Rick Santelli’s Planted Rant ?

[RedEarth]

By Barry Ritholtz - February 28th, 2009, 5:47PM

I was interviewed by several journalists last week about Rick Santelli’s Rant — my exact quote was it had a “Faux” feel to it. (I haven’t seen it in print yet)

What was so odd about this was that Santelli is usually on the ball; we usually agree more often than we disagree. He’s been repsosible for some of the best moments on Squawk Box.

But his rant somehow felt wrong. After we’ve pissed through over $7 trillion dollars in Federal bailouts to banks, brokers, automakers, insurers, etc., this was a pittance, the least offensive of all the vast sums of wasted money spent on “losers” to use Santelli’s phrase. It seemed like a whole lot of noise over “just” $75 billion, or 1% of the rest of the total ne’er-do-well bailout monies.

It turns out that there may be more to the story then originally met the eye, according to (yes, really) Playboy magazine.

Excerpt:

“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.”

What is Playboy’s evidence of this?

“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.

This looks like more than a coincidence. This is now a very serious charge.

I have no insight as to whether this is true or not — but it certainly deserves a serious response from both Santelli and CNBC. If its false, then they should say so, and demand an apology from Playboy.

But if any of it is true, well then, Santelli mauy have to fall on his sword, and CNBC may owe the public an apology.

I am VERY curious if there is any truth to this.

.....link to Playboy article and more at.....

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/02/rick-santellis-faux-rant/

[Mike 03]

1. The guy's a big fat nothing. I used to have to watch CNBC at work but finally I

moved over to Bloomberg. Santelli is a huge nothing and I cannot believe this guy is getting this much attention. It's shocking. It just demonstrates how low journalism has gone that someone like this could receive this much attention.

It is astonishing, actually.

[slipslidingaway]

14. He would not be receiving the attention he is except that Gibbs

mentioned him by name, it would have blown over much sooner if that had not happened.

[RedEarth]

22. CNBC is complete garbage...

Used to watch it from time to time several years, but now get all my economic news from the Internet...in particular the website Calculated Risk... an outstanding site.

[Turbineguy]

2. When I saw it

it hit me that he was auditioning for a spot on Faux Noise. But since then I've noticed a more RW slant to that whole CNBC. For a while it seemed they were dealing with the Obama election. But now they seem to have joined the "I hope he fails" crowd.

There are sure a lot of destructive forces at work against the USA.

I almost feel sorry for Krushchev and Brezhnev not being around to see it. They would have so enjoyed it.

[indepat]

7. What could be more deserving for a bunch who espouse right-wing causes

than to have the common stock of their parent GE plunge about 80%, as it has under 'puke rule, malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance. :P

[Turbineguy]

17. Well, they got what they deserve

the problem was, the rest of us got it too.

The only ones who made out where those who bet on the failure of the US.

[Dr.Phool]

3. K&R.This needs a wider audience.

I'm going to cross post it to the Week-end Economist thread, And SMW Monday.

Good catch!

[slipslidingaway]

4. Me too...

"I am VERY curious if there is any truth to this."

[FrenchieCat]

5. I said that this reminded me of the Brook Brother Suit protest in Florida in 2000!

IT's all carefully choreographed!

[GoCubsGo]

18. I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed...

It all seemed way too convenient to me. This "tea party" thing just came right of the top of his head? Uh huh, and I'm the Queen of Sheba.

[City Lights]

6. Interesting...I'd love to know if it's true.

It was certainly convenient that Rick had so many people standing around on the floor of the CBOT just waiting to raise their hands when he asked his infamous question.

[Cerridwen]

8. A DUer posted about the website at the time. (updated)

If I can find a link to her thread, I'll put it up.

Found it: GinaMaria put up this post

[GinaMaria]

10. her :-)

I posted below before I saw your post. I can't tell you how relieved I am that this is getting attention. That little creep calling people losers needs to be exposed. Who's the real loser in this story?

