... but damn, this is explosive stuff.

Feature story, shamelessly stolen from sgw (who borrowed from others) is an investigative piece on Santelli's rant not being spontaneous at all but, rather, part of a tightly coordinated campaign by RW bigwigs to discredit the Obama administration. We've seen this happen too often in the past not to understand that it does, in fact, happen. And to know they are very very good at it. And, from my vantage point, it is only a "conspiracy theory" when you lack substantive evidence of its veracity. Once you have that evidence, what you have is an actual conspiracy.

QOTD, sgw: "Now honestly I am not in the tin foil hat crowd and I am not a big believer in conspiracy theories but damn, this is explosive stuff."

QOTD2, Matt Ygleisais, on George Will and the Post: "Then the Post simply has nothing to say about the fact that Will’s column falsely claimed—and not for the first time!—that there was a scientific consensus in the 1970s about a global cooling phenomenon. This myth, though widespread, is false. And though false, it’s widespread, because prominent media organizations like The Washington Post see misleading people about climate change as a valuable service that they’ll pay people money to do. "

Just as I wouldn't cut the smile from the Mona Lisa, I wouldn't dream of excerpting Rich's masterpiece this morning. The Ecstasy and the Agony

Nicholas Kristof: "Most presidents are tacticians, but President Obama is a strategist. His budget suggests that he aspires to be an echo of Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, harnessing his charisma, vision and political capital to transport America to a different place. "

Yesterday, in his weekly address, President Obama said: "In other words, I know these steps won’t sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they’re gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this: So am I"

The following piece describes the forces arrayed against his, and our, success. Stunning stuff.


sgw - Could This Be True? (taken -nay, stolen, in its entirety from ..... Smooth Like Remy - bad manners, I know, but this is explosive stuff)

Now I personally felt like Rick Santelli was full of shit with his rant on CNBC and I was kind of amazed that some how it picked up so much steam. But is it really in the realm of possibility that it might have been a set up all along? But is it really in the realm of possibility that it might have been a set up all along? Now I know the running joke is every guy says he reads playboy for the articles, but to be sure this time they have something that we might need to consider.

But was Santelli’s rant really so spontaneous? How did a minor-league TV figure, whose contract with CNBC is due this summer, get so quickly launched into a nationwide rightwing blog sensation? Why were there so many sites and organizations online and live within minutes or hours after his rant, leading to a nationwide protest just a week after his rant?

What hasn’t been reported until now is evidence linking Santelli’s “tea party” rant with some very familiar names in the Republican rightwing machine, from PR operatives who specialize in imitation-grassroots PR campaigns (called “astroturfing”) to bigwig politicians and notorious billionaire funders. As veteran Russia reporters, both of us spent years watching the Kremlin use fake grassroots movements to influence and control the political landscape. To us, the uncanny speed and direction the movement took and the players involved in promoting it had a strangely forced quality to it. If it seemed scripted, that's because it was.

What we discovered is that Santelli’s “rant” was not at all spontaneous as his alleged fans claim, but rather it was a carefully-planned trigger for the anti-Obama campaign. In PR terms, his February 19th call for a “Chicago Tea Party” was the launch event of a carefully organized and sophisticated PR campaign, one in which Santelli served as a frontman, using the CNBC airwaves for publicity, for the some of the craziest and sleaziest rightwing oligarch clans this country has ever produced. Namely, the Koch family, the multibilllionaire owners of the largest private corporation in America, and funders of scores of rightwing thinktanks and advocacy groups, from the Cato Institute and Reason Magazine to FreedomWorks. The scion of the Koch family, Fred Koch, was a co-founder of the notorious extremist-rightwing John Birch Society.

As you read this, Big Business is pouring tens of millions of dollars into their media machines in order to destroy just about every economic campaign promise Obama has made, as reported recently in the Wall Street Journal. At stake isn’t the little guy’s fight against big government, as Santelli and his bot-supporters claim, but rather the “upper 2 percent”’s war to protect their wealth from the Obama Adminstration’s economic plans. When this Santelli “grassroots” campaign is peeled open, what’s revealed is a glimpse of what is ahead and what is bound to be a hallmark of his presidency.

snip

Within hours of Santelli's rant, a website called ChicagoTeaParty.com sprang to life. Essentially inactive until that day, it now featured a YouTube video of Santelli’s “tea party” rant and billed itself as the official home of the Chicago Tea Party. The domain was registered in August, 2008 by Zack Christenson, a dweeby Twitter Republican and producer for a popular Chicago rightwing radio host Milt Rosenberg—a familiar name to Obama campaign people. Last August, Rosenberg, who looks like Martin Short's Irving Cohen character, caused an outcry when he interviewed Stanley Kurtz, the conservative writer who first "exposed" a personal link between Obama and former Weather Undergound leader Bill Ayers. As a result of Rosenberg’s radio interview, the Ayers story was given a major push through the Republican media echo chamber, culminating in Sarah Palin’s accusation that Obama was “palling around with terrorists.” That Rosenberg’s producer owns the “chicagoteaparty.com” site is already weird—but what’s even stranger is that he first bought the domain last August, right around the time of Rosenburg’s launch of the “Obama is a terrorist” campaign. It’s as if they held this “Chicago tea party” campaign in reserve, like a sleeper-site. Which is exactly what it was.

ChicagoTeaParty.com was just one part of a larger network of Republican sleeper-cell-blogs set up over the course of the past few months, all of them tied to a shady rightwing advocacy group coincidentally named the “Sam Adams Alliance,” whose backers have until now been kept hidden from public. Cached google records that we discovered show that the Sam Adams Alliance took pains to scrub its deep links to the Koch family money as well as the fake-grassroots “tea party” protests going on today. All of these roads ultimately lead back to a more notorious rightwing advocacy group, FreedomWorks, a powerful PR organization headed by former Republican House Majority leader Dick Armey and funded by Koch money.

On the same day as Santelli's rant, February 19, another site called Officialchicagoteaparty.com went live. This site was registered to Eric Odom, who turned out to be a veteran Republican new media operative specializing in imitation-grassroots PR campaigns. Last summer, Odom organized a twitter-led campaign centered around DontGo.com to pressure Congress and Nancy Pelosi to pass the offshore oil drilling bill, something that would greatly benefit Koch Industries, a major player in oil and gas. Now, six months later, Odom's DontGo movement was resurrected to play a central role in promoting the "tea party" movement.Up until last month, Odom was officially listed as the “new media coordinator” for the Sam Adams Alliance, a well-funded libertarian activist organization based in Chicago that was set up only recently. Samuel Adams the historical figure was famous for inspiring and leading the Boston Tea Party—so when the PR people from the Chicago-based Sam Adams Alliance abruptly leave in order to run Santelli’s “Chicago Tea Party,” you know it wasn’t spontaneous. Odom certainly doesn’t want people to know about the link: his name was scrubbed from the Sam Adams Alliance website recently, strongly suggesting that they wanted to cover their tracks. Thanks to google caching, you can see the SAA’s before-after scrubbing.

Even the Sam Adams’ January 31 announcement that Odom’s fake-grassroots group was “no longer sponsored by the Alliance” was shortly afterwards scrubbed.

But it’s the Alliance’s scrubbing of their link to Koch that is most telling. A cached page, erased on February 16, just three days before Santelli’s rant, shows that the Alliance also wanted to cover up its ties to the Koch family. The missing link was an announcement that students interested in applying for internships to the Sam Adams Alliance could also apply through the “Charles G. Koch Summer Fellow Program” through the Institute for Humane Studies, a Koch-funded rightwing institute designed to scout and nurture future leaders of corporate libertarian ideology. The top two board directors at the Sam Adams Alliance include two figures with deep ties to Koch-funded programs: Eric O’Keefe, who previously served in Koch’s Institute for Humane Studies and the Club For Growth; and Joseph Lehman, a former communications VP at Koch’s Cato Institute.

All of these are ultimately linked up to Koch’s Freedom Works mega-beast. Freedomworks.org has drawn fire in the past for using fake grassroots internet campaigns, called “astroturfing,” to push for pet Koch projects such as privatizing social security. A New York Times investigation in 2005 revealed that a “regular single mom” paraded by Bush’s White House to advocate for privatizing social security was in fact FreedomWorks’ Iowa state director. The woman, Sandra Jacques, also fronted another Iowa fake-grassroots group called “For Our Grandchildren,” even though privatizing social security was really “For Koch And Wall Street Fat Cats.”

If you log into FreedomWorks.org today, its home page features a large photo of Rick Santelli pointing at the viewer like Uncle Sam, with the words: “Are you with Rick? We Are. Click here to learn more.”

FreedomWorks, along with scores of shady front organizations which don’t have to disclose their sponsors thanks to their 501 (c)(3) status, has been at the heart of today’s supposed grassroots, nonpartisan “tea party” protests across the country, supposedly fueled by scores of websites which masquerade as amateur/spontaneous projects, but are suspiciously well-crafted and surprisingly well-written. One slick site pushing the tea parties, Right.org claims, “Right.org is a grassroots online community created by a few friends who were outraged by the bailouts. So we gathered some talent and money and built this site. Please tell your friends, and if you have suggestions for improving it, please let us know. Respectfully, Evan and Duncan.” But funny enough, these regular guys are offering a $27,000 prize for an “anti-bailout video competition.” Who are Evan and Duncan? Do they even really exist?

Even Facebook pages dedicated to a specific city "tea party" events, supposedly written by people connected only by a common emotion, obviously conformed to the same style. It was as if they were part of a multi-pronged advertising campaign planned out by a professional PR company. Yet, on the surface, they pretended to have no connection. The various sites set up their own Twitter feeds and Facebook pages dedicated to the Chicago Tea Party movement. And all of them linked to one another, using it as evidence that a decentralized, viral movement was already afoot. It wasn't about partisanship; it was about real emotions coming straight from real people.

Now honestly I am not in the tin foil hat crowd and I am not a big believer in conspiracy theories but damn, this is explosive stuff. It would seem that at the least Santelli needs to go on the record and say its not true because otherwise what are we really to believe. Even if he refutes the article you have to admit that Playboy did a damn good job of documenting all of their allegations and connecting the dots. Now I am not ready to jump in head first and say Playboy is totally right but I am saying this story deserves attention from the mainstream media. It will be interesting to see if it gets it....

Speaking of programs the extreme right wants to destroy, here's Benen on SEBELIUS TO HHS....

It's official: "Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius yesterday accepted President Obama's request to become his secretary of health and human services, stepping into a central role in the new administration's ambitious effort to overhaul the nation's health-care system."

Sebelius will not, however, be stepping into the role envisioned for Tom Daschle.

...

The idea was for Daschle to navigate the reform process through Congress, which Sebelius, a newcomer to Washington, is less suited for. Ezra noted the other day, "She'd be a newcomer to Washington, with few contacts on the Hill and little knowledge of the players or the process. She's not versed in the administration's health care plan nor has she been present for the internal conversations that have sharpened in recent weeks as the coming budget forced hard decisions on the proposal. ... "

But that hardly makes her a poor choice for HHS. On the contrary, Sebelius is a fine pick who will likely be easily confirmed. She's known for her strong managerial skills, has broad credibility with both parties, and has a background on healthcare that will no doubt serve her well: "The Kansas governor served as state insurance commissioner for eight years and has overseen the Medicaid program for the poor during her tenure as governor. Sebelius tried unsuccessfully to expand health coverage in the state through higher cigarette taxes. Still, under her watch, Kansas has added tens of thousands of low-income children to state health programs. As insurance commissioner, Sebelius rejected the sale of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas to an Indiana company, citing the prospect of higher premiums."

The NYT emphasized Sebelius' unwavering pro-choice credentials, which it said "may prove a lightning rod in her confirmation." The usual suspects are, predictably, riled up -- ...

I seriously doubt this will have any kind of impact. For one thing, the conservative critics have reached out to Senate Republicans, who have proceeded to blow them off. ...

The downside to Sebelius' nomination? Kansas will host an open-seat Senate campaign next year, and Democrats would love to see their popular two-term governor run. That, apparently, isn't going to happen, making the Democratic pick-up opportunity remote.

Yglesias on The “F” Word

I heard someone smart remark recently that thus far in the discussion of the financial crisis we haven’t heard that much of the “f” word—fraud. And when we have heard it, it’s tended to be with reference to micro-fraud—borrowers lying on their mortgage applications. But as Steve Coll says we’re almost certain to learn more about corrupt activity on the part of bank executives, which makes it all the more puzzling that the administration seems determined to keep these same executives in place:

Why, for example, would the Obama Administration wish to forge a bet-the-Presidency partnership with Kenneth Lewis, the C.E.O. of Bank of America, who bought the sub-prime lender Countrywide at the top of the housing market, and who then, as this enormous mistake became evident, extravagantly overpaid for Merrill Lynch? What absolves Lewis of responsibility for these colossal errors in business judgment? This week, Andrew Cuomo, the attorney general of New York, has been deposing Lewis about his tone-deaf decision, instigated by Merrill’s John Thain, to award more than $3 billion in bonuses to Merrill employees in December. ...

Just as important, the Cuomo investigation reminds us that we don’t yet know the full scope of terrible judgment, ethical lapses, and outright fraud that occurred within the banking and financial industries last autumn. It was a time of great turmoil and very high stakes. More shoes will drop; Obama and company might want to slide out of the way before they do.

It’s all the more puzzling to me that this is being done while there are literally no subcabinet officials in place at the Treasury. I’m told this relates in part to the fact that the administration is having trouble coming up with people who wouldn’t appear “tainted” by association with the bad stuff here. But keeping the government understaffed because we don’t want to give jobs to financiers with the one hand, and then forking over vast sums of taxpayer money to the very same financiers seems bizarre.

Yglesias on Washington Post Still Dodging Core Issues in George Will Scandal

The latest from Washington Post ombudsman Andy Alexander is really pathetic. I’ll quote Ryan Avent’s recap:

George Will wrote a column suggesting that there was a broad scientific consensus in the 1970s regarding the threat of global cooling. This is simply not true. Moreover, this untruth is readily verifiable. And George Will attempted to sow doubts about global warming by citing a bogus analysis of research findings, from an organization that has publicly said that the analysis was bogus and that their research in fact says just the opposite of what George Will argued. And then of course there is the fact that there is a broad scientific consensus regarding the threat of global warming, supported by overwhelming evidence.

The Post continues to not even address the majority of these concerns. Instead, in the eyes of the Post the only issue here is that there’s a disagreement between Will and some other people about how to characterize research findings from the Arctic Climate Research Center. The Post thinks that the opportunity should have been taken to foster more constructive debate about this. But why would there be a “debate” about how to interpret scientific findings undertaken between, on the one hand, the scientists who did the research and on the other hand a political pundit who’s misrepresenting it? Then the Post simply has nothing to say about the fact that Will’s column falsely claimed—and not for the first time!—that there was a scientific consensus in the 1970s about a global cooling phenomenon. This myth, though widespread, is false. And though false, it’s widespread, because prominent media organizations like The Washington Post see misleading people about climate change as a valuable service that they’ll pay people money to do.

...

So George Will will lie to you about climate change, and when this is pointed out The Washington Post will throw its institutional weight behind a defense of lying and an attack on people being rude to Will. This kind of behavior doesn’t earn you a respite from the right’s attacks, but it does make it impossible for a progressive to, in good conscience, defend your organization.

Molly Ivors: Maureen Dowd is back on her game, and not in a good way.