• Wed
    22
  • Thu
    23
  • Fri
    24
  • Sat
    25
  • Sun
    26
  • Mon
    27
  • Tue
    28

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Home / Articles / News / News /  Springfield hosts a calm, conservative Tea Party
. . . .
Thursday, April 8,2010

Springfield hosts a calm, conservative Tea Party

No evidence of extremism at this rally for limited government

By Patrick Yeagle


Though their counterparts nationwide have made headlines for extreme viewpoints of racism and violence, Springfield Tea Party activists stayed on message Monday at a rally calling for limited government, lower taxes and an end to political corruption.

Springfield was one of three stops Monday for the Tea Party Express, a corporately-sponsored caravan traveling the country to protest issues like health care reform, bank bailouts and the stimulus package, which Tea Party activists nationwide see as wasteful spending and unconstitutional expansion of government.

Some individuals associated with the Tea Party movement have made national news for calling members of Congress the N-word and other obscenities, as well as making threats and throwing bricks through windows of some Democrats’ Congressional district offices.

But the crowd at Monday’s rally on the Illinois State Fairgrounds seemed conscious of the scrutiny surrounding their movement, specifically addressing the issue of race and carefully sticking to the issues.

Though most of the Springfield rally attendees were white, Springfield Tea Party organizer Sandy Dragoo said the movement is open to anyone with a conservative viewpoint.

“It’s about policy; it’s not about racism,” Dragoo said. “The invitation goes out to everybody. You’re all invited. We never say, ‘Just Caucasians.’ We’d love to have everybody here, of all races and all minorities.”

Two African-American speakers, William Owens, Jr., author of Obama: Why Black America Should Have Doubt, and Lloyd Marcus, singer and songwriter of the “American Tea Party Anthem,” elicited cheers from a crowd that seemed more concerned with perceived government encroachment than racial homogeneity.

“I’m not an African-American,” Marcus shouted to boisterous applause. “I’m an American.”

Some Tea Partiers expressed their disapproval of the recently-passed health care reform law through signs calling for it to be repealed.

Micheal and Donna Kalm, of San Jose, Ill., said they objected to the law because of the cost and the manner in which it passed.

“It’s too big; it’s too consuming of us individuals,” Donna Kalm said. “It’s giving too much money away, costing too much. There’s plenty of other plans that wouldn’t cost as much and would do the same things. It’s going to send us right into the ground. It’s going to destroy America as we know it.”

Micheal Kalm said he felt the law passed through “backroom deals” and without bipartisan support.

“Every other major social legislation has had bipartisan support,” he said. “The only thing that was bipartisan about this bill was the opposition. We don’t disagree that health care needs to be reformed. That needs to be done; that has to happen. But the double accounting and all the things that were done to try to get people to believe that this was a good idea, it all seems a bit sleazy.”

Springfield resident Chuck Louthan, a 65-year-old Navy veteran, said the new law shouldn’t be allowed to take effect.

“We need to repeal the whole thing and find ways not to fund it,” Louthan said. “We can refuse to give it money. That’s how we can fight it.”

Louthan said he would like to see tort reform included in any future health care reforms. The Illinois Supreme Court has rejected laws that limit awards in medical malpractice lawsuits three separate times, most recently in February. Louthan also said he doesn’t believe the law will lower the cost of health care, and it will cost too much money to implement.

“We’ll have to find a way to pay for it,” he said. “Are we going to take out another bazillion dollar loan to pay for it? That’s asinine. It’s just crazy.”

The rally was also an opportunity for Illinois Republican political hopefuls to drum up support. Republican Bobby Schilling of Colona, Ill., is running for Congress against Democrat Rep. Phil Hare in Illinois’ 17th district, which covers one-third of Springfield.

“When I’m elected, I promise that I will uphold the Constitution of the United States of America,” Schilling yelled, as he thrust a pocket copy of the Constitution into the air. “When the Founders put this thing together, they didn’t say this was the ‘cafeteria constitution,’ it didn’t have a ‘D’ or an ‘R’ behind it. … It needs to be adhered to rather than trampled on.”

Republicans Al Reynolds of Danville, who is running for Illinois Senate in the 52nd district, and Sam McCann of Carlinville, running for Illinois Senate in the 49th district, addressed the crowd as well.

Adam Andrzejewski, who ran as a Republican gubernatorial candidate earlier this year and placed fifth in the February primary, used the event to push House Resolution 1057, legislation that would mandate a forensic audit of the state government. Andrzejewski says the audit would show areas of waste, fraud and abuse that could be cut from state government, potentially saving up to $2.5 billion.

“Let’s save taxpayers money,” Andrzejewski said. “(Illinois House) Speaker (Michael) Madigan has come out against the forensic audit. He says it will cost too much. Speaker Madigan, you cost too much.”

Though the candidates speaking Monday were all Republicans, local organizers made it clear their movement isn’t attached to either major political party.

“We are frankly upset with both sides of the aisle,” Dragoo said. “We’re going to call out Republicans just like we’ll call out Democrats, but what we say we are is conservatives.”

“A lot of people say, ‘Where were you people at when (George W.) Bush was spending money?’” said Diane Benjamin, McLean County Tea Party organizer.  “I was at home, throwing things at the TV set! Where were you?”

Contact Patrick Yeagle at pyeagle@illinoistimes.com.

 

  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 

Before you accuse Tea Party members of using racist language directed towards members of Congress, you might want to find out if it actually happened.  A conservative blogger has offered $10,000 for any video evidence that this occurred.  The reward has gone unclaimed.  Using the Congressmen as a source is a cop-out.  I know it might be hard to believe that a politician could lie, but it happens.  Trust me.

It used to be that the three most important words in journalism were "confirm", "confirm", and "confirm".  It now appears that the three most important words for the Illinois Times are "propagandize", "propagandize", and "propagandize".

You also might want to add that Republican offices have been vandalized and that SEIU members assaulted a black Tea Party member in St. Louis last August.  While you're at it, you can talk about the Black Panther members who threatened white voters in Philadelphia in 2008.

You can be a shill for the Democrat Party if you want, but at least be honest about it.  Don't call the Illinois Times a newspaper and don't pretend to be a journalist.  Just change the name of the paper to Liberal Times and when someone asks you what you do for a living, say you're a PR flack.

 

If anyone was wondering where the blowhard faction was during the Springfield Tea Party Express, maybe Robert missed the train. No worries, here he is to represent the whack-a-mole faction of the movement. The Illinois Times publishes a fair piece that shows voices of the TPM that are NOT the focus of most media, and all he can zero in on are a couple references used to contrast the rationality of what happened in Springfield to what has been so widely reported in the mainstream media I am sure he reviles. Great work, Robert! Robert, don't bother picking up a copy of IT, or logging into its website, it's too much for you. Instead, just stick with Fox News for your brand of "journalism."

 

 

I see that in order for you to consider a piece of "journalism" to be "fair", it must include references to events that NEVER HAPPENED and it must omit discussion of events that REALLY DID HAPPEN.

Mike, just stick with DailyKos and Huffpost for your brand of "journalism".

 

Deep breaths, Robert. Deep breaths. Maybe go take one of your pills, the ones the doctor prescribed for when you're getting all worked up. You're starting to do that TYPING IN CAPS THING YOU TEA-BAGGERS LOVE TO DO WHEN SOMEONE DOESN'T SEE THE BEAUTY AND EASE OF SIMPLE-MINDEDNESS!!!!! Really, take it easy, dawg... One more time now... the writer was reporting on the fact that the Springfield rally was calm, as opposed to the over-the-top vitriol that many have come to expect from at least a portion of the movement. And I know, I know, he had the temerity to mention what has been reported to have happened at similar rallies. Again, that was to show contrast between what has come to be expected and the reality of what occurred. You are completely missing the point of the article. Wait, let me try to say this in a way you can understand and also demonstrate I am politically bilingual... YOU ARE COMPLETELY MISSING THE POINT OF THE ARTICLE!!!!!! It was about the Springfield rally and the demeanor of its participants. It showed them to be calm, rational, articulate, and on-point. And yes, IT is a progressive paper -- that is kind of another word for liberal since you seem to like painting easy-to-comprehend labels on those things that don't adhere to your definitions of appropriately conservative -- whick makes the article all the more complimentary, don't you think? So there is no video, verified or otherwise ot the alleged transgression? Maybe they never occurred. Maybe they did and there just happens to be no video evidence. Possibly, they occurred, there is evidence, but those who possess it don't want to give it up for fear of harming their movement. Who knows. Lack of evidence neither proves nor disproves a fact. And don't make any assumptions about me, all right. I agree with the idea of smaller, less intrusive government. I like the ideas of greater accountability in government. I would love my taxes to be lower. I just hate that the most visible champions of these things are, unfortunately, the lunatic fringe.

 

 

Why did Yeagle make reference to events that never happened?  Or, to be generous, events for which there is absolutely no evidence that they actually occured.  But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.  The next time he writes about a union protest, he should mention how SEIU thugs assaulted a Tea Party member in St. Louis.  The next time he writes about a protest of liberals, he can talk about the extreme vandalism that takes place at practically every world trade summit or how Republican offices have been vandalized following the health care vote.  The next time he writes about voter intimidation, he can mention the Black Panthers and how 0bama's Justice Dept let them get off scot free.  The next time he writes about 0bama, he could mention the racist pastor he supported for 20 years, or the communist terrorist in whose home he began his politcial career.  What would that have to do with 0bama today?  About as much as the N-word non-event had to do with the Springfield Tea Party rally.

Get my point?  If he wanted to write about a peaceful Tea Party event, he could have stuck to what actually happened at the event without mentioning actions that never occurred or had no relation to the event he is covering.  This was an obvious attempt to smear the Tea Party movement and that's why Yeagle did it and he knows it.  This does not make him a journalist.  It makes him a paid spokesman for the Democrat Party.

