CouleeConservatives.com

News Type:  Newspaper Article Date Published:  August 23, 2010 Author:  Elyse Siegel

In an appearance  on NBC's "Meet the Press" over the weekend, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey issued a warning that Republicans risk being targeted by the Tea Party if they don't get with the program when it comes to signing onto fiscally conservative policy.

Armey -- who serves as Chairman of Freedomworks, a Tea Party organizing group -- made the threat in discussing a balanced-budget proposal introducing by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.).

"The difference between being on -- a co-sponsor with Ryan and not is a thing called courage," explained the prominent conservative voice. "So we're saying to the Republican Party , you know, 'Get some courage to stand up for the things that are right for this country. Don't stand there and, and, and hide from the issue because you're afraid of the politics.'"

Armey went to underscore his bottom line: "The issue of public policy that governs the future of my children is more important than your politics, and if you can't see that, we'll replace you."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who made an appearance earlier in the Sunday morning program, lauded the rise of the Tea Party as "an indication of broad public support for doing something about too much spending and too much debt."

Despite recent reports on concerns that the growth of the conservative movement could create a rift within the larger Republican Party, McConnell regarded the fervor exhibited by the Tea Party as an "entirely positive" force for the GOP.

"I think it has been extremely helpful," explained the ranking Republican. "It's produced a lot of excitement in our primaries, and I think it's going to produce victories in November."

News Type:  Newspaper Article Date Published:  August 23, 2010 Author:  Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe

First of a three-part series

For today's monolithically liberal Democratic Party, every solution to every perceived problem involves more government: more spending of borrowed money to fund new programs -- top-down dictates from new laws enforced by new bureaucrats who are presumed to care more, and most important, know better what you need.

That's not how Tea Partiers roll.

And that's not how most Americans roll, either. Would anyone voluntarily bail out strangers living thousands of miles away who lied on their applications to buy a home? Of course not. It's a stupid idea that rewards bad behavior. "You Can't Fix Stupid, But You Can Vote It Out of Office," reads a popular Tea Party protest sign. Consumers in free markets uncorrupted by regulatory favoritism vote untold millions of times a day, punishing irrational behavior, bad actors, and liar loans with equal and swift justice.

Government, on the other hand, socializes bad behavior, taking from the responsible and giving to the irresponsible.

Americans are special because our founding was conceived in liberty. It was in the genes of the Sons of Liberty who risked their lives, fortunes and sacred honor for an idea. That genetic code makes our family, our community and our country unique in all the world. Dick remembers a conversation with a friend who had emigrated from Ethiopia and was so proud that he had just completed his naturalization requirements for U.S. citizenship.

He couldn't stop talking about it. He spoke about the U.S. Constitution, about the Founders and about freedom. As proud as he was of his heritage, he was a different man: He was an American.

Liberals now in control of our government seem bent on apologizing for the United States, striving to, in the words of President Obama, "remake America." They want to remake us to look more like European social democracies. Liberals don't talk about democratic socialism anymore; they use new phrases like "social justice."

Justice means treating every individual with respect and decency and exactly the same as anyone else is treated under the laws of the land. As best we can tell, "social justice" translates to politicians redistributing your hard-earned income to their favored social agendas. In Europe, this translates into bloated social welfare programs that punish work; massive tax burdens, particularly on the working class through hidden value-added taxes that crush economic expansion; and structural barriers to opportunity for younger generations of have-nots trying to enter the work force.

The politics of greed is always wrapped in the language of love. When you hear someone prattle on about social justice, read between the lines. More government control of health care is not really about improving access to health care; it's about controlling your health care.

It is time to take America back. We need to reclaim America from the advocates of big government in both political parties, from the rent-seeking corporations eager to use the power of government to enrich themselves at the expense of consumers and taxpayers, and from the web of left-wing special interests who feed at the public trough and consider it their right to do so.

If you want to comprehend the energy and passion behind the citizen activists of the Tea Party that are fighting this corrosive ideology of redistribution, understand this: We believe that America's founders got it right and that Europe got it wrong. Individual liberty is the unity of purpose that binds the Tea Party movement into a cohesive community. Freedom unleashed is a potent force for social change.

Excerpted from "Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto" by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and Freedomworks President and CEO Matt Kibbe

News Type:  Newspaper Article Date Published:  August 22, 2010 Author:  Jared Allen

One of the leaders of the Tea Party movement warned Sunday that Republicans could face as big of an electoral backlash as Democrats if they don't "get some courage."

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas), now the chairman of Freedomworks, a major backer of the Tea Party movement, said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that the modern Republican Party's lack of courage is a "big reason" for widespread frustration with both Democrats and Republicans.

Armey cited the GOP's distance from a controversial budget plan authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) as a prime example of what is behind the grassroots uprising known as the Tea Party movement and spoke of how that movement could spell trouble for both parties come November.

Ryan, the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, has called for the partial privatization of Social Security and for health insurance vouchers instead of traditional Medicare benefits for Americans older than 55 as a way to reduce the long-term deficit.

But Ryan's plan has been slow to pick up steam, as GOP leaders have kept their distance and only 13 Republicans in total have signed on as co-sponsors.

"The fact that he has only 13 co-sponsors is a big reason why our folks are agitated against the Republicans as well as the Democrats," said Armey, who called Ryan "probably the most creative-thinking and most courageous guy in Washington."

"The difference between being a cosponsor of Ryan and not is a thing called courage," Armey said. "And we have watched American public policy dominated by Democrats that don't care and Republicans that don't dare for a long time."

That, Armey said, could result in significant losses for Republicans as well as Democrats during the midterm elections.

"We're saying to the Republican Party, get some courage to stand up for the things that are right for this country. Don't stand there and hide from the issue because you're afraid of the politics," Armey said. "The issue of public policy that governs the future of my children is more important than your politics, and if you can't see that, we'll replace you."

Minutes before Armey's remarks, "Meet the Press" host David Gregory pressed Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on why Ryan's "Roadmap for America's Future" had such scant support among Republicans and no support among Republican leaders. McConnell repeatedly dodged the question.

At the same time, McConnell said the Tea Party's influence has been "entirely positive" for the GOP.

"It's an indication of broad public support for doing something about too much spending and too much debt. And this kind of genuine, popular uprising against excessive government spending, I think, has been extremely helpful. It's produced a lot of excitement in our primaries, and I think it's going to produce victories in November."

