Surprise: NYT now covering lefty “Coffee Party”
posted at 10:14 pm on March 1, 2010 by Allahpundit
First WaPo picked up the beat, now the Times chimes in with a flattering profile penned by Kate “Is Jason Mattera a racist?” Zernike. The first blog post on the CP website is dated February 23, as is the “About Us” page, which means it took the two biggest papers in America less than a week after the new site started posting in earnest to catch lefty grassroots Coffee Party fee-vah. (Their Facebook page has been up since last month.) Fancy that.
It’s good to be the king.
It had nearly 40,000 members as of Monday afternoon, but the numbers were growing quickly — about 11,000 people had signed on as fans since the morning…
The slogan is “Wake Up and Stand Up.” The mission statement declares that the federal government is “not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges we face as Americans.”
Local chapters are planning meetings in cities from Washington to San Antonio to Los Angeles (where there have been four in the last month.) The party (coffeepartyusa.org) is planning nationwide coffee houses for March 13, where people can gather to decide which issues they want to take on and even which candidates they want to support…
“We’re not the opposite of the Tea Party,” Ms. Park, 41, said. “We’re a different model of civic participation, but in the end we may want some of the same things.”
Thirty people turned up at the LA chapter meeting this past Sunday; I assume they’ll be getting a full NYT Sunday Magazine profile when they hit 50. You’ll find their latest video below. I still can’t figure out what it is they’re for, but I’m intrigued by the choice of music. I assume they’re using it in the same ironic spirit in which Lennon wrote it, because if they’re really aiming at civic revolution through kaffeeklatsches, I don’t know what to say.
Exit observation: I’m getting a distinct “beta male” vibe from this group. Does that mean I have to root for them?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Yep, the Tea Party got Scott “more liberal than Dede Scozzafava” Brown elected against a woman who badmouthed Curt Schilling and complained about how she hated shaking people’s hands. That was all the Tea Party movement doing that.
Proud Rino on March 2, 2010 at 10:03 AM
There you go applying logic to leftie thinking. Clearly “everyone” doesn’t mean… you know… everyone.
crazy_legs on March 2, 2010 at 10:04 AM
Since a substantial portion of them most likely are heavily into nuts and berries, the more accurate term is beta-carotene males.
ya2daup on March 2, 2010 at 10:05 AM
Sorry, this is just hilarious. Today, the sun came up. And the Tea Party movement is stronger than ever. There’s no way that could be a coincidence.
Proud Rino on March 2, 2010 at 10:06 AM
Notice how none of these people are shown talking about any specifics of their agenda. It’s all feel good platitudes and generalities:
They and their lefty media allies can’t build anything on that, but they know the specifics of their big government, small individual agenda will be rejected.
And that’s why this latest astroturf effort will fail. They can’t achieve any significant following without inviting scrutiny and a few slips of the tongue that will reveal what this is really about.
RadClown on March 2, 2010 at 10:08 AM
Your naysaying is epic, Proud Rino, I sense you’re good at just providing quick snappy counters without actually arguing the point.
Just keep denying that the Tea Party movement hasn’t influenced politics positive to their cause, and I’m sure you’ll eventually fool yourself as long as you studiously continue to not pay attention.
Heralder on March 2, 2010 at 10:09 AM
How long until the… Coke Party?
crazy_legs on March 2, 2010 at 10:11 AM
The Tea Party was an event, The Boston Tea Party from 1773 where the Americans dumped a ship full of tea into Boston Harbor to protest British Tea Taxes.
And that gives the coffee party even less meaning.
Heralder on March 2, 2010 at 9:41 AM
Actually, they dumped a shipfull of BRITISH tea into the harbor to protest a LACK of taxes. The Brits taxed everyone else’s tea while removing virtually all taxes on British tea so the British tea would have a market advantage.
Of course the case can still be made that the taxes on the other teas was much too high, and that was the impetus for the original tea party, but by throwing out the only tax-free tea, they actually raised their own taxes. Just sayin.
runawayyyy on March 2, 2010 at 10:12 AM
For somebody who denys the efficacy of the Tea Party Movement, you sure spend a lot of time and hate on the subject. If the group has had no influence on American politics, why are you so damned scared of them that you have to run them down?
highhopes on March 2, 2010 at 10:17 AM
Collective will????
