Marner
mitchethekidReally, that’s what the Tea Party organizations should be called if they wanted to maintain truth in advertising.
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.
Left is Right 
I realize I’m of a teensy weensy minority opinion on this, but am I the only one who is a bit concerned that Donald Sterling is being crucified (even if it is only free market crucification) over PRIVATE feelings expressed PRIVATELY to a vindictive, gold-bricking Jezabel? Yes, Sterling’s a racist creep and yes, free market, blah, blah, blah–if it’s bad for the NBA’s bottom line, Sterling will go, I can’t argue with the cold logic of that, it’s the way it should be. But I think the outrage machine is failing to consider some larger issues. Unlike the Eich situation, the vilification of Sterling is over personal opinions that he never intended to see the light of day. Isn’t that a distinction worth considering? In one of the freest nations on earth we are still allowed to THINK whatever we want to, right?
“In one of the freest nations on earth we are still allowed to THINK whatever we want to, right?”
Yup, we are. And the NBA is still allowed to have say over the type of people it wants as team owners. And Mozilla is still allowed to have a say over what type of person it wants as CEO. And Donald Sterling and Brendan Eich are still free to think and say whatever the hell they want.
I don’t disagree, I basically said the same thing as you in my post. My point is that I find it a bit wacky that he’s being so thoroughly persecuted for what is basically a thought crime.
As far as the Tea Party Grift goes, that’s been obvious pretty much since the TP emerged on the scene. Yet the Teabaggers are either clueless about it or just don’t want to admit it’s a scam. They still want so badly to believe that it’s a grassroots (ha!) movement that’s all about “restoring Constitutional government” or whatever slogan they’re on about. Don’t you dare tell them Santa Claus isn’t real!
This, by the way, is one area where Sarah Palin was an actual trailblazer. She showed just how much money there is to be made in grifting Teabaggers. Hell, she quit her job so she could grift full time! And look how much money she’s made off of it. Christine O’Donnell, for example, followed in Palin’s footsteps when she saw how much money there is to be made in this wingnut politics game. Her campaign was pretty transparently all about filling her coffers, but damn if it didn’t do just that.
Great point you make about Palin, O’Donnell, et al; I’ve always thought their graft was quite obvious but they sure seem to impress the rubes.
Let’s move the Sterling conversation to Mitch’s post so its on topic.