Teabaggers Target Corporate America

Filed in National by on December 28, 2009

Yep, you heard that right — the teabaggers are trying to organize a “National Day of Strike” for January 20, the first anniversary of Obama’s inauguration:

The goal of the strike, according to the website where it’s being planned, is to “financially cripple” the companies across America the group says are “backing the leftist agenda” and “funding socialism.”

How can you tell which companies are funding socialism? The answer, according to organizers: they advertise on CNN and/or MSNBC, and they donate money to Democratic candidates.

Cool! But apparently this just got announced on the 20th or so and is being led by a Christian Coalition organizer who is still looking for regional organizers and staff to pull this off. And it looks like they have some Facebook followers but nor much movement. Apparently they will be looking for their followers to call these businesses to harrass them that day and if they do not succumb to said harassment, they’ll boycott them.

Anyone see the problem here? Teabaggers taking a play out of the socialist and union playbooks to complain about socialism is awfully rich, even for these people. Probably work about as well as their Die In a week or so back.

Tags: ,

About the Author ()

"You don't make progress by standing on the sidelines, whimpering and complaining. You make progress by implementing ideas." -Shirley Chisholm

Comments (9)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. wikwox says:

    I am constantly amazed that anybody, even the fools we call pundits, take the ‘Baggers as a serious force in politics.All they have is anger and rage, no brains, no plans, no organization short of Dick Armey’s Ameri-what ever.That and total ignorance of what Socialism is or what it means.

  2. nemski says:

    Gee, with January traditionally being one of the weakest retail months all year, we should hardly notice.

    BTW, why didn’t they do this on Black Friday as part of a War on Christmas protest?

  3. Observer says:

    Cassandra, are you aware of the European tradition of general strikes intended to influence policy or bring down a government? Or are you so ignorant and parochial in your insular point of view that you are unaware of this?

    Personally, I don’t see this thing working. After all, most conservatives work for a living, while liberals either live off their trust funds or their government entitlement checks.

  4. pandora says:

    Wow, nice stereotyping. Observer isn’t very observant. And I’m howling over the sudden “Europe lovin’ ways.”

  5. nemski says:

    That’s because Observer is RWR.

  6. Geezer says:

    For the record, most of the trust-funders I know in Delaware are relatives of the du Pont family, and almost none of them are even moderate conservatives — they’re full-throated right-wingers, with, in certain branches of the family, a healthy dose of racism thrown in.

    So even his stereotyping is inaccurate.

  7. cassandra m says:

    RWR apparently missed the observation that these teabaggers have taken a page out of old school socialist and union playbooks. Those playbooks — from Europe — have occasionally changed policy and politics (those socialist French!)

    But it is plenty stupid for teabaggers to complain about socialism while implementing their tactics.

    But stupid and idiotic is about what we’ve come to expect from RWR — who is apparently content to be the DE Liberal Village Idiot.

  8. anon says:

    Baggers are not a serious force… But they, like slinkies are entertaining to watch fall down stairs…

    We, who write about them, are not giving them credit, but lacking slinkies of our own, are at loss for something to do..

    So we continue to point out their stupidity…. and occasionally give them a push down a flight of stairs…. (metaphorically, of course)

  9. This is somewhat odd; conservatives usually condemn strikes and union-style politics, while nonetheless being big fans of boycotts. I think this so-called national strike is on a fairly small scale, poorly organized and advertised, with very little support from even those that agree with its aims.