Oh, sort of like Collectivism or National Socialism?
And remember, the National Socialist Democrats are willing to talk about what the people want only when they just happen to agree with them – when that isn’t the case….
Well, they ARE the elite, so that can just ignore what we want, because we don’t know what’s good for us.
Chip on March 2, 2010 at 10:22 AM
For somebody who denies the efficacy of the Coffee Party Movement, you sure spend a lot of time and hate on the subject. If the group has had no influence on American politics, why are you so damned scared of them that you have to run them down?
Proud Rino on March 2, 2010 at 10:23 AM
Not an original thought in any liberals heads…
Tony253 on March 2, 2010 at 10:23 AM
There is a parallel here. The Boston Tea Party was the result of an oppressive regime imposing its will without the consent of the governed and the process by which the Tea Act was to be imposed on the colonists.
It is much the same as a single party junta attempting to seize 1/6th of the economy despite the overwhelming oppostion of real Americans.
highhopes on March 2, 2010 at 10:23 AM
Wow, you changed one word from my post. What original thought you displayed. Care to answer any of the questions I asked or will this post too be mirrored back in my direction as if you are some great thinker?
I mean seriously. I outgrew the “Am not. Are too.” debating technique in elementary school. You aren’t a third-grader are you?
highhopes on March 2, 2010 at 10:26 AM
Self parody?
Chip on March 2, 2010 at 10:27 AM
The blogs and videos of these people are powerful soporifics (not unlike reading postings by AnninCA). Their name ought to be The Soma Party:
“Soma was served with the coffee. Lenina took two half-gramme tablets and Henry three.”
– Huxley, Brave New World
ya2daup on March 2, 2010 at 10:28 AM
Dirt Baggers …
Commie propaganda to go.
darwin on March 2, 2010 at 10:32 AM
So… they spend the last year decrying the “hateful RAAAAAAAAACIST teabaggers” and when that doesn’t work they start imitating us.
Typical liberal strategy.
crazy_legs on March 2, 2010 at 10:33 AM
We have disdain for astroturf group like this as well as morons like yourself
bill30097 on March 2, 2010 at 10:34 AM
I thought they wanted be called Dirt beggers?
Same difference I guess.
I prefer “Fister” myself.
Chip on March 2, 2010 at 10:36 AM
This is going to be as popular as Going Rouge.
LibTired on March 2, 2010 at 10:48 AM
Actually, he’s using the ‘I’m rubber, you’re glue.’, technique on you; he’s just bouncing things back. I don’t know why you pay attention to him. His screen name is half a step up from ‘prouddouchebag’; you’re not going to get a healthy convo going with someone like that.
Far as the coffee party goes, it’s probably already been said. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery; the tea partiers already made history. They’ve achieved Palin status in terms of degree of media nastiness and insanity in coverage. This coffee party bs is just an attempt to co-op and distract.
austinnelly on March 2, 2010 at 10:54 AM
Yeah actually, that was pretty funny.
But apparently you never outgrew calling people “filthy lying cowards” as a debating technique.
This is probably the most hilarious thing I frequently hear you guys say. There’s no parallel. The whole rallying cry of the time was “no taxation without representation”. You live in a democratic republic, where you are able to elect representation. There was an election in 2008. You lost. There are consequences.
crr6 on March 2, 2010 at 10:54 AM
Individuals organizing in their communities because of real concern=astroturfing
Oragnizing for America/DNC funded and agenda driven organization looking to recruit followers=grassroots
Liberals live in an upside down world!
daesleeper on March 2, 2010 at 10:56 AM
I actually think the Coffee Party is pretty stupid, as is the Tea Party. But if you guys are going to sing the praises of grassroots political activism, you can’t express a disdain for movements such as this.
