-
The Seventeen Year Itch
May 15, 2013 | 6 comments
-
Questions
May 1, 2013 | 50 comments
-
Stifling Our Children
April 15, 2013 | 39 comments
-
Thoughts on Gay Marriage
March 27, 2013 | 96 comments
-
Baseball Saints and Sinners
March 13, 2013 | 13 comments
A Further Perspective
How to Party in November
Alas, some tea partiers are succumbing to the media’s blandishments.
It had to happen. The Tea Partiers — a term which covers a whole range of folks from conservatives to libertarians whose uniting commonality is a biting aversion to big government and bigger taxes — have finally made it into the big time. The mainstream media has not only been paying attention but is now beginning to unleash its sultry enticements; platforms from which individuals claiming to represent the group can glean their 15 minutes of fame and reap the so-called rewards.
It was hoped that when this commendable movement began, it would remain a loose coalition of local groups that would, like those Sons of Liberty they seek to emulate, come together only to defeat a common enemy – à la the Swift Boaters — and afterwards blend back into a newly enlightened electorate. The thought being that the only voices they would require would be those of the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
But, as often happens when an idea gains any type of power, especially of the electoral type, people will seek to gain control of it and harness it for their own purposes. So you now have what invariably follows any attempt at grassroots organizing; multiple factions all claiming to speak for the movement.
But what kind of movement is it really, and what, if any, are its long-term goals? Well, its Contract from America includes the desire to be “free from restriction over our peaceful political expression and free from excessive control over our economic choices.” Good and noble aspirations to be sure, but how, in our present two-party system, to attain them? Do these lovers of liberty intend to form a viable political party? Recent events may point to a “yes.”
And that’s where the problems start; especially when fanned by the liberal media. In seeking to carve out for themselves a new niche in American politics, too many self-identified TPers seem to be parroting the media’s assertion that it is not only liberals that the public is tired of, but all incumbents, regardless of their political views. They harbor a particular contempt for congressional Republicans with whom they brook no desire for compromise. And they may have a point with the left-leaning GOP members, but some of their rhetoric is disturbing.
For instance, when my colleague Quin Hillyer penned a great piece on the potential political comeback of Rick Santorum, it was met with cries of “we don’t need any more retread RINOs or big government hacks.” These men aren’t retreads any more than was Ronald Reagan when he lost the Republican nomination to Gerald Ford in 1976. They are simply good, common-sense conservatives who have been effectively demonized by a liberal media that, in most cases, are nothing more than mouth organs of the Democratic Party. They are the George Allens, Dan Quayles and Robert Borks. And, had it not been for the abysmal state of our nation after four years of Jimmy Carter, Reagan himself might have been relegated to the conservative ash heap of history where the media so vigorously desired him to be. Men like these need the support of American patriots, not their disdain.
So, in their desire to clean house, the TPers would do well to remember that the most of our founders, the very men they claim to venerate, were not untried newcomers who were strangers to the politics involved in self-governance. They were well aware of the allurements that power and politics could hold. And although many of the founders hated the baggage that often comes with political parties, they nonetheless banded together along partisan lines and managed to get the job done. Indeed, the exquisite system of checks and balances that we call our Constitution — the child of both Federalists and Anti-Federalists — was crafted with the vagaries of the party system in mind.
Incumbent-hating TPers should also remember that when its feet are held to the fire, the GOP can deliver. Recall that not one caucus member voted for the health care bill. The ongoing role of the Tea Parties should be to keep Republican feet in the fire, not in working to send neophytes — like Barack Obama — to Washington. All lovers of our nation and our Constitution should insist that Republicans stand up for the conservative plank they advance; one that sounds very much like the Contract from America:
Republicans will uphold and defend our party’s core principles: Constrain the federal government to its legitimate constitutional functions. Let it empower people, while limiting its reach into their lives. Spend only what is necessary, and tax only to raise revenue for essential government functions. Unleash the power of enterprise, innovation, civic energy, and the American spirit, and never pretend that government is a substitute for family or community.