[Cerridwen]

12. Hiya. As I thought and discovered on finding your post. :D

I'll go edit that part. I didn't think to when I edited for the link.

:hi:

[GinaMaria]

13. no need to edit

no one knows for sure even by poster name, gender or other demographic info.

:hi: Really just want to keep this thread kicked. Media manipulation is way too important.

[Cerridwen]

15. No problem; already done; and now I get to help kick it.

:hi:

[GinaMaria]

9. So glad you found this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5102005

I posted about his web site at the link above. I tried sending to news outlets but.... nothing. Glad someone is exposing this. Great find!!!!!!!!!!

[sufrommich]

11. I hope this is true and gets plenty of attention . nt

[slipslidingaway]

16. Obama..."People bought homes they knew they couldn't afford..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/us/politics/24obama-text.html?_r=1&ref=politics

I found this to be an interesting comment.

[demwing]

26. In what way? I have two friends that fell into that group

Good guys, hard working. Both were in junior management positions, and could have afforded a simple home. But instead of buying reasonable, they went for the full monty - way beyond their means.

They did it because they could. The lender was very encouraging.

One had just married, no children, bought a newly constructed three (!) bedroom. The other bought a modest house in a high falootin' neighboorhood. Overpriced, but w/an address worth having. Both knew they were over their heads, but expected to be able to come up with answers before issues became critical. Yeah, they were pushed their mortgages, but they were also adults, and were willingly playing a came full of risks. It was legalized gambling come to Utah. Both eventually lost their places when the answers never came.

I feel for these guys (one of them lost their marriage in the process), but the pragmatist in me sez "Yeah, and...? You bet your future - and lost! - on a fancy address and an extra 1000 square feet w/windows. I feel sorry for your family, not you."

Good guys. Dumb choices. Minimal sympathy.

[GinaMaria]

27. When did banks start approving loans

way beyond people's means? That was always the 'safety', imho to protect the banks and ultimately to protect us. I understand what you are saying. We know a guy, a real estate agent, who bought a huge house in a very affluent area. As soon as he had any equity in the place he took it out to make mortgage payments. He also refinanced a lot as it helped him miss a payment. There are high risk takers or gamblers among us. In the past, banks would not lend more than could be reasonably paid back. There will always be those who rob Peter to pay Paul, so to speak, but the banks were pretty good at assessing risk and a bit more careful about lending.

It's like having an alcoholic house sit and you leave the liquor cabinet unlocked and open. You should pretty much expect that he or she will drink themselves silly and who knows what condition your house will be in when you get back.

The problem isn't what they did to themselves. The problem is what it is doing to you. If you live on a block with multiple foreclosed homes, your property values tank. You did nothing wrong, yet your equity disappears. We have to do what we can to salvage our nest eggs. I don't think the Obama plan will help any of the people we used as examples. They are way too extreme. I do believe that rising unemployment, skyrocketing health care costs and other factors can devastate families that were sensible and responsible financially. I do believe in helping them. Most importantly though is reinstalling the gate keeper, not to protect gamblers from themselves, but to protect the rest of us from their tsunami of destruction.

Hope this makes sense.

[SemperEadem]

34. last night, I watched a two hour program about how this whole mess came down

and to answer the question posed in your subject--2005-ish, according to Alan Greenspan.

They began bundling bad mortgages-- -BBB --with good AAA rated ones and sold them here and overseas as investment vehicles. Sub prime mortgages became the hot business because of how much money, on paper, was flowing. The mortgage brokers making the loans knew they were bad, but they also knew that if they treated with these mortgages right, they would be swimming in cash by the time the jig was up and the people who had no business taking out loans on houses they knew they couldn't afford otherwise would be left with their credit messed up for the rest of their lives.

