GOP Risks Being Swept Away Unless They Adopt Tea Party Principles
Neither major party took the tea parties seriously on their own terms. That all changed with a special election in upstate New York, an event that made plain the glaring new fault lines in American politics. The GOP supported a very liberal (by GOP standards) candidate named Dede Scozzafava. The Democrats supported Bill Owens, a standard-issue liberal candidate.
The differences between the two candidates did not appear large. In response to this (in tea party eyes) lack of real choice, a third candidate, Doug Hoffman, entered the race under the banner of the Conservative Party, after losing out to Scozzafava in what some claimed was a rigged selection process. Hoffman’s candidacy became a cause among tea partiers nationwide, as well as a significant segment of the right blogosphere, which pitched in with a massive fundraising effort that allowed Hoffman to compete effectively with his opponents and their major party funding. When the dust settled, Hoffman had lost to the Democrat by 2.5%, after Scozzafava lived up to her RINO reputation by dropping out at the last moment and endorsing the Democrat over Hoffman.
For the first time (if not publicly, at least in private councils), both party leaderships began to take the tea parties seriously. Concurrently, Barack Obama’s popularity began to leak away, as he pushed ever more encompassing policies that, to many, verged on hardcore socialism. Then came the earthquake that rocked everyone’s world: the election of Scott Brown to the old “Kennedy seat” in Massachusetts and the destruction of the Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. The tea parties had rallied around Brown’s candidacy and raised millions for him almost overnight. It was a flexing of political muscle to equal the support the far left had put together for Obama in 2008.
Which brings us to today. No one can doubt that the tea parties — and the fiscal conservatism and respect for traditional conservative and libertarian values they represent — are a legitimate and growing force in American politics. The question is: to what purpose will this force be directed? Will it become a third party, on the order of the powerful but short-lived Perot uprising that led to both the election of Bill Clinton and the destruction of fifty years of Democrat dominance in the House of Representatives but eventually faded away? Or will it wield its influence to retake the GOP and reinvigorate the Grand Old Party?
Today the heart of the Democrat Party stands exposed as beating to a socialist drummer. The party no longer has a “conservative” wing in any meaningful sense, and as such, would easily fit into any European-style “center-left” designation, an appellation best translated as “socialist but not doctrinaire Marxist.”
The GOP has not yet decided what sort of blood runs through its own veins, which brings us to my contention that if it continues to resist the tea parties, if it continues its business-as-usual policies of endorsing and supporting candidates who are noxious to tea party principles, then it will be swept away. It will force the tea partiers into the formation of a third party that could guarantee Democrat domination for a generation unless the tea party movement supplants the GOP, much as the GOP supplanted the Whigs 160 years ago.
One of the biggest problems in American politics is the blurring of principle inherent in the strategies of both major parties. The Democrats pretend to a conservatism they actually loathe, but which inattentive voters think the party supports. That faux conservatism is, of course, never actually translated into legislation, the bulk of which is almost uniformly socialist in nature. The GOP, on the other hand, pushes legislation only somewhat less socialist — or statist, if you will — than the Democrats, on the toxic notion that their base has nowhere to go, so the leadership is free to enter into a legislative bidding war for votes beyond the base. This ends up giving the American electorate a choice between a socialist party and a “not quite as socialist” party.
America would enjoy a much healthier and more vigorous politics if the tea parties either become the dominant force in the GOP or sweep it away entirely, so that for the first time in at least a hundred years Americans are given a clear-cut choice between a socialist (Democrat) party and a liberty-minded, fiscally responsible party that is represented by the tea party movement. At the end of the day the names don’t matter so much, but the policies and principles certainly do.
The GOP, or key figures in it, deserve to be swept away for 1) supporting Lieberman over the party’s own nominee Schlessinger in the Conneticut Senate race of ’06 and for 2) taking a dive by nominating McCain in ’08.