 

So to be fair he should have gone on a wide-ranging headhunt of every offense by the left, real or imagined? That's not journalism. His column was on-point and his mention of bad behavior by some (of which there are plenty of eyewitness accounts) absolutely relevent. Robert, you're blinded by your own bias. Again, let me suggest the pills.

 

And Robert, there are journalists who have covered all the events you mentioned, even supposedly lefty mainstream journalists. The evidenc? You and I both know about those events. Bad acts by one or a few don't reflect on the actions and attitudes of the entire movement, at least to those who can look at the whole picture with objectivity. But don't automatically become a denier of the acts for fear of how they might make the whole movement look. Lack of condemnation of such bad acts, especially if there is evidence they did occur, plays poorly with the rest of the public. And don't demand every journalist cover every story. Not possible. IT covers local Illinois issues and this was one. Patrick Yeagle did his job, and well. Like I said, I agree with much of what the TPM has to say and now is the time for it to be said. The problem, and this is reflective of how the GOP has also slid, is that it has been permitted to become a "Big Tent" for every far-right wingnut to screech their nonsense. That's not looking good to the rest of the public at all, Robert. So I return to this: A journalist for a generally-considered-to-be-left-leaning paper writes an article that describes lawful, calm, respectful protest about your philosophical kin, and you're angry about it? Come on, Robert...

 

 

What are these eye-witness accounts?  Who aside from the Congressmen who claimed to have heard the N-word, who else did?  The entire march of the Congressmen was videotaped, yet no one hears the N-word on any videotapes.  One Congressman said a protestor was arrested for spitting on him, yet Capitol police state that no one was arrested for anything.  In other words, the N-word incident never happened.  It was complete fiction from start to finish.  Why can't you just admit that a politician lied?  Why is that so hard and why did Yeagle mention an event that never happened?  As I said in my first post, the three most important words in journalism used to be "confirm", "confirm", "confirm".  There was no attempt on Yeagle's part to confirm the N-word incident took place.   This was not journalism and it wasn't fair and you know it.

 

BTW, how do I get rid of these annoying gray bars that show up in my post?

 

You're attempting to prove that something didn't happen for lack of proof it did. Difficult, if not impossible, to do. And I don't know if any one or all of the accusations are a lie or not. I wasn't there. Nor, I presume, were you. But your bias is tainting your objectivity. We're simply going to disagree on this. I'm not a liberal, although I tilt left on some issues. I also lean to the right on others. I guess you'd characterize me as a libertarian Democrat (but no, I don't follow Kos!). The gray bars are a problem that's been around since they changed format a few weeks ago. I'd email their tech department, maybe? Nice fighting with ya. Maybe another time/another issue?

 

 

And Pat Yeagle is assuming that something happened based on the words of a few partisan politicians who offered no proof whatsoever.  And, to top it off, one of those politicians stated  that someone was arrested for spitting on him and the Capitol police stated no one was arrested for anything.  In other words, we know this politician lied.  Before Yeagle makes a claim, he needs to have some actual evidence it happened.  The words of partisan politicians do not constitute confirmation or even evidence.  Would Yeagle write that Blago didn't do anything wrong because Blago said he didn't do anything wrong?  I doubt it. 

This is what real journalists do.  If they cannot confirm by independent means that something happened, then they don't write about it.  Or they qualify by using words like "alleged".  Yeagle didn't do this.  Instead he said "Some individuals associated with the Tea Party movement have made national news for calling members of Congress the N-word and other obscenities,"  There is no proof anywhere this happened other than the words of partisan politicians who had every reason to lie.  If Yeagle insists on even mentioning something that almost certainly did not happen and that had nothing to do with the Springfield event, why didn't he use the word "alleged" or why didn't he say Democratic Congressmen claimed that Tea Party members shouted obscenities and racial slurs at them?

That would have been fair and accurate and unbiased and real journalism.  But Yeagle has led readers to believe that an event for which he has no proof in fact took place and this event would cause readers to believe, falsely, that Tea Party members are racist pigs.  If Yeagle is really looking for racism, he should talk to 0bama's old pastor. 

 

So, Robert, for lack of the qualifier "alleged" (or something similar), which Yeagle may not even agree with you is necessary based upon the information and sources he has available to him, you saw fit to not only disregard the rest of the article in its entirety - you've made no mention of anything past the 3rd paragraph - but to attack his character and motivation. "Paid shill for the Democratic Party" and "PR flack" were your words. Pretty strong slur against the ethics of a journalist, even if you discredit the term in Yeagle's case. One you probably shouldn't use lightly. Did you first email Yeagle with your concerns and inquire why he used the words and phrasing he did? If so, how did respond to merit your attack? You should probably attach your question and his response to justify your words here. If you didn't, however, why not? Why did you lead with such a harsh response? Don't you find your words and accusation a little presumptuous? And finally, do you hold all journalists to the same standards of integrity? Are you as quick with the accusatory tone when Hannity, Beck, Levin, or any number of the right-wing yammerers spout half-truths, or even outright lies? And please don't go down the road of defending their "journalistic integrity" or you'll only confirm my doubts about your very sanity.