Apparently, you only like the voice of “the people” when it aligns with your narrow political preferences. Otherwise, it must be crushed and silenced.
crr6 on March 2, 2010 at 10:56 AM
Easy there! We don’t need those Cuban influences in our political process. This isn’t Venezuela!
daesleeper on March 2, 2010 at 10:58 AM
Since you seem to be an expert on Progressives.
Maybe you can explain Why Progressive utopias like the old Soviet union needed security apparatus like the Cheka to repress the populace?
Chip on March 2, 2010 at 11:07 AM
You will understand fully once you are removed from your family and re-educated in a Green Jobs Work Camp.
daesleeper on March 2, 2010 at 11:09 AM
If i have to explain the Soviet Union, you have to explain Nazi Germany…
*waits for obligatory wingnutty Jonah-Goldberg-inspired rant on how Nazis were actually all tree-hugging liberals*
crr6 on March 2, 2010 at 11:09 AM
You explain Progressive regimes like the old Soviet Union first.
Chip on March 2, 2010 at 11:14 AM
The Soviet Union was an awful, authoritarian regime that has absolutely no relation to modern mainstream liberalism, in any substantive way.
Ok, your turn.
crr6 on March 2, 2010 at 11:16 AM
Here’s her twitter page, if anyone hasn’t posted it yet:
http://twitter.com/annabelpark
Alana on March 2, 2010 at 11:16 AM
What’s not to like?
The Coffee Party is obviously pro-big government and pro-big deficits. I’m sure they’ll grow quickly.
blink on March 2, 2010 at 11:18 AM
Except that the Federal bureaucracy has grown so large that unelected mid-level managers are making policy decisions with substantial impact on our day to day lives.
The model of government that the left promotes gives the people only the most superficial level of control over the federal leviathan. A government this large cannot be sufficiently responsive to the needs of the people – which is why more power and responsibility should be rolled down to the local level where administrators that actually understand the issues of a region can set sensible policies. If people don’t like it, they can vote with their feet (failing other local elections).
This just makes sense. Decentralize power and you get a system flexible enough to meet the needs of a diverse population. It seems so obvious that one can’t help but question the opposition’s motives.
TheUnrepentantGeek on March 2, 2010 at 11:19 AM
That doesn’t answer the question.
Explain Progressive regimes like the old Soviet Union first.
Chip on March 2, 2010 at 11:19 AM
You lie.
TheUnrepentantGeek on March 2, 2010 at 11:20 AM
Grassroots? This “movement” is about a month old and already has a fairly sophisticated national website, a logo and an obviously well oiled PR machine.
And they have achieved all this before they had any membership to speak of. Grassroots my arse.
RadClown on March 2, 2010 at 11:20 AM
The Nazis weren’t tree-hugging liberals. The Nazis were statist liberals.
Surely you don’t think Hugo Chavez is conservative, right?
blink on March 2, 2010 at 11:21 AM
If Progressive regimes like the old Soviet Union were so wonderful, why did they really need secret police like the Cheka to repress the populace?
Chip on March 2, 2010 at 11:22 AM
That’s a much more substantive critique. Still…you’re the only poster here I’ve ever seen make it. Highhopes et al. are still stuck on stupid, and your intelligence doesn’t save them.
Anyway my point is still pretty much the same. If you want to de-bureaucratize the government, elect representatives who will do so.
crr6 on March 2, 2010 at 11:23 AM
YOU lost the 2008 election. All Americans lost the 2008 election and any other election which ushered in ultra high spending proponents.
blink on March 2, 2010 at 11:25 AM
What do you want me to explain? I don’t have to explain the Soviet Union any more than you have to explain Nazi Germany. Despite what Glen Beck tells you, neither has any real relevance to the current political climate in America.
crr6 on March 2, 2010 at 11:26 AM
If Nazi Germany was so perfect according to you Chip, why did they need secret police to repress the populace?
crr6 on March 2, 2010 at 11:27 AM
Gee, maybe the Tea Party should think about that.