Your article was very clear and a good short term account of what has happened event by event. However in my view the teaparty movement has a hard and passionate pro-America theme to it and a yearning for traditional values and the principles of our founders. I think the politicians who want to jump out in front of this parade better be careful. These people are not “code pink” flakes, environmental wackos or your typical left coast “closet communists”. They are serious, spiritual, intelligent, astute,self reliant, patriotic, hard working Americans who love their country and who pay most of the taxes in this country. If you start from this foundation where does that lead you? Quite simply there is no need to worry about third party bs. These people get it!! They will organize at the beginning of the food chain, at the local level, and run their candidates in the primaries. The result will be a steady change in the congress to those people who will go to Washington with a purpose to represent and restore traditional American values and principles. If we can begin this process NOW, we have a chance to reverse the disastrous results of too much compromise. We will not achieve the change we are looking for by compromising with the left. We need to DEFEAT THEM! PERIOD!! END OF STORY!!
“I was one of those who recommended that we withhold our support from the GOP.”
May God forgive you. It is amazing how much damage you have caused by your grossly immature and reckless behavior. This country is going to suffer for decades. George W. Bush was bad enough. Barack Obama is far worse. We jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire. Completely abandoning the GOP is a senseless—and lazy response. One gets to feel morally superior while drinking beer on the weekends. The far more preferable way was to capture the Republican Party at the local level. Our political system is designed for power to ooze up from the bottom. It may be somewhat boring, but that’s how it is done. J.D. Hayworth’s challenge of John McCain in the primary is to be congratulated. He may very lose, but he also will have likely pushed the incumbent towards more conservative positions.
I can understand the desire to abandon John McCain during last year’s election. But what was the justification of also allowing solid conservative candidates to be crushed in the Obama juggernaut? This country was placed in horrible jeopardy. The Democrats came fairly close to passing some sort of cap and trade and health care bills. That awful risk was not worth taking.
If Republicans embrace the Tea Party movement, as they must, what would be the new acronym, GOTP?
Here’s a cause that the Tea Party movement should take up:
THE WAY to Really Call The Democrats’ Bluff and Save Us in the Process
Don’t just give granny a pain killer. Introduce and pass legislation that would prevent the Federal government, or any of its agencies, from harming us, killing us, or otherwise prevent us from receiving life-preserving treatment, as a matter of its operating any sort of health care system (to include the murdering of infants in the womb).
Push for a constitutional amendment. Really raise as much stink as possible.
Credit Rose Pappas, senior citizen, of Chicago, Illinois.
Many pundits are proclaiming that Tea-partiers are demanding “all-conservative values”. Not exactly. In order to make a difference, tea-partiers need to demand FISCAL conservative values:
No more college students (or anyone, for that matter) buying homes with ‘no money down’. “Personal Responsibility” means showing a PATTERN of knowing HOW TO SAVE, thereby being rewarded with the privilege of owning a house.
No more amnesty for ILLEGAL immigrants. Stop the ILLEGAL imigration…now! And certainly no benefits for illegals! We MEAN it…Stop it!
No more bailouts…again…personal responsibility policies.
No more tax breaks for one group over another, ie health insurance tax breaks for unions.
Control spending & pork. Don’t just SAY it…DO it!
The above is simplistic, but easy for the public to understand. Stay away from abortion, stem cell, & gay matters. They are LOSERS for the tea-partiers. The original tea-partiers were concerned with taxation…we can WIN with FISCAL conservatism.
It’s not just big government, we are sick of the massive corruption that pervades the old guard in both parties. It’s the corruption that gave us Fanny Mae, etc., trillions in derivatives fraud and paying off the gambling debts of well connected bankers. Follow the money.
Every hard core Democrat I know is convinced that the Democrats are for the “little guy”, and the Republicans are for “big business”. Any evidence to the contrary is dismissed out of hand as lies. The main stream media plays right along of course. I really don’t know what can break these perceptions. The Republicans don’t help themselves at all by trying to compromise, or by being bipartisan on the big game changing issues, i.e. Heath care reform. I really think the Democrats handed the Republicans a winning slogan with the “Party of No”, and they should run with it. The Democrats trump cards are controlling Education, and the Media. The result, is an ignorant public who goes right along with bad economic policy and laws that are unconstitutional. I don’t know how you fix this, but I think the Tea Party movement is a start.
