A Tea Party Convention was held this weekend in
Nashville by some members of the national tea party movement. (The tea
party movement, as we have observed at their previous events, is an allegedly non-partisan but in practice anti-Obama phenomenon,
focusing on the Administration's massive spending, which is portrayed
as socialistic and wasteful of taxpayer dollars.)
Though paid attendance at the convention was only around 600 (swelling to 1,100 for Sarah
Palin's Saturday night speech), it received about as much press as the Grammy Awards,
partly because of Palin's involvement. Ironically, this level of
attention from the hated MSM gave rightbloggers the opportunity to treat
the modest affair in a minor media market as if it presaged a second
American Revolution -- of the sort Palin told conventioneers America is "ready for."
While the mainstream media gave the event their usual biased coverage ("Analysis: 'Tea Party' Is Democracy at Work" --
Associated Press), rightbloggers gave it the friendly treatment they
usually give conservative Republicans, and made great claims for its
success and lasting impact on the American scene.
"The Tea Party
is a unique populist movement and moment in American
history," said Lux Libertas. They also claimed that "There is no
charismatic leader of the party" and "the Tea Party does not need
a charismatic leader," though the ecstatic reaction to Palin's speech -- "Palin is
America," rhapsodized Atlas Shrugs -- suggests otherwise.
Instapundit
proprietor Glenn Reynolds opined in the Washington
Examiner that the convention showed the tea party movement is
"America's Third Great Awakening," on the order of the religious
revivals of the 18th and 19th Centuries. Perhaps sensing that many
readers would be uninterested in joining a giant prayer circle, Reynolds
told them that tea parties are also fun: Participants were "finding
that politics can be fun, and they're encountering the joys of learning
that they're not alone. ... It's fun to put on a protest rally for the
first time and have it work out, but it's even more fun to elect -- or
defeat -- a candidate."
But despite the tea party's great
historical significance and fun,
Reynolds felt it necessary to burnish its image a little more for
outsiders: He made a point of quoting one Antonio Hinton, and let his
readers know that Hinton is black. David Weigel had reported that the
crowd at the convention was "almost exclusively white," and maybe Reynolds felt
this wasn't the way the Third Great Awakening should be pictured.
Reynolds elsewhere showed pictures of Hinton surrounded by reporters,
lest anyone get the idea that the event's appeal was less than
universal. Later Reynolds published a reader's report that a
caller at C-Span had said the white convention crowd "looked like a
lynch mob," which comment Reynolds attributed to "racism," presumably
against white people.
Founding Bloggers also found proof of the
movement's unexpectedly broad reach: a "Tea Party Democrat" who is
running as an independent candidate for Congress from Maryland -- on
such traditional Democratic principles as advocacy of prayer in schools
and opposition to spending on social programs, a CNN interview reveals.
Everyone was invested
in making the movement look its best. Even intra-tea-party disagreements -- Hinton's
attendance was itself part of a mild protest against the exclusivity of
the event -- were set aside as all hands went all in for the big win.
RedState's Erick Erickson, who had previously compared the
big-ticket event to a Nigerian e-mail scam, turned up at the convention to praise it, albeit
faintly, as "well-meaning."
Classical Values defended the $549 convention entry
fee on libertarian grounds: "OK I'm down with the idea that it was a
fraud. But the Government is a bigger fraud. With the Tea Party
Convention I had a choice. I didn't have to support it if I didn't want
to. I didn't have to pay a dime to watch Andrew Breitbart there. The
Government is different. It makes me pay for things I don't even want at
the point of a gun. Which makes the Government not only a bigger fraud
but also a Criminal Enterprise."
In general, then, rightbloggers
gave high-fives to their tea party
favorites ("This is classic Breitbart and he knocks it right out of the
park," "Did [Palin] deliver to Tea Party Nation... You Betcha!") and shook their fists at those who
were not as enthusiastic about it as they ("AP Runs Palin Tea Party Hit Piece"). And they
agreed that the convention showed Americans were getting angry at the
government and its out-of-control spending. Meanwhile back in
Washington, Republican Senator Richard Shelby was
having his own kind of party.
Shelby blocked dozens of Obama appointees,
apparently using them as hostages to ensure his state receives
billions of dollars in federal program money or, as it is known in different
contexts, pork, which we are told is one of the menaces the tea
party movement was founded to combat.
Some rightbloggers found
Shelby's gambit harmful to the cause; Instapundit
advised, "Somebody put up a Tea Party challenger!" But these were
exceptions among rightbloggers.
Legal Insurrection defended Shelby's action on a
serves-them-right basis, as Democrats had "connived and schemed to shut
Republicans out of all major pieces of legislation, and are conniving
right now to figure out a way around the Senate filibuster rule to pass
the abominable health care plan. ... This is one big waaah from people
who
thought they were omnipotent, but have been brought back down to
earth."
"Turnabout's fair play," agreed Joshuapundit. "Senator Shelby is trying to create
some jobs for his constituents. Compared to the blatant corruption we've
seen practiced by the Obama Administration thus far, this is pretty
tame. ... Another thing: who are some of these nominees? Most of the
news
reports don't mention them, and I'm guessing there's are some pretty
good reasons why not."
Commentary also alluded to the possibly
treasonous nature of the nominees, complaining the Shelby incident
"takes the focus off the truly egregious nominees" of the White House
that Shelby, no doubt in the public interest, was choosing to block.
They mentioned as examples of these "egregious nominees" Dawn Johnsen,
currently disfavored by Republicans for "comparing 'forced pregnancy'
with slavery," per Fox News, and Harold Craig Becker, disapproved for
"his pro-union stances," per Workforce Management.
Commentary
nonetheless told readers not to fret, as "it remains
gloom and doom for Democrats at the DNC meeting," and then talked about
the Black Panthers.
For the most part, rightbloggers quietly
avoided the Shelby thing. This
might seem strange to the uninitiated: Why wouldn't they jump on this?
Wouldn't Shelby's pork-grubbing offer a great object lesson in the
spendthrift ways of Washington, right at the height of the tea party
convention? As the tea parties are a transformative, non-partisan
phenomenon, surely Shelby's party affiliation wouldn't make any
difference in his treatment.
But we expect none of our readers is
that uninitiated.
Roy Edroso's Rightbloggers: Exploring the right Wing Blogosphere
appears courtesy of our sister paper in New York City, Village Voice.
Comments (0)