/sarc
Interesting that you can only bring yourself to characterize an out-of-control spending government as bureaucratized.
blink on March 2, 2010 at 11:28 AM
Oh boy. I vaguely remember having a conversation with you months ago, where we both agreed that comparing current American political parties to old fascist and communist regimes is moronic. Have you really gone off the deep end since then?
crr6 on March 2, 2010 at 11:29 AM
Not too difficult to decipher. Go to the coffee party and say you are republican, voted for Bush, have a CCW liscence, and attend a fundamental christian church. I’m certain their diversity will cover you too.
daesleeper on March 2, 2010 at 11:29 AM
You have to explain both.
blink on March 2, 2010 at 11:29 AM
Otherwise, it must be crushed and silenced.crr6 on March 2, 2010 at 10:56 AM
Insert
tar0bama supporter #43,527,691 who can’t tell the difference between being laughed at, and being “crushed and silenced.”Rahm was right, about 0bama supporters.
MNHawk on March 2, 2010 at 11:30 AM
Oh lord. Another Jonah Goldberg-bot.
crr6 on March 2, 2010 at 11:31 AM
It’s NOT a comparison question, it is just a question on why such a Progessivist regimes would need a secret police force to suppress the populace.
Chip on March 2, 2010 at 11:31 AM
Do you attempt to claim that Hugo Chavez is conservative?
blink on March 2, 2010 at 11:32 AM
Because the Soviet Union was an awful, awful authoritarian regime. I think that’s pretty obvious. Do you disagree?
crr6 on March 2, 2010 at 11:34 AM
Does this pass as argumentation at your Ivy League law school?
I’ll assume it does.
daesleeper on March 2, 2010 at 11:34 AM
Haha, “alot of people don’t know what’s going on, they only know what they see.”
Interpretation, believe what we tell you, don’t believe your lying eyes.
Alden Pyle on March 2, 2010 at 11:35 AM
So much for actually reading the words to “Revolution“.
moonsbreath on March 2, 2010 at 11:36 AM
Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei
Translated: National Socialist German Workers Party
Note the Word sozialistische or SOCIALIST in there.
SAME as Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics.
Chip on March 2, 2010 at 11:37 AM
I tip my hat to this “Coffee” (or, better phrased from an earlier post, Soma) Party…they’ve studied history, and know exactly how to destroy an enemy collective.
Assimilation.
This is nothing more than those opposed to the Tea Party movement who want to pull away and pretend that they’re the same–same goals, different means. Infiltrate, dwindle down the population of your enemy from within (in this case, pulling Tea Partiers who may lean closer to the left than right), and, while the masses are told one thing, act in another.
Say your goal is A, but keep moving towards B. ACORN tactics, all over again.
Well played, Soma Party organizers. Well played. Hopefully I’m not the only one who can see through you and what your truly trying to accomplish.
CatsGodot on March 2, 2010 at 11:38 AM
Or they could be called the Fisters.
http://thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=4536
womball on March 2, 2010 at 11:40 AM
Again, why do Progressive regimes need security apparatus like the Cheka to suppress the populace?
Chip on March 2, 2010 at 11:40 AM
Why would a wingnut need to explain a German national socialist party policy? Fascist regimes are big government by definition; it’s how they flex their muscle. Comparing them to modern wingers is nonsensical.
On the other hand, this whole argument about how liberals have nothing to do with Communists thing kinda falls apart when I start posting pictures of Che posters displayed in prominent places throughout Democrat strongholds. I’m driving distance from Berkeley – ’tis not exactly a secret. I’ve had discussions with enough self-described “militant liberals” where I get to hear all about the evils of capitalism.
Your modern leftist has noticed that maybe out and out Communism isn’t so good an idea, but they do seem to think if we could just give Diet Communism a go everything would turn out roses. The danger is that while they’ve mellowed, they’re still collectivists at the core – and no collectivist movement (and certainly not the governments they elect) will provide sufficient protections for the individual. And none of this bothers them until they run into an issue in which they don’t agree with the collective. This is why you can get thrown in jail in the UK for beating up a guy that tries to rob you in your home – it’s that same impetus. The individual has done something that riles the collective’s values and so he’s denied one of the most fundamental human rights – the right to defend yourself.