Hear! Hear!
There is no question that the Republican Party, ironically itself a third party movement that eclipsed the Whigs, must either embody the anti-statist position or be replaced by a party that does.
There is an inherent problem, however, that the ‘right’ has not yet solved: “libertarian and conservative principles” only go so far together. Although they tend to agree on fiscal and economic policy, and on defense and foreign policy, they usually diverge on “social” issues with “conservatives” wanting legislation that enshrines “traditional values” and “libertarians” preferring at least federalist solutions (that is, leaving it up to each state to strike its own balance) or leaving “social” issues entirely to the operation of social sanctions rather than law.
I don’t know that the tea parties are any closer to solving that that the Republicans have been over the past 40-odd years since Roe made the fault-line obvious.
The best way for the Republican Party to be swept aside and for a new, conservative, third party to be created is if the Republicans totally ignore what the Tea Parties stand for. If the Republicans do NOT return to the basic conservative concepts espoused by Ronald Reagan (perhaps the last true conservative Republican to be elected president), then they will go the way of the Whig Party and a new party will emerge. Why would anyone want to be a Republican if all they are is a different version of the Democratic Party? People want a clear choice in America. If you want socialist/big-government policies, vote Democratic. If you want watered-down liberal/big-government policies, vote Republican. If the Republican party doesn’t get the message, a new CONSERVATIVE party will be created and will take over. And if you don’t think the American public is more than ready for a true conservative to take over, just ask Jimmy Carter what it’s like trying to get elected against a true conservative, like Ronald Reagan.
TO: Bill Quick, et al.
RE: That….
….latter course of action seems to me to be what is going to have to happen.
I say this because where I live, the apparent BAU, i.e., political cronyism/corruption, inside the GOP is become more and more obvious. Indeed, it’s almost to the point where I’m going to have to take my state-level party to court in order for IT to do it’s duty in resolving a dispute between myself as a precinct chair and my county apparatus.
I’m supposed to talk to an attorney on this this morning.
So, if the party apparatus is so entrenched and calcified that it cannot bring itself to return to the heart of conservatism, the only thing for the Tea Party to do is go formal and sweep the GOP into the trash bin of history….right on top of the bones of the Whigs.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[History repeats itself. That's one of the problems with history.]
The only thing the Tea Party needs to do is to be the Tea Party. Any plans for a third party run in any election will prove to be a disaster and insure a Democrat win, as the author correctly points out.
Endorse candidates, formulate platforms and craft solutions to issues. Create a conservative vision for America that includes low taxes, energy independence, a robust military and above all, a political class that is responsive to the people and acts in the best interests of the majority of Americans.
The Tea Party should treat the concept of any third party run as the political suicide that it is, and avoid it at all costs. Wins might be slow to come for a while, but if recent events are any indication, we the people won’t have to wait long to remove the scourge of statism from the political landscape.
Good article and I couldn’t agree with more.
Let’s give McCain the boot for starters. No more Lindsay Graham’s or Arlen Specter’s.
We need to do just what the communists/socialists did to the Democrat Party and that is for constitution/George Washington loving AMERICANS to take over the Republican Party.
No more presidents day. George Washington day!
The problem here is one of definition. The TEA Parties aren’t yet cohesive enough to have a set of agreed-upon principles. They have fairly clearly expressed desires — lower taxes, restrain federal spending, hands off health care, enough with the CO2 cap-and-trade nonsense — but these don’t appear to rise to the level of principles of right political action.
A principle is a bright line that unambiguously separates right actions from wrong ones. You can cuddle up to that line as closely as you like, as long as you stay on the right side and never step over it. That’s fundamental to all philosophy of law. But simply to say, for instance, that “taxes are too high,” or that “deficit spending must be curbed” doesn’t draw a bright line of any kind.
And no, the Republicans and Democrats don’t have any principles, either. But that doesn’t solve our current dilemma.
I don’t think the GOP is salvageable, or is even worth saving.Perhaps the Tea Party will become the new party, and the GOP will fade away, as did the Whigs.One thing for sure- I will not support RINOs /moderates anymore, and there are thousands more like me.November 2010 will be an interesting time. . . .
From what I have seen in minnesota, the people most reliable and willing to invest time in the republican party are those motivated by christian conservatism. Unfortunately, their vision of leadership does not extend past a few hot button issues like abortion, gay rights, and the requirement that a candidate profess to be christian.
I have seen a rising number of people who are informed more by libertarian principles–ron paul types. The minnesota republican party leadership had worked tirelessly and in an unprincipled manner to minimize the influence of the ron paul types.
The defeat of liberal republican norm coleman and other republican electoral failures brought leadership change, but as the new leaders are old party regulars, I have no reason to believe they will embrace libertarianism.
So, the question here is whether the tea party can organize and get candidates on the ballot, or influence the republican party toward fiscal conservatism. Both the democrats and republicans have the delusional idea that when they win an election by 1% of the vote, with strong protest voting, this somehow vindidates their old way of doing things.
Do the republicans ‘get it’–after losing their majority and president, and getting an earful from conservatives–I don’t think they do, and new leadership and candidates will be necessary to effectuate change.
A good example of this GOP quandary is the Dems’ effort to pass a Porkulus II (which they dub a “jobs bill”). At “only” $90 Billion, it might be called Little Porkie compared to the the $800 Billion of Porkulus I, but the poison is the same: D.C. politicians throwing billions of taxpayer dollars into programs and efforts that will not create jobs or spark any meaningful economic change.
But here is the dynamite. Little Porkie was planned and crafted together with Senate Republican Charles Grassley and presented, more or less, to Harry Reid as a fait accompli. This should be sparking frothing-mad protests from every conservative and every conservative blog. I am amazed that there is very little commentary out there on this outrage.
Which gets back to Mr. Quick’s article. The GOP leadership in the Senate just doesn’t get it. They have shown yet again that they are cut out of the same cloth as the Dems, willing to throw billions of dollars on useless things like Tax Credits for hiring new workers or farm subsidies. It is so bad in D.C. now that Harry Reid pulled the bill at the last minute because he said it did not do enough to create jobs and was laden with unrelated pork. If Harry Reid is going to end up lecturing the GOP on fiscal responsibility, the situation with the Senate GOP may be nearly hopeless. Grassley needs to go along with every, other GOP Senator who supported this bill.
I guess I was tea-partying early on. In 200-03 I grew extremely disgruntled with the GOP. I wrote them a nasty note that they would no longer enjoy donations form me as long they continued to spend like Democrats, funded by progressive taxes and the AMT. I even used one of their nice pre-paid envelopes to send it in. Haven’t heard from then since.
There are plenty of Republicans in sync with the Tea Party. My Rep is Scott Garrett who has the fiscal conservatism, small government mindset we are looking. Unfortunately the Scott Garetts and Tom Coburns aren’t running the party.
I agree with Mr. Quick – if the old guard Republican leadership holds on, the party is doomed. Eventually the conservatives will jump ship to a real conservative party. The base is ready to jump now.
Granted, I’m not a Tea Party scholar, but this has to be the fairest, most credible analysis of the Tea Partys I’ve ever read.
1. Patrick Of Atlantis:
“The GOP, or key figures in it, deserve to be swept away for…”
They should be swept away for lying to your face about what they stood for.
Anyone I knew that paid attention was horrified at the spending by the end of Clinton’s (another chi-com lover) Presidency. But these same people are typically unaware that GWB made comrade Clinton look like a piker by comparison. None of this breed of progressive can be trusted one bit. They dont believe in the power of the people and they dont believe ESPECIALLY in the US Constitution.
this election cycle will be the GOP’s last chance to show the Conservatives and the Tea Party folks that they get it. if they blow it this time they’re toast forever.
This was a fine essay. As to the practical matter of “reforming” the Republican Party, or taking it over and making it conservative, that will happen over time if Tea Party Patriots insist on supporting candidates who are fundamentally conservative.
I had to move to Indiana in 2003 and while I miss my Texas very much, I’ve discovered an underlying conservatism in Indiana that surprised me. It’s what pushed Bayh into retirement.
Progressivism has the same ends as communism but differs in that the means to the end are evolutionary versus revolutionary. Our first Progressive President was the Republican Teddy Roosevelt. This article would be clearer if it discussed the political issues as follows:
1) Most (but not all) Democrats are now Progressives
2) Some Republicans are Progressives (e.g., John McCain, Lindsay Graham and, arguably, George W Bush)
3) The Tea Party Movement is an anti-Progressive movement.
Seen in the above light, the GOP needs to shed its Progressive members and start adhering to its core principals. No Child Left Behind, SCHIP, and Medicare Part D are NOT part of those principals.
The GOP should adopt principles that conform to the following general Tea Party Movement principles (IMO):
1) Reduced scope and intrusiveness of government regulation…this does NOT mean that we should reduce efforts to prosecute traditional crimes, but that we SHOULD look very carefully at issues like Eminent Domain abuse, EPA regulation of CO2, regulation of the internet or other mechanisms of free speech, the FED and its powers, etc.
2) Smaller government (e.g., eliminate the Dept of Education, the EPA, and other similar Progressive initiatives),
3) Lower taxes across all classes of taxpayers…in fact, eliminate classes of people in all regulation to the extent possible.
NOTE: I am in NO position to speak for the Tea Party Movement but I have participated since attending a demonstration in front of the White House in the spring of 2008.
YES and YES!!
What we need are politicians with the guts to stand up for real fiscal conservatism and liberty.,
NOT SELL OUT WHEN ELECTED like most of the gop does…they talk and talk but once in office sell us out for money and power!!!!
I am tired of hearing that if the GOP goes under then the Dems will win for yrs to come! Fine, so be it…the GOP isnt doing us any favors as it stands.
Lets at least try and if nothing else go out swinging rather than meakly whimpering into the night as socialism sweeps us away!!!
again we need Politicians who will NOT SELL OUT WHEN ELECTED!!!!!!!!!!
WASHINGTON – Vice President Joe Biden says “Washington right now is broken” and the country is in “deep trouble” unless it attacks ballooning federal deficits. (Today’s headlines)
For once I can agree with the president’s spongebob. Both partys have degenerated into a culture of corruption and Porkulus. The confidence level is low that either party and cast of thousands in D.C. can do much more than stuff their own pockets while making empty promises. Of course, if Washington is broken, their solutions will be to give Washington more power to fix themselves.
Not likely!
The Tea Party platform seems to be the best roadmap out of the decades old political morass.
3. David Thomson:
It is amazing how much damage you have caused by your grossly immature
and reckless behavior.
Uhh no – that’s a simpleton’s analysis. Lemme guess – you lack the intellectual honesty to point out that “my guy” GWB DOUBLED the damn debt. AND, his Medicare Prescription D policies left 8 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities. Are you kidding me!
What’s really amazing is how much damage people like you with your grossly immature ‘my guy’ attitude hurts the country. My guy is better because he only doubled the debt while Obama is going to quadruple it. But we gotta keep supporting the GOP? Huh? (reckless behavior anyone) Did you even read the story?
And the difference between John McCain and GWB? The difference between McCain and the current ass-clown in chief? The difference is that McLame would have been harmful to the GOP brand – on top of the GWB catastrophe.
The Republican Party will most likely never become a thoroughly conservative party. That said, if the Republicans become majority conservative that will be sufficient; sufficient to offer a candidate for the presidency who will be conservative and sufficient to hold back the socialist tide. But to expect RINOs to be totally flushed out is unrealistic.