Melvin| 7.21.10 @ 7:49AM
As much as even I loath Republican incumbents, I must admit we cannot kick them to the curb haphazardly.
If the Republican electorate for example to kick every single Republican incumbent out of office, it would be a procedural disaster for Republicans because love em, hate em, we need incumbents that know procedural rules in dealing with the Democrats.
Learning these rules unfortunately takes time and that time equals incumbency.
The only thing that would counter that is term limits but the chance of that happening is like every single illegal alien leaving the US tomorrow to go home to the countries of their birth.
So the only other option is to become involved in the election process of each and every one of our states and when a candidate is running on a Conservative record and plank, we damn sure better make sure that they are being forthcoming, and honest with us. We just can't take a massive damp on the incumbents as much as we would like to, we also must shoulder much of the blame for the breakdown in the Republican Party.
The media, Oh God what would we do without the media? The Tea Party Leadership should also be held accountable and have their feet held to the fire because they can succumb to Rock Star status as much as any other person that all of a sudden is, "Somebody."
There also must be discipline within the ranks of the Tea Party movement when one has a microphone jammed in their face. If they don't know what the hell talking about and making comments based more on emotion than political fact then they need to keep their traps closed instead of developing a bad case of diarrhea of the mouth which plays right into the media's portrayal of Tea Party members as ignorant nabobs.
The Democrats now realize that the Tea Party is an organization to be reckoned with, and with the media will do anything to marginalize and contain the movement with their usual, "See, see we told you so."
loulou| 7.21.10 @ 11:06AM
If the Republican incumbent is a RINO, he gets kicked to the curb any which way. Other Republican incumbents will get kicked to the curb systematically (not haphazardly) depending on their performance.
martin j smith| 7.21.10 @ 7:53AM
My impression of Tea party candidates, the few I have heard of are not too impressive in so far as their political acumen is concerned. Amgle of Nevada and Paul of kentucky need really good hip advisors. I think that Tea Partiers need to have a better understanding of the nature of the Democrat playbook and how to handle it. they seem in this regard neophytes. Which they are. But they must learn very fast or will lose,
serfer62 | 7.21.10 @ 3:49PM
What makes those neophytes desireable is simplicity...all they need to know is whats in the Constitution NOT how to avoid it.
JimP| 7.21.10 @ 8:16AM
I'm with Lisa on this one. Evaluate each individual, but carefully. It is the McCains and Grahams we need to be rid of most and first. Thankfully, Specter removed himself.
Shamus| 7.21.10 @ 8:21AM
Graham is half nuts and has no business making any decision of importance. McCain is admirable on a personal level, but espouses some quite liberal political positions. Congress would benefit from the retirement of both of these men.
Chalkdust| 7.21.10 @ 8:22AM
Very good article and generally sound advice. But the current GOP'ers in both houses seem to disappear when they think no one is looking....like the recently passed financial bill. A typical Obama "spread the wealth" monstrosity which in the end will weaken America and cost the American family more money.
Shamus| 7.21.10 @ 9:18AM
Policies promoting redistribution of wealth rarely have their intended effect. Instead, they skew economic incentives and produce inefficiencies.
The newly passed financial regulation bill is going to deny banking services to 10 million people. Banks will have much higher compliance and regulatory costs in the new bill, and this gives them a clear incentive to ditch customers who are marginally profitable to them.
Congress undoubtedly intended this bill to help people who lack substantial financial assets, but instead they will deny them a bank account. Set out to share the wealth and you end up sharing the poverty.
Margie| 7.21.10 @ 10:52AM
Lisa is indeed correct and is saying what I have been for the past year. I don't know if she is aware of it but the faction that is doing all the preaching against Republicans are the Libertarians. They despise Repuiblicans and would rather see the Democrats win than vote Republican. Just listening to Glen Beck this morn and he actually said that the Republican party are Progressives. That is an out and out lie. He then referred to the Tea party as a a political PARTY, which it is not. Does he realize what he is doing? Leading the way for Obama II? Is he out of his ever loving mind? When we go into the voting booth~ can we pull the lever or press the freaking button for the Tea party?