TheUnrepentantGeek on March 2, 2010 at 11:40 AM
No one ridicules the collectivists like thepeoplescube!
daesleeper on March 2, 2010 at 11:42 AM
“And if you go talkin’ about Coll-ec-tive Will,
It only proves that you’re a lefty shill.”
Apologies to Lennon.
drunyan8315 on March 2, 2010 at 11:43 AM
Right. And the farther left our federal government trends, the larger it grows. It’s growth in size correlates exhibits a strong negative correlation to its responsiveness.
And then you have a large, powerful government that takes much of your income, does not respond to your needs, and enforces its will via police action. Which is basically the definition of authoritarian in my book.
It doesn’t matter if the authority is wielded in the name of the collective or not when the collective is so large that it no longer effectively expresses anyone’s will.
TheUnrepentantGeek on March 2, 2010 at 11:50 AM
Wow, did I call it or what?
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/03/coffee-party-parasite.html
(Yes, top on the links on the front page right now; wasn’t when I was writing my comment)
CatsGodot on March 2, 2010 at 11:51 AM
Look at the Ezra Levant case in Canada from two years ago. Ezra was drug into a bureaucrat’s office and he had to plead his innocence. It wasn’t a jack boot on his throat, it was a mid-level bureaucrat in a bloated leftist government that had papers with serious charges.
daesleeper on March 2, 2010 at 11:53 AM
Forgot to add that those ‘serious charges’ were fraudulent.
daesleeper on March 2, 2010 at 11:57 AM
Oh geez … not another one who can’t admit Hitler was a leftist.
darwin on March 2, 2010 at 11:58 AM
I agree with you of course, on this point…although for slightly different reasons. If Republicans were all strict libertarians you may have a point, but the fact is most conservatives are pretty much just as in favor of big government as liberals. Just in different ways (i.e. supporting an extremely powerful and obtrusive criminal justice system, supporting government involvement in social policies such as abortion and gay marriage etc)
Still, comparing any sort of mainstream liberalism or conservatism to fascism is moronic. Any benefit of pointing out the miniscule similarities between the two is outweighed by what you lose by polluting the discourse with extremely loaded terms such as Nazism and Communism.
Yeah you’ve lost it. Too bad.
Does it bother you that you’re basically the inverse of the “Bush is a fascist” morons from a few years ago?
crr6 on March 2, 2010 at 11:59 AM
Grassroots? Did you go to their website? Seems pretty organized to me … not the website of anything “grassroots”.
darwin on March 2, 2010 at 12:00 PM
Exactly, when the government takes enough from some and controls them with the threat of taking more, and uses that largess to by the votes of the majority you begin to Progress towards an authoritarian regime.
Chip on March 2, 2010 at 12:01 PM
More like GAYta male vibe.
BTW that old lady is Nancy Pelosi in disguise.
Speedwagon82 on March 2, 2010 at 12:02 PM
Uh huh.
crr6 on March 2, 2010 at 12:02 PM
How about this:
Since Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers Party) Germany is also a Progressive type regime from the storied past, your explanation of why the old Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics needed the Cheka could also cover why Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers Party) needed the gestapo.
You can kill two birds with one Progessivist stone.
It’s a Two-fer!
Chip on March 2, 2010 at 12:03 PM
In case that point is unclear…it’s basically like me saying Unrepentant Geek and Hitler are similar because they both have brown hair. Is that true? Maybe. But any benefit of pointing that out is completely outweighed by the inflammatory nature of associating him with one of the worst regimes in human history.
crr6 on March 2, 2010 at 12:05 PM
No it’s not.
Attempting to claim that Hugo Chavez isn’t a mainstream liberal statist is moronic.
blink on March 2, 2010 at 12:07 PM
Yes. A hair color comparison is basically the same as a comparison of ideology.
blink on March 2, 2010 at 12:09 PM
Agreed with the gist of what you were saying. Just had to fix that one point.
crazy_legs on March 2, 2010 at 12:10 PM
Could you please tell that Bernie Sanders and the rest of the ‘Progressives’?