The Tea Party would be best served by staying on the sidelines, and working as a unified voting block – forcing candidates to fight for their endorsement. After the special election in New York, it is clear this path has merit. If the Tea Party gets into the bear cage of party politics, I believe they will be consumed by the machine because nothing can be done without compromise there. It is noble to think of them as sweeping into Washington and cleaning house, but I think all that would happen is they would be consumed by it. Endorse candidates, and then hold their feet to the fire so they do what they promised they’d do.
The Tea Partiers must stick to the most critical issue this country has – fiscal sanity. They must become a single issue grassroots lobby group. If they start distracting themselves with Iraq, gay marriage, or other parts of the Republican platform, then they are just another wing of the GOP and nothing will change.
The financial indifference of this country’s leaders (and that of the handout hungry voters) forced me to join the Libertarian party. And I’m not the only one to do that.
As I recall the 30′s, 40′s 50′s and 60′s. first FDR and then the whole Democrat Party were champions of the “common man”. They cloaked themselves in this euphemistic mantle and made it their mantra. I always used to get a kick out of diehard Democrats when they choked and sputtered over the question I put to them, “Are you common?” Almost always, when given the choice, they acknowledged that they were not “common”, but exceptional human beings. It was one helluva ploy and many believed the lie, just like they believed “Frankie the 1st” ended the “Great Depression”.
Studies ad infinitum have illustrated that today, the people most in need are worse off than ever. The “New Deal”, “The Great Society” and the “War on Poverty”, very large spending programs inaugurated under Democrat control of the White House and Congress, have helped creat a permanent underclass led by race-hustlers, opportunists and religious demagogues and make the “common man” uncommonly dependent on government.
We need to extol the virtues recognized by the Founders that every individual is exceptional. Bring back the American meritocracy and recognize the uniqueness of our “common” men and women. Evolve a society, where achievement is possible, where personal responsibility begins at home, where citizenship is revered. Throw out the words “fair” and “balanced”. It’s what we have in “common” that should be celebrated, not the differences, diversity and multiculturalism that continues to divide us into ghettos of the mind if not the body.
If the Tea Party Movement can stick to “smaller government, lower taxes, fewer regulations”, it will grow rapidly. I agree with Toady above that fiscal sanity is issue number one. I would only add that it will require “smaller government, lower taxes, fewer regulations” to achieve that fiscal sanity.
I repeat: “smaller government, lower taxes, fewer regulations”.
I have been saying for some time that the first rally cry of the Tea Party was in 2006 when Talk Radio was getting a Rash of callers saying, “The Republicans Deserve To Loose!”
Unfortunatly, certain hosts (like Michael Medved) confused this statement with “I want the republicans to loose.” Not the same thing. It is time for the Republican party to get their heads out of Washington DC and into Flyover country for a change. It is also time for them to figure out that the people they are trying to impress and make their Tent Bigger will NEVER vote for them.
In short, if given another shot with governing they need to remember the old adage “You Dance With Who Brung Ya.”
And to 3. David Thomson:
Here’s a little profundity that Republicans had better learn the meaning of as well — “Your Enemy Can NEVER Betray You!”
Only your allies can.
jd
…any chance of forcing the party to put conservative principles at the forefront of Republican policy once again….
An example of brilliant idiocy..thanks so much for sitting out and letting progressive socialism take control of the nation and essentially destroy it in less than two years. You were going to force the party to adopt conservative principles by letting the far left take control? Who needs enemies like Barry when we got friends like you!
….any chance of forcing the party to put conservative principles at the forefront of Republican policy once again….
An example of brilliant idiocy..thanks so much for sitting out and letting progressive socialism take control of the nation and essentially destroy it in less than two years. You were going to force the party to adopt conservative principles by letting the far left take control? Who needs enemies like Barry when we got friends like you!