This is the problem I have with him, and with Libertarians generally. If we want to WIN against the communist Democrats~ you have to vote Republican. That is just the reality. The Libertarian platform is non-interventionism. These Leftists are going to be very pleased that we all walk away from voting Republican in November~ and they will rejoice when instead of voting for the Republican candidate, you write in your upstanding Uncle's name on the ballot. The victory will go to Obama.
Is that what you want?
Siegfried X| 7.21.10 @ 11:19AM
I don't need any convincing to vote against Obama. I already did, and will in 2012.
But that has nothing to do with whether I'll vote for the Republican candidate. If they are worth of my vote, they'll get it. Otherwise I'll vote third party conservative or leave the ballot blank.
Margie| 7.21.10 @ 11:31AM
Well perhaps you can run then. Would you be "worth my vote?"
Cris Worth| 7.21.10 @ 1:15PM
You need to go back into history say 1966 to the present. Except for Reagan the GOP has failed and dramatically so to reverse liberalism. In fact many instances added on more liberalism from the oval office, Congress, states local and most importantly the courts. Remember Roe v. Wade...5 of the 7 Supreme Court justices who voted for it WERE GOP appointees. Other GOP appointees to the Supreme Court like Stevens, O'Connor and Souter were utter disaster areas. So many opportunities to right the country but ended up in failure. How many more chances for the GOP?
Siegfried X| 7.21.10 @ 11:03AM
This is really a phony, strawman argument. Tea Party people are not going to vote out all Republicans just because they are incumbents. The real issue is whether or not the Republican candidates are RINOs. Will those politicians vote with their own party or would they be Obama Republicans?
Siegfried X| 7.21.10 @ 11:07AM
Remember, there wouldn't be a Tea Party at all if conservatives hadn't help defeat McCain. American Spectator and the other liberal Republican media all supported McCain. Sometimes voting third party conservative is the best thing to do, as McCain's defeat and the creation of the Tea Party shows.
(It is true that Obama has been a disaster, but McCain supported the things Obama did like cap & trade, amnesty, etc. That's why we didn't vote for either Obama or McCain. No one can blame us for what happened.)
Margie| 7.21.10 @ 11:27AM
"American Spectator and the other liberal Republican media all supported McCain. Sometimes voting third party conservative is the best thing to do, as McCain's defeat and the creation of the Tea Party shows."
This is exactly the wrong type of thinking. And AmSpec is Liberal Republican media? Wow.
And you actually believe that having Obama as President was worth it? Was worth not voting for the Republican candidate~ McCain? THIS is the type of warped thinking amongst Libertarians and Paleo-cons that I will never understand.
Siegfried X| 7.21.10 @ 11:44AM
What's the difference between Obama and Republicans who vote with him; who stand for the same things he does?
The Republican Party (like the Democratic Party) uses the propaganda technique of demonizing the other party's candidate. It's just a tool for controlling people, but some of us overcome it.
Obama believes the same things that other Democrats do, which some RINOs also believe in, including the Republican Party leadership.
Just a few minutes ago Obama signed the Financial Reform bill into law. That was only possible because some Republican RINOs voted "yes", just like the Democrats. The fact that they had a (R) after their names didn't change anything. They are Obama Republicans.
And Obama's other victory this week, unemployment extension, came because RINOs joined him. The fact that they call themselves "Republicans" didn't stop them from giving Obama his victory.
We all should probably just agree to disagree on the idea that voting third-party conservative is voting for a Democrat. Because it isn't, and no one could convince me otherwise. If everyone had voted like me, we'd have a conservative president. I only get one vote and it is not my fault that the majority overruled me.