Doorgunner on March 2, 2010 at 12:11 PM
Lest you miss the point … organization of the tea party movement took time. There was nothing when it started.
This astroturf joke … the coffee party … was well organized before it hit the ground. It’s top down, not bottom up like the tea party.
Of course, I don’t expect you to understand that since you’re so accustomed to following instead of leading.
darwin on March 2, 2010 at 12:13 PM
Can we call them “beaners?”
Bevan on March 2, 2010 at 12:14 PM
Republicans lost seats, but didn’t lose all their procedural prerogatives. You’re seeing the ones they retained right now.
And what disturbs me about the CPM is that it’s so obviously being propped up. It may take a little while but their sources of support will come out eventually.
Their whole rationale for existence seems to be
(1) Ew, teabaggers!
(2) Majority voting = collective will.
Self-image out of all proportion to their grasp of actual politics. Annoyingly earnest but stupid. Dime a dozen.
DrSteve on March 2, 2010 at 12:14 PM
crr6 has obviously never read anything on Hitler, or how he used the same tactics and principles that the left uses today … clearly visible in Obamas use of the unions.
darwin on March 2, 2010 at 12:16 PM
I couldn’t even get through that video. Are they on something? Maybe they should be. There’s nothing worse than sober liberals.
Hal_10000 on March 2, 2010 at 12:17 PM
http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/teapartypatriots.org
Interesting, isn’t it, they don’t feel the need for an anonymous domain service.
By the way, have we found out yet, who wants to silence those 40 unbathed types to got together for coffee?
MNHawk on March 2, 2010 at 12:18 PM
Ill start the “Coke Cherry Zero” party!
Wolftech on March 2, 2010 at 12:19 PM
And here it is, as posted in the HA headlines:
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/03/coffee-party-parasite.html
Yep, there’s them “grass roots” right there… and dem roots need a little touchin’ up.
Gee, crr6 seems to have left the building…
Doorgunner on March 2, 2010 at 12:20 PM
Careful! Comrade crr6 will call you a Jonah Goldberg-Bot, and it would know that because it has read Jonah’s book I’m certain.
daesleeper on March 2, 2010 at 12:22 PM
There are a lot of contenders for that title, The Progressive utopia of the old Soviet Union, Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers Party) Germany, Cuba, North Korea…
And they’re ALL Statist tyrannies, isn’t that curious?
Chip on March 2, 2010 at 12:23 PM
Whoa.
That video tricked my temporal lobe into smelling incense, cat piss and that weird dude with the hat.
Time to drink less.
Or maybe more.
Decisions, decisions.
justltl on March 2, 2010 at 12:24 PM
Coffee isn’t like Tea, there are actual BRANDS, that won’t want to be associated with her shallow movement. Politicizing Coffee…well it’s always been political, people just don’t talk about it.
Who serves over priced coffee to pretentious, self deluding granola wannabees?
Dr Evil on March 2, 2010 at 12:28 PM
I’m shocked, SHOCKED, the person hiding behind the anonymous domain service is an 0bama groupie and former Times employee.
crr6. Played for a chump. Again. By his betters.
MNHawk on March 2, 2010 at 12:33 PM
And really… when you get right down to it… it really ain’t coffee they’re drinking.
crazy_legs on March 2, 2010 at 12:38 PM
KOOLAID! TABLE ONE
G. on March 2, 2010 at 12:45 PM
Even the name sounds obnoxious.
JKahn913 on March 2, 2010 at 12:48 PM
sorry if it already in here, no time to read all the comments. My first reaction:
TIME FOR HUGE TAX DAY PARTYS!!!!
JusDreamin on March 2, 2010 at 12:58 PM
Is it too early to say that the NYT and WaPo are funding the KoolAid Party?
Nah, never too early for one to speak the truth…
CatsGodot on March 2, 2010 at 1:09 PM
So crr6, you really don’t have an answer besides the claim that modern progressives (or Marxists, Statists, Socialists, Collectivists, Leninists, Stalinists,.. )
Are Nothing like Statists of the past – despite the fact that they have the very same collectivist ideology.
Chip on March 2, 2010 at 1:10 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »