well-organized. I really don't think this is disputable.


Another indisputable fact is that the unions that buy and pay for democRats are well funded as well.
So if the PACS happen to fund the same candidate as the Tea Party, does that mean that the Tea Party is getting the money?
No.

Obviously, candidates will be backed by the Tea Party that already have some backing from other sources, it doesn't mean that the Tea Party is getting any funding for it's own agenda.

As for the Koch brothers: David H. Koch and his brother Charles are lifelong libertarians and have quietly given more than a hundred million dollars to right-wing causes.
The Kochs believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry—especially environmental regulation.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/repor..._mayer#ixzz13nFVgGOh

I would say the Tea Party would just be one of those right-wing causes.
What is so funny is this is as Paul Harvey said before he died: The rest of the story
Believe it or not kids, this is used in the previous post as b50m provenance for her defense of the Koch brothers! Tainted tea!
From The New Yorker:

Covert Operations
The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama.
by Jane Mayer
August 30, 2010

On May 17th, a black-tie audience at the Metropolitan Opera House applauded as a tall, jovial-looking billionaire took the stage. It was the seventieth annual spring gala of American Ballet Theatre, and David H. Koch was being celebrated for his generosity as a member of the board of trustees; he had recently donated $2.5 million toward the company’s upcoming season, and had given many millions before that. Koch received an award while flanked by two of the gala’s co-chairs, Blaine Trump, in a peach-colored gown, and Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, in emerald green. Kennedy’s mother, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, had been a patron of the ballet and, coincidentally, the previous owner of a Fifth Avenue apartment that Koch had bought, in 1995, and then sold, eleven years later, for thirty-two million dollars, having found it too small.

The gala marked the social ascent of Koch, who, at the age of seventy, has become one of the city’s most prominent philanthropists. In 2008, he donated a hundred million dollars to modernize Lincoln Center’s New York State Theatre building, which now bears his name. He has given twenty million to the American Museum of Natural History, whose dinosaur wing is named for him. This spring, after noticing the decrepit state of the fountains outside the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Koch pledged at least ten million dollars for their renovation. He is a trustee of the museum, perhaps the most coveted social prize in the city, and serves on the board of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, where, after he donated more than forty million dollars, an endowed chair and a research center were named for him.

One dignitary was conspicuously absent from the gala: the event’s third honorary co-chair, Michelle Obama. Her office said that a scheduling conflict had prevented her from attending. Yet had the First Lady shared the stage with Koch it might have created an awkward tableau. In Washington, Koch is best known as part of a family that has repeatedly funded stealth attacks on the federal government, and on the Obama Administration in particular.

With his brother Charles, who is seventy-four, David Koch owns virtually all of Koch Industries, a conglomerate, headquartered in Wichita, Kansas, whose annual revenues are estimated to be a hundred billion dollars. The company has grown spectacularly since their father, Fred, died, in 1967, and the brothers took charge. The Kochs operate oil refineries in Alaska, Texas, and Minnesota, and control some four thousand miles of pipeline. Koch Industries owns Brawny paper towels, Dixie cups, Georgia-Pacific lumber, Stainmaster carpet, and Lycra, among other products. Forbes ranks it as the second-largest private company in the country, after Cargill, and its consistent profitability has made David and Charles Koch—who, years ago, bought out two other brothers—among the richest men in America. Their combined fortune of thirty-five billion dollars is exceeded only by those of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.


from the issuecartoon banke-mail this.The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry—especially environmental regulation. These views dovetail with the brothers’ corporate interests. In a study released this spring, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute named Koch Industries one of the top ten air polluters in the United States. And Greenpeace issued a report identifying the company as a “kingpin of climate science denial.” The report showed that, from 2005 to 2008, the Kochs vastly outdid ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups. Indeed, the brothers have funded opposition campaigns against so many Obama Administration policies—from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus program—that, in political circles, their ideological network is known as the Kochtopus.