McConnell would not make a prediction on the number of Senate seats Republicans could pick up in November, but said "if the election were tomorrow, we'd have a very good day."

"I think irrational exuberance is not appropriate," McConnell said. "There's 70-some-odd days between now and the election. I'm optimistic."



Democracy and Power 114:  The Power Players

Who actually controls the force of government?   The politicians and interest groups control the American political process.  As stated, the politician seeks power.  Special interest groups – big business, small business, unions, education, seniors, and a multitude of others - seek favors: tax breaks, subsidies, exclusive legislation, etc.  Interest groups give enormous money to political campaigns, and receive gigantic benefits in return.

 

The Republican divide: K Street vs. Tea Partiers 

Advocating for a smaller government, less taxes and more freedom, Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe of FreedomWorks wrote , “But let us be clear about one thing: The tea party movement is not seeking a junior partnership with the Republican Party, but a hostile takeover of it.”.

The battle for control of the Republican Party between the K Street lobbyists and the tea party activists has engaged.  Timothy P. Carney in the Washington Examiner explains.

K Street Republicans’ coffers are filled by the political action committees of defense contractors, drug companies, lobbying firms, and Wall Street banks. A Tea Party Republican is funded by the Club for Growth or the Senate Conservatives Fund, which is run by the Republican leadership’s least-favorite colleague, Jim DeMint.

Carney cites the Republican primary contest in Kentucky:

Before the May 18 Senate primary, secretary of state and McConnell acolyte Trey Grayson had raised a half million dollars from PACs —20 times the PAC haul of upstart Rand Paul. Paul got a check from outgoing curmudgeon Sen. Jim Bunning, but 18 Republican senators bankrolled Grayson’s campaign, plus the Republican Mainstreet Partnership and three top House Republicans.

Grayson pocketed political action committee cash from businesses that have sided more with Obama than with Republicans, such as $10,000 from drug maker Pfizer — a key champion of Obamacare. Other Grayson funders are a rogues’ gallery of subsidy sucklers and regulatory robber barons: bailout bandits like the American Bankers Association and the Managed Funds Association; Obamacare backers like the American Hospital Association and a dozen drug companies; ethanol baron Archer Daniels Midland; cap-and-trade profiteers like Duke Energy; and government contractors like the Chubb Corp. and Northrop Grumman.

A K Street lobbyist who had represented AIG during the bailouts hosted a fundraiser for Grayson, and at least a dozen lobbying firms and industry groups backed him with cash. And of course, Trent Lott was a Grayson donor.

Lott is the captain of the K Street team. He told a reporter last month his thoughts on the Tea Partiers: “We don’t need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples. As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them.”

Yes, FreedomWorks and tea party activists are seeking a hostile take over of the Republican Party. 

 However, it is much more.  Much more. This is a fight for freedom.  Freedom thrives when there is a small and constrained government dedicated to protecting people and their property from the force and fraud of others.  Predominately, this was the vision and intent of the makers of the American Constitution.

Millions of Americans sense the Constitution has been debased and personal freedom is diminishing.  Individually and in small groups, Americans are actively voicing their concerns about debt, deficits, taxes and DC corruption, which reduces every American’s freedom.

 The 20th Century was the struggle against totalitarianism, and democratic and free countries defeated many commanding and controling governmental systems.  The first significant struggle of the 21st Century is personal freedom versus an American governance system corrupted by special interest groups and power lusting politicians. 

The immediate contest is between special interest lobbyists lead by former Majority Leader Lott and tea party activists for freedom.  Will freedom seeking Americans defeat the nexus of power and money of lobbyist Lott?

 The Democracy and Power lesson: 114:  The Power Players

Interest groups give enormous amounts of money to political campaigns and receive gigantic benefits in return.

 Join FreedomWorks and the hostile take over of the Republican Party.  This is an epic struggle to restore freedom.

 

The 9/12 Remember in November March on Washington is rapidly approaching.  Many asked all summer, "Where are the t-shirts?"   Well, the t-shirts are here, they sold out several times - and we've just restocked in time for the march.  Be sure to purchase your shirt right away so that you get it in time to bring to DC.  Click here to do so now.

See you in just over a week - and be sure to check out the 9/12 page for the latest updates on the march including the Day of Info you need.

News Type:  Newspaper Article Date Published:  August 21, 2010 Author:  John Rossomando

The tea party movement will revolutionize the GOP – and the nation’s political landscape in the process, says former House Majority Leader Dick Armey.

Armey, now the chairman of FreedomWorks, and FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe predicted in an exclusive Newsmax.TV interview that America's 1 million-plus tea partyers will reform the GOP and remake it into a force serving the cause of liberty rather than breaking away and forming a third party.

As a result, the GOP will beat the Democrats instead of being “a Democratic Party echo chamber” that pushes the same policies, says Armey, who co-authored the book “Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto” with Kibbe. The book details the tea party movement’s past, present and future.

“There’s been a real wave of tea party victories in Republican primaries where you’ve seen tax-and-spend Republicans being replaced by real fiscally conservatives,” Kibbe told Newsmax.TV. “That suggests to me there is going to be not just a lot of Republican victories on Nov. 2, but a real shift in the center of gravity and the focus of this new majority.

“I happen to think the Republicans are going to at least pick up [a majority of seats in] the House, and maybe the Senate.”

The tea party movement confounds Democrats because it lacks someone like billionaire George Soros behind the scenes pulling the strings, and because voters from all walks of life participate in it, Kibbe and Armey say.

“The fact of the matter is this tea party movement ̶ these folks who put the idea of liberty, Constitution of the United States, free markets ahead of other forms of public meddling by powerful governments ̶ have a number of people who they have come to trust and respect,” Armey says. “Sarah Palin’s one of them; certainly [South Carolina Sen.] Jim DeMint is probably the officeholder of greatest respect; and I think they have a lot of respect for FreedomWorks.

“I like to think they like me a little bit, too. There is no doubt about how they feel about these folks because they’ve stayed consistently loyal to the central principles and ideals that are governing all of our motives in this big, broad-based, grass-roots movement in this war against big government in this country.”

The size of government has had a negative impact on the economy because it has put more than $2 trillion of private capital on the sidelines, and that will only be made worse by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire at the end of this year, Armey says.

“If you want to stimulate the economy, give the private sector the signal that government will not take away your profits and will not regulate your behavior, so feel free to invest,” Armey says. “That’s a better stimulus than you could ever get from the government.”

© Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Republican leader aims to shape grassroots groups into political force. News Type:  Blog Hit Date Published:  August 20, 2010 Author:  Ambreen Ali

Dick Armey wants the tea parties to start playing nice.

Activists have to be polite to lawmakers, use the media to their advantage, and work with like-minded groups to succeed, the former Republican lawmaker writes in his new book, "Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto."

Armey, who is chairman of the D.C.-based tea-party advisor FreedomWorks, co-authors the book with the group's president Matt Kibbe. They wrote it with two audiences in mind.

For outsiders, they provide a history of the movement, take critics to task for using "the race card," and draw from the tea party's Contract From America to explain what the activists want.

For tea partyers, they suggest activists try to take over the Republican Party.

"In the real world, third parties don't win very often," they write.

But to do that, activists may have to drop some of their old ways. Here are a few of the book's tips for the tea parties:

* Some hierarchy is needed. The movement may be decentralized, but Armey and Kibbe advocate for creating small chapters that each have their own leader, legislative liaison, spokesperson, membership director, and social director.

* Work with others. Hold meetings with other tea parties and groups that share your values.

"No one person or group needs to be in charge," the authors write. "The purpose of a federation is merely to keep the lines of communication open and to allow for greater cooperation between like-minded groups."

* Take advantage of the media. Tea partyers may believe the media is biased, but the authors argue that press coverage is an important part of activism.

Write letters to the editors, op-eds -- like the ones the authors wrote to promote this book -- and call in to radio talk shows, they advise.

"We can and should get our message out on traditional media outlets. To throw up our hands because of media bias would be foolish and counterproductive," they write.

* Be polite to lawmakers. Tea partyers were seen shouting at members of Congress during the health-care debate. Armey and Kibbe say that is not the way to go.

"You will never convince your lawmaker or their staff with rudeness, vulgarity or threats," they write. "There will be other issues in the future and you'll want to be able to meet with the legislator again."

* Conquer town-hall meetings. These events are about a lot more than showing up and expressing emotions.

Have half your activists stand outside with protest signs, and send the other half in to grill the lawmaker, the writers suggest. Follow-up with phone calls and letters until the lawmaker responds.

At the same time, Armey and Kibbe don't want the tea parties to lose their initial fervor.

"Be polite but firm," the write. "Be respectful, but don't be afraid to be animated and passionate."

-- Ambreen Ali, Congress.org

News Type:  Op-ed Placement Date Published:  August 20, 2010 Author:  Matt Kibbe

In our new book, Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and I discuss the fundamental problems with assuming that public officials have our best interests at heart.

Excerpt from Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto:

The Tea Party movement adds a welcome addition to the fundamental debate over the size and scope of government: grassroots activists armed with the intellectual arguments they need to make a difference in political debates, not just scholarly discussions. What is happening is a dramatic increase in the physical infrastructure and on-the-ground personal politicking that can turn ideas into action. The new generation of limited government scholars, and the internet, provides an even wider audience for good ideas. But unlike earlier generations, the new generation as the muscle to make things happen in the political arena.

While standing for the right ideas and values is vitally important, it is naive to think that politicians will do the right thing simply because a proposed polict will benefit the general citizenry, creating the conditions for economic opportunity and individual prosperity for all. That’s simply not how things work.If there was doubt about the proposition before, today it is painfully obvious that politicians in power often act in their own self-interest at the expense of the “public interest”.

The “currency” that drives the political marketplace is fundamentally different from the private economy. In the private economy, it is enough to have a good idea, identify a new product, develop it, and sell it to an identified (or created) customer base. In the market, entrepreneurship and competition determine outcomes. Returns and values matter and are ultimately determined by individuals making choices.

In the political economy, good ideas, philosophical values, and economic efficiency have little to do with how public policy decisions are actually made. The biggest error made by advocates of government planning, from Marx to Keynes to Obama, is the assumption that bureaucrats and elected officials possess both the detailed knowledge and right motives to be able to solve the economic problems of a nation. While microeconomics correctly assumes that individuals act in their own self-interest, every macroeconomic proposal for government intervention assumes that public officials act in the public interest, somehow supressing their individual interests to the greater interests of society.

In reality, public choices are driven by the interests of those making the choices – the politicians who draft, promote, and vote on the legislation; and the special interests that work to influence the political decision-making process. Politics is driven by the need to solicit new voters to the polls. Power (to tax, spend and regulate) is used to consolidate those votes, and to buy more votes at the margin. The policy agendas of both parties are driven by this pursuit of votes and power.

News Type:  Newspaper Article Date Published:  August 19, 2010 Author:  Mark Tapscott

It may not please New Yorker magazine’s James Surowiecki to hear this, but the tea party movement could be the clearest evidence yet of the growing relevance of his landmark book, “The Wisdom of Crowds,” and its application in politics.

Surowiecki’s fundamental insight is this: The aggregate knowledge, experience, analytical prowess and inductive powers of a group are often greater than those of any one of its members. This observation isn’t always and everywhere true or evident, but compelling demonstrations of its operation in daily life are plentiful.

With everybody connected to everybody else via the Internet, new means of uncovering the wisdom of crowds become possible. The political implications therein remain rather murky, though.

I was reminded of Surowiecki earlier this week in a Wall Street Journal op-ed by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and his tea party co-conspirator, Freedomworks.org President Matt Kibbe. The Journal piece coincided with publication of their new book, “Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto,” published by HarperCollins.

Armey and Kibbe wrote that the tea party movement “has blossomed into a powerful social phenomenon because it is leaderless — not directed by any one mind, political party or parochial agenda,” resulting in the creation of “a virtual marketplace for new ideas, effective innovations and creative tactics.”

This “beautiful chaos” is analogous to the “spontaneous order” Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek said results from the proper operation of free markets, according to Armey and Kibbe.

The clincher here was their noting that the tea party movement reminds Americans that “decentralization, not top-down hierarchy, is the best way to maximize the contributions of people and their personal knowledge.”

But if Armey and Kibbe are right, if the tea party movement is indeed sparking new ideas, innovative tactics of social and political organization, greater personal freedom and enhanced opportunities for individual expression, why is its mere mention certain to inspire frothing, spittle-spewing fury in your typical liberal, aka “progressive”?

The answer is, as Armey and Kibbe tell us, “the big-government crowd is drawn to the compulsory nature of centralized authority. They can’t imagine an undirected social order. Someone needs to be in charge — someone who knows better. Big government is audacious and conceited.”

Put otherwise, the right believes in freedom from the bottom up, the left loves contemporary expressions of the Guardians, Plato’s race of philosopher kings.

Once you get your mind around that reality, it clears up many of the apparent anomalies about the current state of American politics. Here’s an example: Less than two years after winning the presidency, Barack Obama said, “After 18 months, I have never been more confident that our nation is headed in the right direction.”

That sentiment puts Obama at dire loggerheads with two-thirds of his fellow citizens, who think he’s taking the country off the deep end.

Obama is reaching so far to the left, toward political centralization, a top-down command-and-control economy, and a Washington-knows-best regulatory mentality, that he’s becoming a fringe voice alien to most Americans who believe government authority must be decentralized and individuals thereby empowered to act voluntarily from their local communities.

The tea party movement is the heart of the 70 percent of the citizenry who fear Obama has gotten the country seriously off the right track. They want fundamental change and they won’t settle for more Washington, D.C., double-talk, backroom dealing or broken promises.

Tea party activists are the vanguard of a revolutionary renewal of the American founding. And that’s why they inspire such irrational hatred and fear in so many of the precincts of the left.  

Mark Tapscott is editorial page editor of The Washington Examiner and proprietor of Tapscott’s Copy Desk blog at www.washingtonexaminer.com.

News Type:  Newspaper Article Date Published:  August 19, 2010 Author:  Matt Lewis

Former House Majority Leader (and current FreedomWorks Chairman) Dick Armey joined us on today's podcast -- along with FreedomWorks President and CEO Matt Kibbe -- to discuss their new book, 'Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto.'

During our conversation, Armey expressed optimism that if Republicans were to retake the majority in Congress in November, they could lead effectively. As evidence, he cites the possibility that conservatives like Pat Toomey and Marco Rubio could join with Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) to "set the agenda."

As Armey put it: "Senator DeMint's got about eight new allies, and [former Senator] Trent Lott's sleeping in a fetal position."

When asked about House Minority Leader John Boehner's ability to lead House Republicans as speaker, Armey told me Boehner "has got the right stuff, if he still has the energy to get up and make it happen."

Armey also cautioned that Boehner had better demonstrate early on during his tenure that he still has such drive, and warned that if Republicans do take back the majority, Boehner's own members are "not going to be very patient with anybody being slow to the draw on this deal."

Armey also told me that FreedomWorks and The Club for Growth "have a very good working relationship," but said that another conservative grassroots group, Americans for Prosperity, "quite frankly, just simply doesn't do much."

We also discussed their recent Wall Street Journal op-ed.

News Type:  Op-ed Placement Date Published:  August 18, 2010 Author:  Matt Kibbe

When the Founding Fathers issued the Declaration of Independence, they proclaimed: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, and Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent, have made it clear that they are willing to operate without such authority in order to pass their "cap-and-trade" energy-tax legislation. For the sake of our representative government, they must be stopped.

On Nov. 2, the American people will give their consent to the candidates whose legislative agenda they support. Based on the discontent throughout the country, both sides of the aisle think the upcoming midterm elections will reduce the size of the current Democratic congressional majority. A widespread loss of Democratic seats would be an unmistakable condemnation of the far-left legislative agenda being pushed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Obama administration.

Incredibly, this forecasted repudiation of big government could be greeted by ousted politicians with a repudiation of voter intent. After the election, but before the newly elected Congress is sworn in in January, the current Congress may call a lame-duck session in November and December. During this session, congressmen and senators removed from power may still vote to enact new legislation. Some Democrats already are talking about their plans to exploit this session to address unpopular issues.

Mr. Kerry and Mr. Lieberman have been particularly unabashed about their hopes to advance the cap-and-trade bill in a lame-duck session where defeated congressmen and senators would be estranged from the will of people. This bill - which intentionally would raise the cost of energy produced by fossil fuels so we would use less of it - has not had enough support to pass. In fact, the bill was shelved recently by Mr. Reid, who clearly stated, "We know we don't have the votes." They don't have the votes because congressmen do not want to vote for another expensive, unpopular bill just before a highly contested election. Of course, those congressmen who lose their election will no longer be accountable to the people in a lame-duck session.

Mr. Lieberman admits that "there is a certain awkwardness in a lame-duck session. But these are big and important issues. ..." Perhaps it is the opening words of the Constitution are the cause of that "certain awkwardness."

"We the People" speak with our votes and already have spoken out resoundingly against this energy agenda. If those who support cap-and-trade are voted out of office, Mr. Lieberman and his colleagues should respect that message. Mr. Lieberman's willingness to skirt the democratic system because he thinks a bill is "big and important" epitomizes the mentality that has taken root in Washington. Such boundless arrogance from legislators who think their personal opinion reigns is exactly why there is such bipartisan outrage directed at the political class.

Mr. Lieberman's co-crusader for cap-and-trade, Mr. Kerry, doesn't even offer the caveat about the awkwardness of exploiting the session: "If it is after the election, it may well be that some members are free and liberated and feeling that they can take a risk or do something." Mr. Kerry is celebrating the fact that lawmakers will have a chance to be liberated from the restraints of the people, an elitist sentiment that is repulsive to American ideals. This is the exact opposite of how our elected representatives should respond to election results that tell them we dislike their agenda. Rather than hope his colleagues take "risks" they refused to take while still accountable to the people, he should hope they would gracefully accept the message.

The current administration has continued to push unpopular legislation despite the groundswell of opposition throughout the country expressed in rallies, town halls, polls and primaries, but a lame-duck session would take the dismissal of the Tea Party activism to a whole new level. It threatens to view voting itself as an "artificial" constraint on the Obama agenda and sends a message that "We the People" do not have a voice in government. If a bill cannot pass before November, it would be a disgrace to the democratic process to enact it post-election.

According to a Rasmussen poll, 65 percent of voters oppose a lame-duck session because it would trample on our founding documents, mute the voice of the people and disregard the final results of the November election. Once the election results come in, congressional leaders should act with the dignity their office demands and refuse to pass controversial legislation until the new Congress is sworn in next January.

Matt Kibbe is president of FreedomWorks and author, with Dick Armey, of "Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto" (William Morrow, 2010).

News Type:  Newspaper Article Date Published:  August 18, 2010 Author:  Danielle De Souza

BREWSTER — About 150 people came to Sciortino's restaurant Tuesday night to see national Tea Party leader Dick Armey during a rally by the Hudson Valley Patriots.

Armey, a former House Republican majority leader and FreedomWorks' leader, signed copies of his book, "Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto," which was released Tuesday.

Lisa Douglas, founder of the Hudson Valley Patriots and organizer of the group's "Give Us Liberty Rally," said the event had an important purpose.

"We are here for Dick's kickoff campaign and to get the word out of who we are locally," she said. "The turnout could have been better."

The Hudson Valley Patriots is a nonprofit organization that believes in fiscal responsibility , constitutionally limited government and free markets.

Douglas said the organization is not a Tea Party group because the Tea Party endorses candidates and the Patriots do not.

David Spielman, campaign coordinator of FreedomWorks, collected donations and handed out pamphlets on the organization and Armey's book tour.

"This (event) is about bringing back liberty, bringing activists together and lowering taxes," he said. "The book is exactly dead-on on where this movement is going. It is fair and valid."

FreedomWorks is an organization based in Washington that "recruits, educates, trains and mobilizes volunteer activists to fight for less government, lower taxes and more freedom."

Pat Tyndall, 41, of Brewster bought a copy of the book as his small sons, Jack, Owen and Andrew, watched the rally.

"I am looking forward to reading it," the contractor said.

"I go to many Tea Party events because they have a good message and they are trying to put things back in the people's hands." he said.

"We are here trying to protect their future," he said as he pointed to his children.

"I am here because I don't like the direction the country is going," Ellen Morelock, 58, of Danbury, Conn., said while buying a shirt that read, "Take Back America 2010."

"The people should have more of a say in how the country is run. We have to get out of debt," Morelock said.

Brian Bertha of Millbrook, N.Y., agreed.

"It is our responsibility to clean up this mess, and we will do it in November," the 63-year-old said to the crowd from atop a red-, white- and blue-trimmed flatbed truck. "I am a little older, so I have 10 or 20 years left. I want my children and grandchildren to grow up free in this country like I did."

News Type:  Newspaper Article Date Published:  August 17, 2010 Author:  Alex Pappas

Arizona Sen. John McCain missed an opportunity during the 2008 presidential election to save his “sinking Republican ticket” when he supported the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) legislation, according to a new book on the Tea Party movement co-authored by former GOP leader Dick Armey that hits bookshelves today.

“It was, we believe, a unique opportunity for the sinking Republican ticket to revive its standing with the American people and distinguish itself from a discredited Republican establishment,” write Armey and co-author Matt Kibbe, the president of FreedomWorks, in “Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto.”

TARP called for the government in 2008 to purchase $700 billion in assets from troubled financial institutions — legislation that is often referred to as the impetus for the modern day Tea Party movement.

“But that didn’t happen,” they write of the Republican presidential candidate, “and the McCain campaign never recovered. Republicans were tarred with TARP, even though the entire Democratic leadership had carried the legislation, on their terms, to President Bush’s desk.”

Continuing, they write that, “It was an opportunity tailor-made for the Maverick to stand on good policy and political ground by taking on both Wall Street’s bad actors.”

A campaign spokesman for McCain — who is now running for re-election to the U.S. Senate in Arizona — did not immediately return a request for comment.

Armey and Kibbe also a make the argument in the book — contrary to what’s often reported in the media — that the Tea Party movement was not sparked by “sore-loser partisans opposed to President Obama’s agenda,” but had its roots in the prior administration.

“They’re wrong,” the authors write. “The government expansion during President George W. Bush’s reign provided the fuel. And it was his Wall Street bailout that ignited the firestorm we see today.”

Other topics broached in the book include dismissing the notion that the Tea Party movement could form into a third party or that its activists are motivated by race.

In addition to offering a history of the Tea Party movement — which burst onto the scene in the spring of 2009 — the book also includes an “activism tool kit” with advice for Tea Party organizers.

Jackie Bodnar, a spokeswoman at FreedomWorks, said the organization is officially launching the book Tuesday on NBC’s Today Show. She said Armey will also visit the set of Fox News’ O’Reilly Factor and Comedy Central’s The Daily Show Tuesday to promote the book

News Type:  Newspaper Article Date Published:  August 17, 2010 Author:  Associated Press

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Voters in the evenly balanced 3rd District weighed in Tuesday on who should replace Democratic U.S. Rep. Brian Baird in a contest watched closely by Republicans hoping to make gains in Congress.

Democrat Denny Heck, who has raised more than $1 million, was likely to advance to the November ballot along with one of the two Republican candidates.

Republican state Rep. Jaime Herrera of Camas, a former aide to GOP Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, got early national buzz after six-term incumbent Baird announced his retirement last year.

David Castillo, a former chief of staff to the state House GOP caucus who also worked in the Bush administration, was in the race months before Baird's announcement.

Herrera has raised more money than Castillo, who has garnered the support of the tea party-inspired group FreedomWorks.

Heck is an Olympia businessman, former state lawmaker and founder of TVW, the state's public affairs network.

All three candidates have stressed the need to create jobs, something that resonates in a district that has been hit especially hard by the recession. Six of the district's seven counties have an unemployment rate between 10 and 13 percent. The only exception is Thurston County, home of the state capital.

The politically diverse district spans southwest Washington from Olympia south to Vancouver and from the Cascade Mountains to the Pacific Ocean.

President George Bush won the district in both 2000 and 2004. President Barack Obama won it in 2008 with 53 percent of the vote.

Unsuccessful Republican gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi won it in 2004 and 2008.

The only Republican to hold the 3rd District seat since 1960 was Linda Smith, who won a write-in campaign during the 1994 GOP takeover of Congress. Baird was elected after Smith gave up her seat for an unsuccessful run for the U.S. Senate.

Voters will also decide the re-election bid for Republican Rep. Dave Reichert in the 8th District. Reichert is likely to advance through the primary with Democratic challenger Suzan DelBene, a former top-level Microsoft executive.

The swing district includes some of the state's richest residents, high-tech workers and blue-collar rural communities.

In the 2nd District, Democratic Rep. Rick Larsen faces challenger John Koster, who has the backing of tea party activists and the endorsement of 2008 vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

Elsewhere in the state, Republican Reps. Doc Hastings and Cathy McMorris Rogers seem secure in their conservative Eastern Washington districts, while Democrats Norm Dicks, Jay Inslee, Jim McDermott and Adam Smith face light opposition for their seats west of the Cascade
Mountains.

News Type:  Newspaper Article Date Published:  August 17, 2010 Author:  Ben Rubin

It was time to crash Michael Kaplowitz's precious little news conference.

A small crew sauntered across the parking lot in Carmel, heading to the back of a gathering for Kaplowitz, a Democratic Westchester County legislator running for state Senate. They hoisted anti-Kaplowitz and anti-tax signs as he spoke, then prodded him with questions, which he did his best to avoid.

While celebrating their right to protest, Kaplowitz dismissed the group as shameless operatives for his Republican opponent, Assemblyman Greg Ball. But these folks hotly disagreed: They are Kaplowitz's hardworking, law-abiding, taxpaying constituents — in the throes of their Howard Beale moment — and they wanted answers.

They were Hudson Valley Patriots.

Lisa Douglas, a 46-year-old North Salem mother and Navy veteran, created the Patriots  last year as a "therapeutic blog" to vent her political frustrations. But it quickly expanded into a small organization, website, citizen newspaper, daily e-mail briefing to 1,700 people nationally and another fast-growing chapter for New York's grass-roots Tea Party movement.

"I'm proud; It's very comforting to know that you're not alone in the way you think," said Douglas, whose organization pushes for the movement's fundamentals of lower taxes, smaller government, protection of the Constitution and skepticism of politicians from both major parties.

Today, as a coming-out party for the young organization, FreedomWorks' leader Dick Armey — former Republican House majority leader and national Tea Party grand poobah — will headline a Patriots-sponsored rally and book signing.

The event, at Sciortino's in Brewster, will include Tea Party-inspired music, plenty of anti-government signs and a red-, white- and blue-trimmed flatbed truck used as the stage.

The fall elections should be a big test for the local Tea Partyers' power and the anti-incumbency wave they're riding.

But aside from that one election cycle, local organizers laugh at the idea that they are part of some fad and say they will continue to put politicians on notice for years to come.

A pitch to the masses

On Monday, just after 7 a.m., Gary Murphy and Howard Hellwinkel, small-business owners and two of about six Patriots core members, stood at an entrance to the Goldens Bridge train platform.

They tried to hand their thin, broadsheet newspaper, The Well-Informed Citizen, and an accompanying pitch as quickly as passing commuters would allow.

The paper — produced, as the masthead says, by "Non-Partisan Seekers of Truth" — was created by the Patriots about three months ago as a way of getting out a positive Tea Party message and educating the masses.

Douglas writes most of the copy, which is full of stories politely decrying "ObamaCare," high taxes and an expensive, bloated welfare state.

In addition to the newspaper, Douglas wakes up at 5 a.m. six days a week to peruse more than 200 daily e-mails and 50 websites to compile "The Need-to-Know News." The daily e-mail blast is an extensive aggregation of Tea Party interests, from concerns of spiking public water with lithium to efforts to preserve the Bush tax cuts to more harsh words against President Barack Obama.

Each e-mail ends with: "YOU ARE ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT WILL SAVE THIS COUNTRY!"

Yet, despite this outreach, or maybe because of it, there are many who question the merits of the movement and see Tea Partyers as misinformed kooks.

"It seems that a lot of Tea Party protests are, what shall I say, shortsighted, just sort of emotional," said Elizabeth Saenger, a founder of the left-leaning Westchester for Change, which tried to counterprotest a White Plains Tea Party tax-day rally in April.

The 68-year-old Mamaroneck resident said she was concerned with the growth of the Tea Party movement, which she called self-contradictory, misguided and prejudiced.

"I think that there is a racist strain in this, I really think so," she said.

Murphy said he's acutely aware of the negative connotations associated with the Tea Party, but considers them artifical election-year distractions from who Tea Partyers really are. As a counter, he offers himself as a friendly, regular-Joe archetype of the movement.

"I watch Paul Rudd movies; I'm a regular person," Murphy said, "I would never stand for something like that and surely my wife, too, would never stand for any organization that would have any hint of hateful rhetoric."

Murphy, 39, of Chappaqua and Hellwinkel, 59, of North Salem get up at dawn several days a week to hand out newspapers before work. On Monday, they engaged commuters while sipping coffee, taking emergency calls from work and intermittently discussing their views on illegal immigration and the financial stimulus.

Many passers-by ignored them. One man gave them a thumbs-up as he rushed by. Another asked them if they were Tea Partyers and, after they responded yes, brusquely walked off.
Waking up

Murphy and his wife, Robin, are longtime Republicans, but for most of their lives were disinterested and uninvolved in politics.They focused on raising their family and running their cleaning service, Maid Brigade.

Something snapped. As with many other Tea Partyers, they "woke up" to the overspending of government, the back-room deals and lies of both Republicans and Democrats, and started to get angry and fearful about their country's future.

In January, the couple went to a State-of-the-Union address TV-watching event to meet like-minded folks. They bumped into Hellwinkel, who opened them up to the Tea Party. From there, the once nonconfrontational Murphys started working for local political campaigns and became more and more involved with the Patriots, bringing their small-business skills to help grow the organization.

The Murphys' shift to the Tea Party followed a familiar trajectory. With dozens of new groups popping up all over the country, many of those involved repeat the same points of being politically agnostic but suddenly awakening from a fog and jolted into action.

Jeanine Vecchiarelli, 52, a New City homemaker, helped start Rally for America in Rockland in the fall, sparked by "more than anything else, the taxes, and the feeling that more and more and more that Big Brother is looking over our shoulder."

The group's regular meetings now bring 30 to 40 people. Much like the Patriots and other Tea Party groups, the organization maintains loose affiliations with other local chapters, as well as national groups like FreedomWorks. In the same model, it is also leaderless — with a small steering committee at its center — and reaches hundreds of others through rallies and social media.

White Plains gave birth to one of the first Tea Party groups in the nation, said founder Jon Coolong, 47, a purchasing director for a New Jersey company. The group now boasts 300 members and is a major player in the regional movement.

For Douglas, the Murphys and Hellwinkel, the thankless, unpaid hours of work put into their small organization are of little concern, as they say they need to keep fighting for no less than their children's futures.

"Bottom line, I want these career politicians out, because they have no respect for the positions that they hold, they have no respect for the people that employ them and pay them handsomely," Douglas said, "They spend three-quarters of their day looking to get money instead of doing the job that they are paid to do."

She paused, then for effect, added, "Damn it!" and laughed out loud.

The American people were told by the Obama administration that this would be the “summer of recovery.” Joe Biden notoriously claimed that "you're going to see, come the spring, net increase in jobs every month." Thus far, the economy has lost a total of 283,000 jobs this summer alone. The latest Labor Department’s report reveals that the US lost 54,000 jobs in the month of August. The unemployment rate rose to 9.6 percent from 9.5 percent in July. Back in January 2009, the Obama administration predicted that without the “stimulus” the unemployment rate would rise 9.5 percent. Even by the Obama administration’s original measures, the “stimulus” has made the economy even worse.

 Last week, the Congressional Budget Office released a report claiming that the $814 billion “stimulus” had created or saved up to 3.3 million jobs last quarter and lowered the unemployment rate by 1.8 percent. Of course, this comes to a shock to the 14.9 million people currently jobless. Where are all the jobs that the “stimulus” supposedly created?

 The Congressional Budget Office’s report used the discredited Keynesian multiplier to make these false claims. This Keynesian model ignores the actual state of the economy. Instead, it claims that for every dollar the government spends, the GDP will be increased by more than a dollar. In short, the discredited multiplier irrationally says that the more money the government spends, the more jobs will be made.

 Therefore, the Keynesian model would conclude that the “stimulus” created jobs no matter what. Unlike the model suggests the “stimulus” did not inject new money into the economy.  The money to pay for the $814 “stimulus” was first taken away from taxpayers or borrowed out of the economy. Since the “stimulus” only transferred money from one group to another, it is impossible to justify that it created new net jobs. 

 To be fair, the “stimulus” likely created some new jobs. It is easy to see new workers being hired for federal “stimulus” projects. However, the evidence is clear that the “stimulus” destroyed more potential jobs than it created. The Keynesian multiplier fails to factor in the 10 million jobs that were not created in the private sector due to “stimulus” spending.

 The “stimulus” merely takes away money from productive citizens—who likely would have used this money to create new jobs— to fund typically unprofitable and unproductive projects. For instance, the “stimulus” included over $700,000 to develop joke telling robots and $3.4 million to construct tunnels to allow only turtles to cross underneath a Florida road. While some taxpayers may not be able to afford the high price of a Blackberry smart phone, the “stimulus” gave $1 million worth of tax-funded smart phones to smokers to help them quit their habit.

 On Wednesday, Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Christina Romer claimed that she doesn’t “fully understand why firms cut production as much as they did or why they cut labor so much more than they normally would." The reason is clear—high taxation deters job growth. Businesses are discouraged from hiring new employees since they are uncertain on how complicated legislation such as ObamaCare, the government overhaul of the financial services rules and the proposed cap and trade tax scheme will affect their costs. As House Minority Leader John Boehner said in a released statement:

We will not solve our fiscal challenges until we cut spending and have real economic growth – and we won’t have real economic growth if we keep raising taxes on small businesses.

With the largest tax hike in history just four months away, taxes on two-thirds of small businesses will increase by 13 percent. Unless we change course by cutting taxes for all Americans and rejecting more proposed “stimulus” plans, future job reports will likely be even more dismal. 

News Type:  Newspaper Article Date Published:  August 17, 2010 Author:  Kyle Wingfield

Two tea-party promoters, Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe of Freedomworks, offer a “manifesto” for the movement in today’s Wall Street Journal. The bit that’s getting all the attention doesn’t come until the end:

    [L]et us be clear about one thing: The tea party movement is not seeking a junior partnership with the Republican Party, but a hostile takeover of it.

    The American values of individual freedom, fiscal responsibility and limited government bind the ranks of our movement. That makes the tea party better than a political party. It is a growing community that can sustain itself after November, ensuring a better means of holding a new generation of elected officials accountable.

So, it’s a hostile takeover of a political party, but it’s also better than a political party? I think I know what they are getting at: that they are part of a movement that will try to infiltrate the GOP and change it from within, rather than compete with, or take orders from, it. But it’s a little obtuse, as is the notion of setting out a manifesto for a group that, as they write within said manifesto, is not a top-down organization:

    The many branches of the tea party movement have created a virtual marketplace for new ideas, effective innovations and creative tactics. Best practices come from the ground up, around kitchen tables, from Facebook friends, at weekly book clubs, or on Twitter feeds. This is beautiful chaos — or, as the Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek put it, “spontaneous order.”

    Decentralization, not top-down hierarchy, is the best way to maximize the contributions of people and their personal knowledge. Let the leaders be the activists who have the best knowledge of local personalities and issues. In the real world, this is common sense. In Washington, D.C., this is considered radical.

As I’ve said before, the tea party’s best chances for “sustain[ing] itself after November” lie in changing the way Americans engage with politics and politicians — for changing the framework for debate, not working within the old one. And it needs to be done locally before it can expect to have more than a fleeting impact nationally.

I don’t think Armey and Kibbe are wrong about their description of the tea party to date. But if they are right about its intention to remake the GOP nationally, I think the movement will end up using its energies in ways that don’t fulfill its potential.

P.S. — As a challenge to those who will come on here and disparage tea partiers, try to say something more original and insightful than accusing all or most of them of racism.

What: FreedomWorks will be hosting a conference call to discuss the events and logistics surrounding this year’s 9/12 Taxpayer March on Washington. Organizers of the March will be available to discuss details, announce exclusive updates on the weekend’s agenda, answer questions about the logistics of receiving press credentials for the event, and to provide insight into the motives and ideas behind the thousands who will be marching together from the Washington Monument down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol building.

Who:  

Matt Kibbe, President, FreedomWorks
Yvonne Donnelly, National Chair, The 912 Project
Ryan Hecker, Contract FROM America
Adam Brandon, VP Communications, FreedomWorks
Rob Jordan, VP Federal and State Campaigns, FreedomWorks
Brendan Steinhauser, Director of Federal and State Campaigns, FreedomWorks
Nan Swift, Campaigns Manager, FreedomWorks

When: The call will be held on Tuesday, September 7, 2010 at 1pm ET.

Where: To get the conference call-in number, please contact Jackie Bodnar at (202) 942-7652.

Why: On September 12, 2009, grassroots activists from coast to coast flooded the streets of Washington D.C., making history in protest of a wasteful and oversized government. This year, FreedomWorks and our fiscally conservative allies will assemble once again on September 12th to renew our commitment to a constitutionally limited government, and to remind Washington in one, strong, united voice that we will “Remember in November.”

