I tweeted a bit from today’s Tea Party event in Mellon Square Park Downtown, but here are some further initial impressions.

First, although last year’s April 15 Tea Party took place on a  dismal day — and though today was picture-perfect as far as weather goes — the crowd seemed smaller, and more subdued. 

This actually isn’t a bad thing. With some exceptions — like the protesters holding aloft “Obama bin Laden” sign and a “We came unarmed … this time” signs — the spirit of the event seemed less batshit crazy. I attribute that partly to a lack of Ayn Randers … I didn’t see a single “Who is John Galt?” sign in the bunch. But of course the real credit for toning down the crazy goes to the participants and organizers. 

The roster of speakers also gains points for diversity — a black minister, the Reverend C.L. Bryant, was featured prominently — though the folks behind the lectern were a lot more diverse than the crowd listening in.

Even so, the comparative lack of fervor surprised me. I mean, this time a year ago, we weren’t being cruelly oppressed with a government ruthlessly trying to prevent us from losing our insurance when we get sick. I’d have thought the crowd would be more apocalyptic, not less. But maybe it’s hard to believe in the creeping doom of socialism when its in the mid-70s and sunny. (In any case, it made it much harder for Glen Meakem — a fixture at these events — to claim that global warming doesn’t exist.) Or maybe it’s because the proceedings stopped periodically to allow KDKA Radio [Sorry, that was 104.7 FM; KDKA merely covered the event, and had its advertising all over the place] — which was carrying the event live — to break for commercials. As Steelers fans who’ve attended home games know, it’s hard to sustain an energy level when everything stops to allow for a word from the sponsor. 

But despite warnings from Bryant — who warned that some politicians were “Republicans in sheep’s clothing, and in name only” — there was some political activity taking place. Supporters of Melissa Haluszczak were out in force, for example. But more interesting was a flyer handed out by backers of Keith Rothfus. 

Rothfus is a Republican vying for Jason Altmire’s seat in Pennsylvania’s 4th Congressional District. His flyer, however, targeted not Altmire ut Mary Beth Buchanan, another Republican vying for the GOP nomination next month. 

The flyer featured a photo of a somewhat bemused-looking Buchanan with a slightly menacing pic of Barack Obama, and warned us that, “Mary Beth Buchanan SAYS she is conservative, yet she told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette She would consider working in the Obama Administration.” 

The P-G story in question — which dates to one month after Obama was elected, and more than a month before he even took office — reported that Buchanan didn’t plan to resign her post as US Attorney. In the story, Buchanan indeed allowed that she was “open to considering further service to the United States” at the time. 

Buchanan later did step down, of course. And honestly, it’s hard even for me to blame her for giving the new boss a chance. But I guess for Rothfus, the only thing for Buchanan to do was resign her commission immediately … perhaps committing seppuku for emphasis. 

Come to that, last year’s Tea Party sort of made me feel like killing myself. Not so much this year. If this is all the more anger that the passing healthcare can generate, maybe this coming November won’t be the disaster I expected. 

This article appears in Apr 15-21, 2010.

E-mail Chris Potter about this post.

16 replies on “Are the Tea Parties Cooling Off?”

  1. Take a look at MBB’s web site some time Chris and tell me it doesn’t read like she’s a moderate Republican. As in, a totally-endangered-species, don’t-make-them-like-they-used-to moderate Republican. Clearly at some point that concept would have to be critically examined, but if she gets trounced in a month from her RIGHT FLANK in the primary I think we should all take note of that — particularly GOP party backers if Rothfuss goes on to get slammed in November.

  2. Perhaps I have a somewhat different sense of what “moderate Republicans” look like. (I’ve been around long enough to remember John Heinz, for one thing.) But what part of her platform seems moderate to you? Her opposition to efforts to address greenhouse gas emissions? Opposition to Obama’s stimulus package? Opposition to shutting down Gitmo? Support for making the Bush tax cuts — which overwhelmingly favored the wealthy — permanent? I’m genuinely asking here.