In a statement, Koch Industries said that the Greenpeace report “distorts the environmental record of our companies.” And David Koch, in a recent, admiring article about him in New York, protested that the “radical press” had turned his family into “whipping boys,” and had exaggerated its influence on American politics. But Charles Lewis, the founder of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan watchdog group, said, “The Kochs are on a whole different level. There’s no one else who has spent this much money. The sheer dimension of it is what sets them apart. They have a pattern of lawbreaking, political manipulation, and obfuscation. I’ve been in Washington since Watergate, and I’ve never seen anything like it. They are the Standard Oil of our times.”

A few weeks after the Lincoln Center gala, the advocacy wing of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation—an organization that David Koch started, in 2004—held a different kind of gathering. Over the July 4th weekend, a summit called Texas Defending the American Dream took place in a chilly hotel ballroom in Austin. Though Koch freely promotes his philanthropic ventures, he did not attend the summit, and his name was not in evidence. And on this occasion the audience was roused not by a dance performance but by a series of speakers denouncing President Barack Obama. Peggy Venable, the organizer of the summit, warned that Administration officials “have a socialist vision for this country.”

Five hundred people attended the summit, which served, in part, as a training session for Tea Party activists in Texas. An advertisement cast the event as a populist uprising against vested corporate power. “Today, the voices of average Americans are being drowned out by lobbyists and special interests,” it said. “But you can do something about it.” The pitch made no mention of its corporate funders. The White House has expressed frustration that such sponsors have largely eluded public notice. David Axelrod, Obama’s senior adviser, said, “What they don’t say is that, in part, this is a grassroots citizens’ movement brought to you by a bunch of oil billionaires.”
Last edited by rocky
quote:
Originally posted by rocky:
From The New Yorker:

Covert Operations
The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama.
by Jane Mayer
August 30, 2010

On May 17th, a black-tie audience at the Metropolitan Opera House applauded as a tall, jovial-looking billionaire took the stage. It was the seventieth annual spring gala of American Ballet Theatre, and David H. Koch was being celebrated for his generosity as a member of the board of trustees; he had recently donated $2.5 million toward the company’s upcoming season, and had given many millions before that. Koch received an award while flanked by two of the gala’s co-chairs, Blaine Trump, in a peach-colored gown, and Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, in emerald green. Kennedy’s mother, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, had been a patron of the ballet and, coincidentally, the previous owner of a Fifth Avenue apartment that Koch had bought, in 1995, and then sold, eleven years later, for thirty-two million dollars, having found it too small.

The gala marked the social ascent of Koch, who, at the age of seventy, has become one of the city’s most prominent philanthropists. In 2008, he donated a hundred million dollars to modernize Lincoln Center’s New York State Theatre building, which now bears his name. He has given twenty million to the American Museum of Natural History, whose dinosaur wing is named for him. This spring, after noticing the decrepit state of the fountains outside the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Koch pledged at least ten million dollars for their renovation. He is a trustee of the museum, perhaps the most coveted social prize in the city, and serves on the board of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, where, after he donated more than forty million dollars, an endowed chair and a research center were named for him.

One dignitary was conspicuously absent from the gala: the event’s third honorary co-chair, Michelle Obama. Her office said that a scheduling conflict had prevented her from attending. Yet had the First Lady shared the stage with Koch it might have created an awkward tableau. In Washington, Koch is best known as part of a family that has repeatedly funded stealth attacks on the federal government, and on the Obama Administration in particular.

With his brother Charles, who is seventy-four, David Koch owns virtually all of Koch Industries, a conglomerate, headquartered in Wichita, Kansas, whose annual ....”


Dang, is there an original thought in that gourd, or is everything you know copy and paste?
quote:
Originally posted by rocky:
I know I should pity this fool, but he represents the tea party at it's worst, did he just say The New Yorker Magazine was The New York Times? See that is the problem with the intelligence level of the tea party as created by Fox News propoganda.


See, I know I should pity your family, but you represent humanity at it's worst. You see to anyone smart enough to not walk around eating crayons and fouling themselves, they take both:
1. Any publicaation with the words " New York" in the title
.......and
2.Any thing posted by Rocky............

with a grain of salt and know it to be complete and utter bullspit on sight.
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
I do not see where any mention of funding is in that definition.

It was and is a loose group of people sharing ideas. It has no unified organization, no leader, no hierarchy of any kind.

Is the Coffee Party grassroots?
(Yes there is one, the liberal elites formed it).


He added the funding part himself. The TEA party couldn't be any more grassroots. That's the reason the left hates and fears them so much.
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
I do not see where any mention of funding is in that definition.


"Common people" do not receive funding.
quote:
It was and is a loose group of people sharing ideas. It has no unified organization, no leader, no hierarchy of any kind.


Maybe at first, but I think you're being a little naive if you really don't think that this whole thing has been co-opted for some time.

As for the Coffee Party, I've never heard of it, so I don't know.


Where did you come up with that one from?
quote:
Let me get this straight. You want me to research and prove that your guess you made without you doing any research is wrong? I don't think so.


I guess my sarcasm wasn't conveyed well enough. I don't need to personally do research, or have anyone else do it, to know that "common people" do not have Karl Rove or Sal Russo buying ads on their behalf.
quote:
I would like to know which ads these two paid for.


American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS

quote:
This Rove-founded group has kept pace with national party committees in its spending on political advertisements. Last week, the group focused on seven high-profile Senate races. The biggest targets included Colorado Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet, whom the group opposed with $724,000 in advertisements and mailings, and Illinois Democratic Senate candidate Alexander Giannoulas, whom Crossroads opposed with $618,000 in TV advertisements. Together with its affiliated nonprofit advocacy group, Crossroads GPS (No. 6, below), American Crossroads today said it would be rolling out nearly $4.25 million in political advertisements in eight states this week.


quote:
6. Crossroads GPS ($1,176,704)

This nonprofit affiliate of American Crossroads has also been a power player in promoting Republican candidates this election cycle. Last week, the group focused all its independent expenditure resources on opposing three Democratic Senate candidates: Washington Sen. Patty Murray, Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestak, and Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan.


Tea Party Express backs Angle

quote:
Tea Party Express, which has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in support of Sharron Angle, Reid's Republican challenger, and which has targeted the Senate's top Democrat in three of their four well publicized cross-country bus tours, now says they'll hold a victory celebration in the same Las Vegas casino where Reid is setting up shop for his election night headquarters.


Other Tea Party Express backed candidates

This includes Sharon Angle, Marco Rubio, Joe Miller, and Walt Minnick.

quote:
Also, which ads did George Soros pay for.


I don't know, and that has no bearing on grassroots merit of the Tea Party back candidates.
quote:
Maybe your definition of "common people" is where we are have a failure to communicate. What is an uncommon person anyway?


At this point, we're drifting from the original premise which is that Tea Party backed cadidates are not grassroots. See my previous post.

If we must have a definition for "common," I would say not getting money from Karl Rove is far more common than getting money from him, so that's one place to start.
quote:
I didn't know Karl Rove was a TEA party supporter. The TEA party definately started as a grassroots movement. I'm sure people with money that were sympathetic to the cause has donated. There are still a lot of grass roots TEA party people in the country. We will be voting tomorrow.


I've never disputed that it started as a grassroots movement. The Tea Party was developing while the GOP establishment was behind McCain/Palin. When that ended, much of the GOP establishment focused their effort on financing and organizing the enthusiasm they saw from the Tea Party with the hope of taking Congress in the 2010 midterm. I'm not doubting that some people who are claiming Tea Party status were on board when it was grassroots, but they just can't seriously claim that the publicity and the performance of the candidates they've backed is the result of a grassroots movement. It hasn't been a pure grassroots movement since early '09.
So if Karl Rove backs republican candidates that the Ta Party people also like, then he is funding the Tea Party.

Can you state he gave money to the Tea Party Express to give to the Sharon Angle campaign?

I'm sorry, I really don't get your point. If rich people give to a grassroots effort, its not grassroots any more but if the common people send their $10's and $20's it is?

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×