Another Day, Another Front-Page Expose of a Tea Party Group From the NY Times
Thursday’s front-page story by New York Times investigative reporter Mike McIntire, “Odd Alliance: Business Lobby And Tea Party.” accused a Tea Party group, the Institute for Liberty, of pushing the agenda of Asia Pulp & Paper, an Indonesian corporation fighting U.S. tariffs.
Whatever the merits of this particular complaint, this sort of prominently placed, hostile investigation of a conservative-friendly group is a specialty of McIntire’s. In a front-page article from September 2010 he went after the group Americans for Job Security, one of a flurry of McIntire exposes on the eve of the 2010 Congressional election cycle on groups with Tea Party ties.
His colleague Michael Luo went further, writing stories about “anonymous donors” trying to help Republicans “buy an election” and hinting the IRS and the Federal Election Commission should take a look at some of the Republican-friendly groups. By contrast, similar stories on Democratic groups were sporadic and belated.
McIntire’s latest story was accompanied by a fanciful flow chart showing the alleged close links between the Institute for Liberty, Frontiers of Freedom, and various other free-market lobbying firms and activist groups, headlined, “A Hidden Lobby For Indonesian Paper?” In Times land, there are no coincidences and everything is connected, at least when it comes to conservative activism.
The Tea Party does not have a presence in Indonesia, where the term evokes cups of orange pekoe and sweet cakes rather than angry citizens in “Don’t Tread on Me” T-shirts.
But a Tea Party group in the United States, the Institute for Liberty, has vigorously defended the freedom of a giant Indonesian paper company to sell its wares to Americans without paying tariffs. The institute set up Web sites, published reports and organized a petition drive attacking American businesses, unions and environmentalists critical of the company, Asia Pulp & Paper.
Last fall, the institute’s president, Andrew Langer, had himself videotaped on Long Wharf in Boston holding a copy of the Declaration of Independence as he compared Washington’s proposed tariff on paper from Indonesia and China to Britain’s colonial trade policies in 1776.
Tariff-free Asian paper may seem an unlikely cause for a nonprofit Tea Party group. But it is in keeping with a succession of pro-business campaigns -- promoting commercial space flight, palm oil imports and genetically modified alfalfa -- that have occupied the Institute for Liberty’s recent agenda.
McIntire at least suggested the Tea Party itself is an ideologically principled movement, while possibly overstating things:
The Tea Party movement is as deeply skeptical of big business as it is of big government. Yet an examination of the Institute for Liberty shows how Washington’s influence industry has adapted itself to the Tea Party era. In a quietly arranged marriage of seemingly disparate interests, the institute and kindred groups are increasingly the bearers of corporate messages wrapped in populist Tea Party themes.
In a few instances, their corporate partners are known -- as with the billionaire Koch brothers’ support of Americans for Prosperity, one of the most visible advocacy groups. More often, though, their nonprofit tax status means they do not have to reveal who pays the bills.
Donor secrecy is not limited to right-wing groups, of course. McIntire later engaged in unfriendly labeling of free-market groups:
[Langer] said he had sometimes chosen issues suggested by colleagues from an earlier job, at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market group heavily financed by business interests. The two institutes are involved in a campaign advocating a realignment of NASA’s budget that would benefit commercial spaceflight entrepreneurs. The Institute of Liberty’s contribution was a Web page called “No Space Pork!”
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments















Comments
Sounds like the NYTimes is
Submitted by buddyc on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 4:44pm.
Sounds like the NYTimes is becomming the Glen Beck of the left. FLow charts, villans under every bed, conspiracies everywhere, communists in the state department?
Classic, pot meet kettle.
Liberlas dont have a "presence" in Libya ether
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 5:20pm.
"The Tea Party does not have a presence in Indonesia..."
Liberals don't have a presence in Libya, so what of it? There is no Libyan chapter of the ACLU, you know. Yet, here we are, intervening military in Libyan politics. No complaints about that, eh Mr. Lou?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Attack The Tea Party, Subject Doesn't Matter..
Submitted by Boil It Down on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 6:53pm.
The memo from the DNC or whatever Soros funded group must have only said "Attack Tea Party".
McIntire seems to have followed faithfully along with the others in this chorus of attempted discrediting the Tea Party this week. How sad it must be to have to tow the line that way.
I REALLY hate to admit this...
Submitted by Phryj1 on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 11:57pm.
...and, believe me, it distinctly pains me to be on the same side as unions and environmentalists on ANY issue, BUT I do think imports should be taxed. We have a pretty serious deficit problem going on, and shifting the revenue burden to overseas companies seeking to sell their wares here does seem like a pretty good idea. Does anyone here actually benefit from Asia Pulp & Paper being able to sell their products tariff-free? And lower consumer prices do you a fat lot of good if you lose your job because, say, the domestic paper company you work for has to downsize to compete.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
Just ours, or theirs too?
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 12:48am.
Should just our imports be taxed, or should they also tax in imports of material that we send them in exchange for what we import. You have to remember that trade agreements like this are not a single item, single direction trade. They are multiple item, multiple direct trade agreements.
For example: They will be importing the ink that they will use from us, as well as the printing presses themselves. Would you like for them to impose a tax upon that ink, so that they they can find it more economical to produce that ink themselves and, in addition, create more jobs for themselves, at our expense? We create a LOT of ink for export, you know. That would put a lot of people out of work here, correct? And how about those presses, should they tax those imports as well? What about the people who are building those presses for export? Their income is dependent upon the export of their products.
Right now, they don't have the manufacturing facilities necessary to produce that ink, or those presses, so it is more economical for them to import them. But, if their government started taxing those imports, their business will soon find it more economical to produce the presses and ink themselves. They will BUILD those manufacturing facilities and, most likely, start exporting the products that we used to export. We're talking about THOUSANDS, and even, if you include the jobs necessary to just to support such manufacturing facilities here in the US, TENS OF THOUSANDS of lost American jobs here.
You see, it's far more complicated than most people realize. Yes, some American jobs are lost in these types of trades, but many more are gained in return. As long as we gain more jobs in export than we lose in import, we're not losing a thing.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.