The thing was the model they were using never factored into the equation the fact that housing prices would go down. There was this unrealistic expectation that the hyper-inflated price of housing would never deflate. Not only that, but the avenues one used to have to take in order to get a mortgage--income qualification, downpayment, etc., which used to take 90 days to complete--were gotten rid of. There were a couple of families who willingly signed on the dotted line even when they knew they couldn't afford what they were buying because the mortgage broker could falsely inflate their income and know that it would not be verified. These owners knew exactly how much money they were making on a yearly basis when they signed the papers. At no point in time did any of the people who were interviewed even own the fact that they were wrong in signing their name to forged and false documents.

If you are living in Compton, CA because that's all you can afford and you suddenly are approved to purchase a home in Yorba Linda, CA (affluent--Nixon lived there.. and I think his library is there), you have got to know something is up and it ain't jesus answering your prayers (like the woman in the doc professed). I wasn't aware that jesus was in the business of backing up lies. Now, she took some responsibility for where she was, but she was insisting that it was really the fault of the predatory lender making her take this home. I still fail to see how her taking a pen and putting her name to a paper is the fault of anyone but the one who is guiding that hand to make the signature. It cannot be that much pressure being put on you that you would co-sign a lie of your own volition.

[slipslidingaway]

29. There is a group of people who stretched to buy more than they

could afford or who took out home equity loans for a number of reasons. I know a realtor who says she knows that she lost buyers because she was not showing them higher priced homes.

[Enthusiast]

31. Who would buy a home

they knew they could not afford? That makes no sense. Did they just want to live in an expensive home for a while until foreclosure? Makes no sense. Even Obama is repeating right wing misinformation.

[slipslidingaway]

33. A few thoughts...

some people thought that home prices would continue to climb so they stretched to buy more than they could afford.

IMO we should not try and put everyone in the same category, whether it be they were responsible people who were made to take on more debt than they could afford or conversely that they are all losers.

[Prometheus Bound]

19. I thought his attack on the 'loser' homeowners was out of character too.

This makes sense. There had to be a reason for this insignificant reporter deviating from his usual analysis getting such huge press.

[annabanana]

20. My My My!!. . I wonder if anyone on MSNBC would dare bring up

this tasty little tidbit?

[FrenchieCat]

21. Are you kidding?

They never tell on themselves...and CNBC is like MSNBC owned by the same entity. So no, the confession will not be televised!

[drm604]

23. Check out my thread about how this seems to go back to March '08 or earlier.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/drm604/40

[RedEarth]

24. Very interesting....... it sure it seems it goes back to at least March .. good work

[KharmaTrain]

25. Even Further Than That...

Check out the Koch family...in specific Charles Koch. His name is cited in the Playboy article

Here's his wiki...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_G._Koch

Sure sounds like if anyone would be upset with having to pay their fair share in taxes, this dude is the one. He founded the Cato Institute that has been spreading right wing spewers all over the airwaves in recent weeks shouting down President Obama's stimulus and budget plans.

It was almost assured that going after the real grifters and corporate welfare kings and queens would bring this type of reaction...and there will be more, much more.

[proud2BlibKansan]

28. The Kochs are from Kansas

Very evil family. We have been fighting them for years.

[Enthusiast]

32. Oh yes, this is just the start

They have big things in store for Obama.

[OmahaBlueDog]

30. This reminds me of Casablanca - I'm shocked..SHOCKED to find out...

The whole thing smacked of a setup from the outset. Think about it - CNBC during the day is watched ppretty much solely by day traders and stock geeks. Then this guy pulls some public speeking stuntery ("NOBODY is raising their hand"), and suddenly, every righty local talker just "happens" to want to run with this, and BriWi is pontificating about a populist shockwave? Please?

Oprah causes populist shockwaves. Ellen maybe could. Donald Trump or Warren Buffet also could raise some eyebrows. On a really good day, Rush might be able to get his followers really fired up. Santelli --- puhleeze! Of course it was a setup.

...of course, I'll have to get the Playboy article, and investigate thoroughly ;-)