Siegfried X| 7.21.10 @ 12:05PM
Press coverage of Obama's victory comments as he signed the financial reform bill into law:
[Obama] adds a special thank-you to the three Republican senators who "put partisanship aside" and voted for it -- Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Scott Brown. And he thanks the few Republicans in the House who supported it as well
Michael L. Hauschild| 7.21.10 @ 11:14AM
I am not quite sure what the AS drumbeat about Santorum is all about but the tea party people are as cognizant about the ramifications of RINO damage to the American way of life as they are of the usual cast of characters on the hard left. Your incessant chant about Santorum is falling on deaf ears because he endorsed Specter. Let me say that again, he endorsed Specter. We, as tea party people, are as tired of those who desperately claw to regain power as we are of those who abuse that power while in office. Those such as Santorum, do not deserve a second chance; they have sold their conservative souls, betrayed the trust of their constituents, and hope to play us once again as the consummate empowering fools. We do not need the progressive instigators destroying our Republic and we do not need the compromising enablers who through ignorant political gamesmanship foster that same destruction in exchange for incumbency.
Margie| 7.21.10 @ 11:36AM
You're insane. Rick Santorum is a Progressive instigator? I think there's a new flavor of Kool-Aid out there.
Michael L. Hauschild| 7.21.10 @ 12:47PM
Read it again Margie. There are the progressives and there are the enablers. By the way, there are also those who learn from their mistakes and those who do not, the tea party represents the former.
Margie| 7.21.10 @ 1:33PM
The tea party isn't all Libertarians. The tea party are those of us who are sick of the Left and that encompasses millions and millions of people, and mostly Republicans only because there are more in number but the point is you are looking for a purity that doesn't exist. And your "strategy" is one of willing to lose rather than vote for a "pure" candidate. Even Sarah Palin isn't considered "good enough" by some because she backed McCain. Since there aren't any and never will be such a person are you then willing to remain in a perpetual state of Communism? Because that is what you are doing in reality. It's like what you think is good in theory, but not in practice. So losing in the name of "principles" is a better choice for you. But how is that principled when you know that allowing the Left to win by not voting is what you are doing?
It truly makes me wonder just exactly what it is that you are looking for. If you are a non-interventionist Libertarian then that would explain it, and that is the only candidate you will vote for, then. Which makes you a part of the problem.
Margie| 7.21.10 @ 1:36PM
correction~ should have said "rather than vote for an "impure" candidate."
Dai Alanye | 7.21.10 @ 12:13PM
Wise voters will consider the totality of a candidate's positions. The idea of defaming Santorum because of one issue with party loyalty makes as much sense as asking for a divorce due to your wife having a car accident.
No candidate is perfect--Barry Goldwater wasn't, Ron Reagan wasn't. Indeed, if Lincoln or Washington were running today it would be possible to find flaws in either. In every case--and not just regarding political candidates--we need to be willing to accept less than perfection.
This whole anti-Santorum argument reminds me of the Repub pundits who chose to vote for Obama because Palin was a redneck. It's idiotic and short-sighted.
Siegfried X| 7.21.10 @ 1:04PM
It is a critical issue, in fact the most important issue. Instead of remaining neutral or supporting the conservative, the entire party leadership including then-President Bush vigorously support RINO Specter in the Republican Primary.
This is just one of many incidents which make it obvious that the leadership of the Republican Party is much further left than the conservative base. And they will use any tactic and any trick to control us. The Republican Party is not a team, but an oligarchy where the liberal leadership rigs the game and wants nothing more from conservatives than their votes.
Another example was how the Republican leadership rigged the 2008 nomination so that a leftist candidate, either Giuliani or McCain would win. If Republicans had been using proportional representation, as the Democrats did, Romney would have been ahead of McCain on the day that in real life he dropped out of the race. But the RINO leadership used winner-take-all voting instead so that McCain could pile up a lot of delegates by getting 25% in large Democratic states like California which Republicans didn't have a chance of winning anyway. Then the Republican media, including Am Spec, spun in McCain's favor by playing up his wins in Democratic states while ignoring Romney's and Huck's.