I think that GWB has gotten a raw deal. He assiduously adhered to The Constitution, more so than any President in the last 100 years. The President was never intended to influence fiscal matters. The veto power (Federalist 73) was never intended to control expenditures.
GWB concentrated on his primary responsibilities – CinC and foreign relations. He, quite properly, left the economy to Congess – a Constitutional mandate. Sure, the Republicans F’d up. Not his fault. Per The Constitution.
We all win if BOTH parties take a turn toward sensible measures designed to let our economy recover. On of the beauties of our system is that the good ideas from third parties get absorbed by the two main parties and implemented. We absorbed the best ideas from the commies (the 40-hour week; and outlawing child labor) decades ago.
The concept of using lower taxes and reduced government intervention to empower those in the best position to improve the employment situation to do so, is a good idea, not because it is “conservative” or because it is closer to our Constitution (both true) but because it is likely to work faster and more effectively than the current plan to print more money to hire people to do make-work and reward the people who know the politicians.
As far as the two major political parties are concerned, we have a choice between the Gambinos and the Gottis. (n fact, in real life, the Gambinos and Gottis would probably do a better job than either of the two major parties.)
Both parties embrace and practice political realism on the foreign front – ignoring the concept of ‘avoiding entangling alliances’ – while supporting the philosophy of positive liberties, which is directly opposed to the negative liberties found in the Declaration of Independence and in The Constitution.
Both parties conflate policy with The Constitution, promising and enacting laws (policies) which are in direct conflict with America’s documents of freedom and in opposition to the many recorded writings of the Founders.
Contrary to their PR, in their actions, they both openly oppose Constitutional Originalism and treat The Constitution as a living document.
…but we keep electing the same (types of) people, from the same parties, time after time after time, while expecting different results. Last time, we put the Gambinos in charge. This year, we’re trying to put the Gottis in charge. Next time, we’ll try to put the Gambinos back in charge…and we’ll all wonder why things keep getting worse, instead of better.
(Campaign finance reform is just another way of saying: ‘legalized corruption.’)
“you lack the intellectual honesty to point out that “my guy” GWB DOUBLED the damn debt.”
I constantly criticized George W. Bush’s spendthrift ways. His misbehavior does not justify letting Democrats win so they can cause far more damage! Once again, that is the lazy and irresponsible response. Barack Obama has tripled the debt. You gain control of the Republican Party at the local level—and build upon that. People like you are normally too indifferent to invest a little time and energy. It’s easier to indulge in childish self righteousness.
The Tea Party movement has begun supporting primary challenges to incumbents of both parties, but particularly those Republican incumbents who are fiscally irresponsible. There is also evidence that they are fielding candidates in internal party elections selecting representatives to control the local party apparatus. This may take a little while, but will eventually be the only way to achieve a stable opposition force to the admittedly socialist Democratic Party. The Perot movement was organized around a charismatic leader, the tea parties are not. Palin, while useful, didn’t start the movement and can’t control it. So it’s a very different organization.
Re #25. I understand your point, but there is one important difference between McCain and Obama. With the former in the White House we would not have wound up with Sotomayor on the Supreme Court. Congresses and Executives can change fairly quickly, but a justice sits on the bench for a very long time.
History shows that the Whigs were around, and they faded into the history books, and the Republicans took over being the spokesmen for that portion of the US political spectrum.
Those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it.
Heh… A year ago here at PJM, the RINO’s and the McCain Bitterclingers and Deadenders were warning us how the GOP, in order to survive, had to move to the center,(ie: Left), and forsake the right wing.
What a difference a year makes. For an “astroturfing” operation, these TEA Parties have sure grown some heavy branches fast, huh?
But then, so did the Perotistas.
TS Alfabet:
You are forgetting Stimulus 1 passed in February 2008. The next one will be #3.