    I’ll grant that her position on abortion — to the extent that she states one — isn’t all that extreme, especially by comparison to some others in the GOP. But you can’t call her pro-choice, can you?

    I await your clarification on this — clearly you’ve had cause to study Buchanan more closely than I have. But right now, I’ve gotta say that if Buchanan is a moderate Republican, that says less about where she stands, and more about how far the GOP has traveled. Is the GOP at a point where to count as a “moderate,” you just need to not have rabies?

  3. It’s more about what she chooses to address and not address.

    Do understand, I mean she’s at best a moderate Republican, not NOT a Republican. We can’t and shouldn’t expect what would today be considered a liberal Republican — a John Heinz or similar — to grow in this soil in this climate. Surely not before at least a couple moderate or at least more “independent” Republicans get going.

    No time to go through the website piecemeal (though I plan to eventually), but let’s say if you look at some things Rothfuss and other R’s are harping on, and look at the extent to which MBB’s positions hew to A) debates and questions that actually DO matter for the country and B) actual tenable logic, I think a picture will emerge that will surprise some early critics.

  4. Chris,

    I could understand how someone views Buchanan as a liberal Republican in relation to the Constitution. Anyone that followed her tenure and career to date can easily see a very liberal reading of the constitution and our civil rights.

    As a candidate, Buchanan has been pretty amateur in nature. Her campaign press releases have known errors and misrepresentations (ones that you have even pointed out) and her stances on issues have been boilerplate with little to no substance. It is sad to see that her initial press release that you noted had errors and misrepresentations throughout it is her centerpiece on her website.

    I don’t know who Bram R is, but I imagine that he is someone working for Buchanan’s campaign (and therefore not an impartial observer).

    I seriously can not take a website serious when I read this on it:

    How should Jason Altmire vote on Obamacare?
    For it, I support socialized medicine
    Against, start from scratch
    Against, leave healthcare alone

    Altmire is no prize, but he is better than what was offer up by the Republicans this time around.

  5. Well Jacob, “I can imagine” that you yourself are working for Jason Altmire, Keith Rothfuss or Tommy Chong (and therefore are not an impartial observer). But let’s all try to be productive here. For the record, I have no stake in MBB’s campaign other than the desire to marginalize BOTH tea partyish social reactionaries and spineless corporatist “New” Democrats to the wilderness of unsuccessful, powerless individuals.

    “A very liberal reading of the constitution and our civil rights,” you wisecrack. The last time I heard the serious charge of unconstitutionality so often repeated with so little to support it, I was talking to Tom Corbett about health care reform.

  6. Very interesting response. So since I do not support Buchanan due to her stances and widely-known record, I am in your mind some how connected to Altmire, Rothfuss and/or even Chong. That is a little reaching here.

    As for the rest of your comment, it appears that you want to demonize any candidate but your own with random slurs and allegations with no substance.

    While it would be interesting to hear a sensible point of view from an opposing side, one has to put up information. You have done little to date. In contrast, I pointed out the area of the website that seem absurd in regard to your previous claims. You really provided no response to this.

    As for case examples (because it is clear you don’t know Buchanan’s record or read the city paper), look at the frivolous obscenity cases as well as the Wecht and DeFazio case for examples of clear absurd viewpoints on civil rights.

    I also do not think you are being open and honest in your postings in regard to your stake in the race. Are you in anyway connected to Buchanan’s campaign?

    For the record, I am not connected to Altmire, Rothfuss, Buchanan, or Chong at all. I am just an informed voter, who if presented with a pick between Altmire and Buchanan will pick Altmire. The majority of region will do the same in the fall, unless perhaps Rothfuss or another viable option is put up against Altmire.

  7. Jake D, while I might disagree with Bram on Buchanan’s merits, I can assure you he DOES read CP. I think he may be our most frequent commenter here, in fact. And he’s no Republican apologist.

    But I guess where I really differ with Bram is in his apparent belief that a Buchanan victory is a victory for a progressive movement that he espouses as a matter of principle. Let’s say I agree that Buchanan is a moderate Republican. Isn’t the progressive critique of Jason Altmire that we already HAVE a moderate Republican representing the 4th district? In fact, if I’m reading Bram correctly, that’s part of HIS critique — witness his characterization of Altmire as a “corporatist New Democrat.”

    I don’t live in the district. But if I did, and I had to choose between two moderate Republicans, why wouldn’t I choose the one whose re-election would make it just a little easier for Democrats to retain control of the House, and thus hold onto committee chairs and so on? (The Republicans, I expect, are basically going to campaign against Altmire on precisely this basis — “a vote for Altmire is a vote for Nancy Pelosi!” I guess to some extent, I’m saying progressives should consider that argument as a reason to support him.)

    I can certainly understand supporting Buchanan over Rothfus in the May primary. But what’s the argument for supporting her over Altmire?

    Yes, I’d like to see less corporatist behavior on the part of public officials. But is there ANY position where Buchanan promises to be less corporatist than Altmire? (Again — I’m honestly asking here. There is no snark intended.) If not, I fail to see any case for supporting her. She’s no better on individual issues, and her election would likely embolden the worst elements of the GOP — because you know that a successful November election will justify their belief that a “do nothing/oppose everything” strategy is the way to go. It may even put the House in Republican control, though that outcome seems unlikely to me.

    So if this is about Buchanan over Rothfus, that’s one thing. But Buchanan over Altmire? That’s a stretch.

  8. Jake – In my previous comment, I was mocking Jacob’s prior bald assertion that surely I must be working for Buchanan. So I was really only pointing out the uselessness of uninformed ad-hominem attacks. Sorry if I got you riled up.

    Chris – I wouldn’t say a Buchanan victory would be a victory for the “progressive movement” — but only because that would profoundly irritate every single one of the progressives that I do know. But I’ll ask you this — what VALUE is there in retaining any single one out of 435 legislative seats for the Party (while demonstrating once again that Blue Doggism is the way to do so) versus losing one of those seats but gaining a demonstration that social moderation and relative independence from the lunacy of Glen Beck is the way forward for Republicans? We gain more strategic, long-range, long-term yardage with the Chong Hunter rather than the Stupak Weasel.

  9. Bram and Chris,

    You are all playing a very dangerous game if you believe Buchanan is someone that should represent our district. She is a very dangerous individual via her prior actions as U.S. Attorney.

    I understand some get caught up in the Chong case, but her actions the Wecht Case, DeFazio case, Murphy case, Rottschaefer case, Zehr case, etc. are very troubling. You simply do not award someone that abuses the power of one post with another one.

    For all Altmire’s shortcomings, he is light years better than Buchanan.

  10. @ Jake D — I’m not throwing my lot in with Buchanan, as the following may make even clearer …

    @ Bram —

    “what VALUE is there in retaining any single one out of 435 legislative seats for the Party (while demonstrating once again that Blue Doggism is the way to do so) versus losing one of those seats but gaining a demonstration that social moderation and relative independence from the lunacy of Glen Beck is the way forward for Republicans?”

    >>>> As I’ve explained, I believe the value of keeping those seats is that they help ensure that Democrats retain control of the House and of the committees. Altmire’s own position on a given bill may be problematic, but keeping Dems in the majority may help that bill get through Congress.

    Yeah, that’s tactical, short-term thinking in comparison to the long-term vision you sketch out — in which Republicans somehow recognize the error of their ways, and such a realization ushers in the New Jerusalem, wherein lions lay down with lambs unto the end of the millennium. (ADDED: On further reflection, this passage seems unduly snarky to me. Apologies.)

    But first of all, I’m not really all that interested in reforming the soul of the Republican Party. Especially if that comes at a cost to Democrats, who are more likely to do something in the here-and-now to advance causes that ARE near to my heart.