"Even though we're paranoid, THEY still might be out to get us."
Barry Newsome| 7.21.10 @ 12:12PM
Here we go again. We have been betrayed again and again by big government "conservatives" like George W. Bush, Karl Rove, Santorum, Huckabee, McCain, McConnell, Cornyn, Boehner, etc. But let's forgive, forget, and hope they've found their principles again.
It has nothing to do with endorsing a RINO in a primary, like Santorum endorsing Specter, which causes outrage, our denial of support, and refusal to "go along to get along."
It's the spending. And spending. And spending. Oh, but they passed temporary tax cuts, "so let's give them another chance." You're missing the point Lisa, these guys cannot stop spending; they refuse to do so. They have no backbone. Put them in a room with a GOP president who calls him himself "conservative," but then spends billions and locks us into trillions more (i.e. Medicare drug benefit) because his "boy genius" says it will help the poll numbers, and these "conservative" Reps and Sens go right along.
The GOP's total and complete hypocrisy is what caused America to go for the Dems and Obama. After the election, you would think the remaining GOP survivors in the House and Senate would have overhauled their leaderships in recognition of this fact, but they didn't. They continued to go along to get along, electing McConnell and Boehner to head their respective caucuses. Both of these guys were (and are) profligate spenders with no real ideals (they cashed them in long ago).
You suggest the GOP can deliver. With its current re-treads? Unfortunately Lisa, you're basing your column not on history as it has been, but the history you would have liked to have seen.
Oh, and please -- before you suggest the GOP has principles -- simply voting "no" to Obama's agenda is easy. To date, the GOP has not had to cast a tough "no" vote. This doesn't mean these guys have any ideals or principles left. Put them in control with a GOP president, and they'll cave all over again.
So, bottom line, Lisa, is that you don't get it. Cleaning house is good. It is necessary. It's the right thing to do. Nothing changes by simply reshuffling the deck -- the same cards are present but just in a different order.
We need a new deck of cards to move forward and undo the unbelievable damage of the Bush-GOP years and the Obama-Dem years to our Republic, our Constitution, and financial future.
This means "NO" to all the current re-tread contenders: Santorum, Huckabee, Romney, Palin, etc. It also means dumping the current GOP leadership in the House and Senate for new blood who actually believe.
Bill | 7.21.10 @ 1:51PM
Well said, Mr. Newsome. Let's get some of the "tried and true" instead of hoping for the reformation of the "tried and failed." Those Republicans that voted for any of the bail-out bills are just as treacherous as any liberal progressive. When push came to shove, they betrayed all Americans, conservatives especially.
RCV| 7.21.10 @ 1:07PM
Margie: Your "new Kool-aid" comment was right on point. If you had any doubt as to the inability of this crowd to coalesce around a sensible, united strategy, the "American Spectator and other liberal Republican" and Santorum as a "Progressive Instigator" should have erased it. What a crowd! It reminds me of the Ralph Nader types we have to deal with on the Democratic side ("Obama is just a tool of the entrenched corporate interests.") Good luck!
Margie| 7.21.10 @ 1:41PM
If the Libertarians would unite around the Republican candidate you are right~ we could actually win, and if the Independents would also unite as well, and the conservatives who are dismayed, and the Democrats who are fed up with the Socialist-in-Chief~ we could and would win and could and would have a Republican House and Senate as well as the Presidency. But some just don't look at it that way. And we will get "the government THEY deserve."
Siegfried X| 7.21.10 @ 1:56PM
Another informative event was when "Republican" Colin Powell strongly endorsed Obama shortly before the election and said that's what he was taught, if the Republican candidate isn't good enough vote Democratic. The Republican leadership didn't have a bad word to say about that, and there were no accusations of Powell betraying the party by voting Democratic. That's because the Republican leadership is so far left that they are happy if Republicans vote for Democrats instead of conservatives.
