I admit that it's interesting, and possibly somewhat significant, that Zachary Roth of Talking Points Memo found five members of the tea party movement who have serious reservations about the Supreme Court's ruling on corporate political speech in Citizens United v. FEC (though one of the five expresses no more than "mixed feelings," while the concerns of another seem focused on "multinational corporations owned by foreign entities").
But if a few teabag figures want to spread the message that the ruling is troubling, obviously this tweeter didn't get the memo:
Or this blogger:
(Yes, that says, "The news just keeps getting bet[t]er every day.")
Or this tweeter:
A gleeful January 23 blog post at Tony's Take was headlined "Democrats Get Tea-Bagged"; Tony exulted in the Scott Brown victory, then wrote:
What other great advance for freedom took place this week? Why, the resurrection of the First Amendment from the ashes of McCain-Feingold by the Supreme Court. The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision yesterday (1/21) was 5-4....
You know this is a fabulous pro-freedom decision when the entire phalanx of Fascist Dems screams in denunciation. Their protests, like Zero's or Chuck Schumer's saying it gives a "green light for special interests," are simply hilarious - because they've provided nothing but a green light to unions and lefty outfits set up by George Soros.
("Zero," by the way, is wingnut-speak for "Obama.")
Spirit of Seventy Six, commenter #9 in response to this Politico article about the ruling, wrote:
If you have any doubt that God looks over America, you need only consider this week's events - the miracle in Massachusetts, home of the Tea Party, and this reaffirmation of the freedom of speech.... With regard to the Constitution, it reaffirms the right for any association of people to speak their views - including a business association. Think for a minute if it makes sense for AARP or ACORN, both of which operate as businesses, to invest in political discussion while others like Ford Motor Co., Apple, UnitedHealthcare, or Walmart may not. Doesn't Ford have a right to complain about their two primary domestic competitors being given government largesse? Doesn't Apple have a right to weigh in on net neutrality or protection of intellectual property? Doesn't UnitedHealthcare have the right to its views on Obamacare? ...
Yes -- those poor silenced corporations!
This blogger praised the ruling ("High Court Boosts Free Speech, Curtails McCain-Feingold") saying that "All of us, Tea Partiers included," should have patience and learn about "seemingly 'insider' issues that are crucial to our freedom and prosperity," because "it will be a long slog to turn around the excesses of the administrative state."
And the Bozeman Tea Party in Montana partnered with a group called the Western Tradition Partnership, which offered the Bozeman teabaggers the opportunity to attend a
top-level conference call February 3rd with nationally recognized campaign finance expert Cleta Mitchell, of Foley & Lardner LLP, on what the Citizens United decision really means to you, to non-profits, and to businesses
... Earlier this week, WTP's Jacob Leis hailed the Court's decision and declared that, "This ruling levels the playing field for smaller grassroots organizations and companies who - unlike unions and mega-corporations – cannot afford a platoon of lawyers every time they want to express their opinion on policy or political candidates."
So maybe a few teabaggers are skeptical and wary. But I think it's troubling that TPM's story, because of TPM's wide circulation, will encourage lefties to persist in what's certain to be a futile search for common ground with the majority of teabaggers.
I'm going to say this with confidence: If we're against it, most teabaggers are for it, and vice versa. We're never going to find common ground. The majority of them don't want to find common ground with us -- ever. The whole point, for them, is that we are the enemy.
No comments:
Post a Comment