    Second, you’re assuming an awful lot if you think that a Republican VICTORY in district 4 will make the GOP LESS likely to pursue the strategy they’ve followed to this point. If you’re paying attention to any of the rhetoric coming from that side of the aisle, almost NONE of it is about moderation or restraint. And in the past couple decades, the GOP’s prevailing response to an election result — whether it ends in victory OR defeat — is always “we must go further to the right.” What reason is there to think a Buchanan victory will prompt party leaders to reevaluate the direction they’ve pursued for most of my life?

    If the Dede Scozzafava debacle in upstate New York didn’t cause the GOP to re-evaluate a Tea Party strategy, why would a Buchanan WIN?

    Whatever case you make needs to be convincing. Because you’re asking voters to take a flier here, based on a guess about how a Buchanan win MIGHT affect a national party’s strategy for campaigning and governing … a strategy neither of us has anything to do with crafting and which has, traditionally, been directed against our beliefs and interests.

    Given how speculative that stuff is, I think it’s safer to vote simply on the merits of the candidates themselves — what they have done, and what they say they are going to do. That’s speculative too, of course, since you can never be TOO sure how a candidate will act once elected (see Specter, Arlen). But at least we have some concrete evidence for making a decision — as opposed to guesswork about how Michael Steele or John Boehner will read the tea leaves.

    Here’s one shorthand way of looking Altmire’s record, warts and all: his legislative ranking by various interest groups:

    http://thehill.com/resources/lawmaker-ratings/78767-rep-jason-altmire-d-pa

    Is Altmire a liberal champion? Not a bit of it. Dismal rankings from pro-choice groups, LGBT advocacy groups, gun-control advocates.

    On the other hand, he also doesn’t do that well by staunch conservative organizations like the American Conservative Union, or the Club for Growth.

    Does it seem likely to you that Buchanan, if elected, would be a BETTER advocate for the groups whose values you share? Conversely, is there any reason to think the Club for Growth wouldn’t be MUCH more enthusiastic about having Buchanan in office?

    So far, you haven’t really focused on these candidates as individuals — the case for them base on their OWN merits. Instead, you keep positing this broader political context in which the outcome may prompt some shift in the political Zeitgeist. I’m not saying you’re wrong — who can tell? But it seems like a hell of a gamble, one whose upside is only a vague promise for the future, and whose downside will, I fear, be felt in the here and now.

  11. Chris you say –

    “As I’ve explained, I believe the value of keeping those seats is that they help ensure that Democrats retain control of the House and of the committees.”

    So your entire gambit only pays off if the House of Representatives turns out to be split 218-217?

    I agree my argument needs to be further developed with research and citation, rather than anecdotal impression. That is why I am now escaping this discussion out a window like General Greivous until that is a completed work. In return, I would appreciate from you any citation on when Congressman Altmire has been an “effective advocate” for anything.

  12. “So your entire gambit only pays off if the House of Representatives turns out to be split 218-217?”

    >>> Not really. It’s only that YOUR gambit is an absolute disaster if something like that happens.

    I’m making a risk/reward calculation here. While progressives may well be disappointed in some of what Altmire has done, I see no credible reason to think Buchanan would be an improvement. I suspect, in fact, that she’d actually be a lot worse.

    So from the progressive standpoint, the upside of a Buchanan victory is nil. The potential downside — that she WILL vote with Republicans more than Altmire, that her election MIGHT help tip the House toward GOP control — seems far larger.

    As for the values Altmire espouses … just off the top of my head I’d cite the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and his support for the stimulus bill. I’m not sure where Buchanan stands on the former — but even if she backed it, she’d be no improvement over Altmire — and I know for a fact that Buchanan opposes the latter. Please explain why it would be better for anyone for her to have been in office when that vote was cast.

  13. Oy vey. First of all, you write:

    “I see no credible reason to think Buchanan would be an improvement. I suspect, in fact, that she’d actually be a lot worse. / So from the progressive standpoint, the upside of a Buchanan victory is nil.”

    You’re still talking like we’re electing a Governor or something. For the record, I wouldn’t want MBB to be in command of the executive branch of any of my governments (but that is only because I am a DEMOCRAT.)

    Outside of the 218/217 scenario, life will go on with no impact — hardly that of stepping on a moth during time-travel — that moth being THE CONVERSATION, which is important. Do you want Altmire dragging down the party, making cowardice appear intelligent? Or do you want Buchanan speaking with bracing frankness about GOP goals, and rounding off maybe their worst excesses? I’ve made my choice.

    The federal stimulis — the amount, the how it is spent, the oversight — is a core policy issue in our politics, and it deserves to be. There is much to be said on both sides about corporate welfare, moral hazard and sustainable economics. As to Lilly Ledbetter I don’t know MBB’s ideas either: might she have voted with Whitfield, Young and Smith? Dunno, like her chances compared to Rothfuss. Or maybe there are OTHER problems with the amendment or with the law itself, other than it being mean and heartless. Anyway, what, was Altmire huge on Ledbetter or something? Okay, very good, or at least very cagey after having gone negative on Hart, six of one.

  14. I know you hate when I do this, but I’m going to leave it off here until you can come to the table with some evidence to suggest MBB will vote better on progressive issues than Altmire.

    No one is talking about executive power; I’m talking about how people VOTE. (You use the phrase “effective advocate” in quotes — as if it’s something I said. I did not. I only used asked whether she would be a better advocate than Altmire — and that was in a discussion of his voting record.)

    We’re more than a dozen comments into this exchange — long past the point where anyone is paying attention — and you STILL haven’t cited one case where Buchanan will vote in a more progressive fashion than Altmire. Surely you agree that how representatives vote on issues is an important factor for voters to consider?

  15. Maybe somebody should ask her? Is anybody covering this race, or are we only keeping track of polling data, fund-raising totals, and provoking the candidates into trading little barbs? Your post started with a Rothfus attack on Buchanan which implied that she might have worked under this President if asked, or at the very least for a time considered it. Did anyone follow up with Buchanan, asking like, were you really open to it? What was it like working through the Clinton administration? Why don’t you give me your perspective on the relationship and tensions between criminal prosecution and politics? It’s in the news anyway.

    When you ask me for evidence to suggest that MB will “vote better” than JA, I don’t think you are keeping up. My argument is that JA’s influence throughout the universe DOES NOT lie in his casting “decisive” votes (let alone lending strength to the progress of any important legislation!), but rather in being a drag on his whole party’s transformational efforts way out into the future. With each and every reelection, his nonchalant dismissal of ideological courage and conviction will appear more shrewd and respectable.

    Whereas, although at best the political novice MBB might possibly turn out to be a selectively moderating influence on her party, AT WORST she will only be a fresh, legal-minded, educated and perfectly frank new voice in that party. Of course you say you don’t care what happens to the other 50% of politics in America, let’s just smash it or ignore it totally, sounds safe.

    Saying Altmire “will vote better” than Buchanan is like saying Ben Rothlisberger will throw more touchdown passes than Sidney Crosby. The important thing is not who throws more TD’s but how well they perform at their respective sports, how much better they will do than their likely replacements, which sport we should be concerned about right now and whether or not we can stand them.

  16. Yeah, we’re clearly talking past each other, and we’re approaching Godwin’s Law territory in any case. I’m not covering Buchanan/Rothfus — CP is pretty irrelevant to a GOP primary in the far-flung suburbs, and I’ve got my hands full already. So I only know what I read from her position statements, hear from other media outlets, etc. I claim no special insight … which is why I was interested in the basis of your contention that she’s a “don’t-make-them-like-they-used-to moderate.” But that’s shaded into me regarding you as an advocate for Buchanan, and as such someone who would have some insight beyond my own about her positions. Apologies for putting you in that spot.

    If she wins in May, I hope she’ll be talking to us in the months ahead. Best of luck to all concerned until then.

Comments are closed.