Activists are encouraged to bring signs, get fired up, and strategize the ways in which enthusiasm can be turned into real electoral results this November.

 

“Let me be clear about one thing: We are not seeking a junior partnership with the Republican Party, but rather a hostile takeover of it. Last year we demanded leaders who will defend our freedoms and advocate sustainable economic policy. This year, we assemble to remind them that if they can’t follow through, we will vote in somebody else who will.” - Matt Kibbe, President and CEO of FreedomWorks

 

 

NIck Gillespie, editor and chief of Reason.tv and Reason.com, interviewed Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe today to discuss the Tea Party movement, the 2010 elections and the possibility of real change coming to Washington this November.

Gillespie begins by addressing the issue of cutting the budget:

NG: The main, central complaint of the Tea Party movement is that the government spends too much money. What needs to be cut and how fast?

DA: Actually, the complaint is that it's too big and too meddlesome, but you have to cut the government immensely and as fast as possible.

NG: Give us specifics.

DA: Obviously , the big line is, you can't deal with it unless you deal with entitlement spending. There's one guy that's stepped up to that, Paul Ryan, he's condemned by the liberals and ignored by the Republicans. But the fact is, it you just said, all government benefit programs can be voluntary participation only, then all of a sudden you have people voluntarily saying well take me off your list of unfunded mandates for Medicare and Social Security.

MK: By the way, there's a bunch of low-hanging fruit. You could repeal Obamacare, you could repeal TARP, you could repeal Fannie and Freddie, and these are all big fiscal time bombs. But I think you need to cap discretionary spending as well, and by the way defense shouldn't be held harmless, if you limit the overall growth in a budget you are going to force some efficiencies that are essential. 

Gillespie then shifts to a common concern among skeptics who wonder how this time around will be different:

NG: So politically what has to happen, because on a certain level, what your saying is standard kind of limited government rhetoric. Why is it going to work now, when it didn't work under Bush?

MK: Well responsibility on spending has now become the defining issue in politics. This whole movement, this whole Tea Party movement, is there to hold politicians accountable. They've replaced alot of big spending Republicans and we like to say that November third is more important than November second because all politicians left to their own devices will spend money they don't have. So these guys have to show up, the Tea Party has to show, after the election and hold them accountable. 

In the next section, Gillespie addresses what the liberal media sees as a contradiction when Americans enrolled in Medicare opposed government-run healthcare via Obamacare.

DA: There's no confusion at all. There is confusion among liberals, because they can't understand any idea that's deeper than water on a plate. What they're saying is, "Look you've forced me into Medicare, I have no choice, you punish anybody that would give me medical services and take payment other than Medicare." So it's really, "give me liberty or give me death" with Medicare. "Now don't come in here and cut my Medicare so you can expand your compulsive mandates on all the population." And there's a big differences between "don't cut my benefits and don't cut Medicare. If I were to be free to choose to stay in this program, then make good on your commitment. If you leave others free to leave, there will be more money available for the making of that commitment."

The discussion then went back to assurances that this time will be different than limited government movements of the past:

NG: In your book, you talk alot about how the Tea Party movement has to take over the Republican party. What assurances do we have, or do we need, that they'll govern differently this time than the last time. Under Bush, the Republicans were terrible. They essentially colluded to increase discretionary federal expenditures by 100 percent. What's going to be different this time?

DA: Well first of all, this movement that's transforming Congress is a bottom-up movement, and politicians will conform in their behavior to the requirements of voters for the most fundamental reason of all: they want to keep their jobs. 

MK: We call it a hostile takeover of the Republican party, by the way, and there's two parts to that process. First is personnel changes. We're replacing senators like Bennett with senators like Lee. And the second part is are ability, like you say, to hold these politicians accountable. Because any politician will go the wrong way if left to their own devices. 

On Sarah Palin's endorsements:

DA: Well my guess, is that when Sarah Palin gets into the endorsement business, she's probably doing the same thing we're doing. Listening to the real activists that really live in the state or district and getting their information about what is the quality of the two candidates and what races may be winnable. Rather than listening to the professionals in the political party that are dettached, removed and simply, frankly don't know. We have known better about what's going on in Republican primary politics over the past two years than the Republican party, why? Because we listen to real people. I think Sarah Palin is doing the same thing. 

MK: She's no more the Tea Party leader than Dick Armey or Matt Kibbe are. It's a leaderless movement. But you are seeing that this movement represents a stage, and you're seeing alot of candidates climb up on that stage. And I say, the more leaders the better. 

In closing Kibbe had this to stay about the future of the Tea Party movement:

MK: I think the Tea Party, if it succeeds, is a sustainable community. It's gotta be there and we gotta get out of political space, because no one pays attention to politics in the real world, into culture space. It's gotta be fun and it's gotta be a way for people to stay engaged in the political process. 

Rod Beckstrom, critically acclaimed author of the business management book The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations, told NPR "he was surprised to learn his 2006 book was a hit with Tea Partiers — but that it made sense."

Beckstrom and his coauthor Ori Brafman, who met while attending Stanford's Graduate School of Business, got their book's title by contrasting the biological organization of a spider and a starfish with human comparisons:

The book's premise is drawn from biology, Beckstrom says. He points to the fact that a spider can survive without an arm, but it would die without its head.

"That's how we've looked at organizations in the West for the last several hundred years," Beckstrom says, "top-down, spider-like — there's a CEO, or there's someone in control.

"But the world is seeing a profusion of new organizations that are a lot more like a starfish."

The starfish model, he says, is decentralized. And if one of a starfish's arms is cut off, it can be regenerated.

Beckstrom points to Wikipedia, Craigslist and the Tea Party movement as examples of successful, leaderless organizations:

"The cohesion is around the very term 'Tea Party,' " Beckstrom says. "And the cohesion is held through the values — and it is values that hold large, decentralized networks together."

Based on his experience with how decentralized movements operate, Beckstrom is skeptical of the media's assertion that groups like FreedomWorks or "people with money and connections" created a manufactured, or "astroturf", movement:

"Are there some parties that may have come in and funded it, and helped to shape it or steer it? Absolutely," Beckstrom says. "Is that what gave rise to it? No."

The article closes with Beckstrom giving an encouraging forecast for the future:

"And I don't think this movement is going away for a while," he says. "It'll be with us for quite some years."