Yet those same Republican leaders say that conservatives can't do the same thing. If a conservative Republican votes third-party instead of for a liberal Republican, he is called a party traitor.
Eventually all the incidents add up and conservatives realize they are just being played.
CalMark| 7.21.10 @ 2:10PM
Dead-on!
Current Tea Party function:
1. Oppose and obstruct Democrat Marxists.
2. Lean on the GOP not to play ball with Democrats.
Hopefully soon-to-come Tea Party function:
1. Lean on the (hopefully) GOP majority to undo the damage of Obama's Marxists.
2. Oppose Democrat Marxists.
Tim*| 7.21.10 @ 2:36PM
Hold Their Feet To The Fire !
Tea Party Patriots Mission Statement and Core Values
Mission Statement
The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.
Core Values
* Fiscal Responsibility
* Constitutionally Limited Government
* Free Markets
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates .
104 Days To November 2nd .
Franklin| 7.21.10 @ 10:01PM
We don't want no stinkin' Republicans ... they are just Democrats in Red cloth. We need Tea Party candidates only ..
WhiskeyJim| 7.21.10 @ 10:26PM
I like Santorum as well.
But if the Republicans don't do everything in their power to stop Kagan, every one of them must fear for their seat.
Every one. That's how important she is. She is further left than Ginsberg. She would support a fascist state.
lawyerchik1| 7.22.10 @ 5:28PM
I agree that we should continue to hold the GOP's collective feet to the fire, but we also should support those who took the heat by voting against the health care bill. Those guys (and gals) took heat for their courage, and I would hate to see them scorned just because they are "incumbents."
Where is the incentive for any elected official to do what the people want if the people, on whatever whim, decide they won't support any incumbents?
WAKE UP| 7.22.10 @ 10:08PM
Tea Partiers, lissen up! There are Tea Partiers in spirit outside the US too, but we can't do anything beyond commenting and encouraging you; you actually have to do the job. Please don't drop the ball now. Task One: get rid of the current administration, NOW.
JDBlues| 7.22.10 @ 11:17PM
Agreed, we need to separate the wheat from the chaff within the Republican Party. A case in point is Congressman Paul Ryan who is the ranking minority member of the House Budget Committee. If you've listened to him speak you know him to be smart, articulate, and one who deserves to retain his seat. To discard anyone of his caliber would be beyond folly. In fact I personally think he would be a great candidate to oppose Obama in 2012, and should be encouraged to run for the Presidency.
Longplay| 7.22.10 @ 11:59PM
A platform statement is all well and good, but no one really campaings on thet party platform and it's too nebulous anyway. Like teh "living Constitution" of the Left, it can mean just about anything and can be twisted to mean we have to continue to compromise with the Left. This is why we are seeing pundits of the right increasingly call for a new Contract for America with policy specifics. Specifics such as a pledge seek repeal of the healthcare monstrosity and to rein in bureaucracies that wont to say CO2 is a pollutant. Without this, it's hard to hold their feet to the fire once we give them the power.
Ruffian| 7.23.10 @ 3:21PM
You may well notice that the Tea Party is a movement that many political opportunists are trying to coopt as "leaders". The GOP is adrift and really has no candidate or agenda. They don't know who to put up, only how to ask for money. Just look at people's records, patriots, and vote accordingly. The capitol is like a septic tank that needs pumping out.
Jeannette| 7.27.10 @ 1:41PM
There is no more party lines or boundries...in other words...everyone is in bed with everyone!!!! The bottomline is how rich can a politician become while in office. First, there should be laws limiting the term of a politician. Politicians who live in Washington have little knowledge concerning their constituency. Next, the people need to take back their country. "WE THE PEOPLE" are suppose to elect official who represent us...they work for us and we do not work for them. When someone does not do their job they are "TERMINATED".