David Thomson: when ever I read an article at this site I always look for and read your comments. “May God forgive you” is a little too strong a rebuke for someone advocating “that we withhold our support from the GOP”. While I voted for McCain it was as much a vote against the Bolshevik, I voted against Kay Hagan rather for the ineffective Libby Dole I don’t even remember who ran Bob Etheridge defeated another against vote. What’s wrong with this pattern of choices we’re given at least in NC is obvious. As I don’t know where you live I can only hope you were blessed with solid conservative candidates rather than having to choose between horrible or less horrible. Consider the possibility that many haven’t had solid conservative candidates in many years. Sometimes the negative act is the only principled course.
The “Tea Parties” are political movements not “a political party”. Some tea partiers are indeed attempting to retake the GOP from the bottom up where they succeed the GOP will not be renamed and it will remain possible to be a republican and a tea party activist in good conscience. If the “tea party” attempted to become a third party at the national level it will splinter. In addition to Democrats and Republicans there are who knows how many different kinds of libertarians and independents who “identify” themselves as “Tea Party” people. At this time this movement is concentrating on what they have in common rather than how they differ.
This movement would probably have risen whether the Bolshevik or John McCain had been elected. As much as I despise the socialists, as bad as things have gotten and as dangerous as allowing the progressives to control our government is I believe Glen Beck was on to something when he said Obama being elected will prove better in the long run. Never have the choices we face been clearer, the true qualities of liberal progressives been more apparent the choices between conservatism and socialist tyranny more stark. Our path has never been clearer, if we fail to crush the left our votes will soon become meaningless.
Great article Mr. Quick! Well said. Jeff Bergren wrote similar sentiments recently in the Weekly Standard. I think it was titled, Can Republicans Govern? You are both right on.
The TEA Parties aren’t yet cohesive enough to have a set of agreed-upon principles.
It’s the REPUBLICANS who don’t have any agreed-on goals and principles. Evidence? All the dozens of mailings they have blanketed us with in the last year with this unvarying, excruciatingly dumb message: “We’re not those horrible Democrats who are helping Obama impose socialism! SEND MONEY!”
Compare that infantile, reactionary yowl with Scott Brown’s campaign, which was based on just a few well-articulated goals and principles for the governing he proposed.
The Republicans have pissed away an entire year of superb opportunities to inform the electorate of positive measures they would take to reverse Obama’s monster-government, monster-deficit disaster. We’re still waiting. I sure hope they can learn something from the tea parties, but it’s doubtful that they’re capable of learning anything, besides how to chant their reactionary mantra.
“But to expect RINOs to be totally flushed out is unrealistic.”
So says ricpic.
Why? All RINOs have to do is step across the aisle and stay there, in their natural home with the dems, where progressives, lite, dark, and medium, do their evil deeds.
We are either going to have a conservative party versus a liberal party or we will perpetually have the liberal party in power, because the people have had it and could give a rat’s as$ if RINOs EVER regain the exec or legislative throne.
Useful idiot pragmatist voters, the-lesser-of-two-evils types, have been the winning recipe for RINO entrenchment. Term limit RINOs and they will go away, and conservatives will fill the vacuum. We are so ready to reverse this nation’s slide into despotism, you just wouldn’t believe it!
Useful idiot pragmatist voters, the-lesser-of-two-evils types, have been the RINOs winning recipe for entrenchment in the party. But Term Limit RINOs and watch them scatter on over to their natural home in the “progressive party,” aka dem party; pull the plug on them. Let them know we will either have a conservative versus liberal political party structure or we’ll just have liberals in power in perpetuity.
What the pragmatist fails to understand is that the American people have had it with crony-capitalist and socialist representatives and that we are officially WITHDRAWING OUR CONSENT.
ricpic say: “But to expect RINOs to be totally flushed out is unrealistic.”
Was it unrealistic for the 1776 patriots to think they could defeat King George?
Yes, and given the fact that we’re still struggling to overcome the mess Carter created, you have no idea whatsoever how much damage has been done to the nation due to people like you who would rather take their toys and go home than fight to take the GOP over the same way the leftists took over the democrat party. Saying that you knew the democrat party would do so much damage that they’d ruin themselves sounds good but really just means you thought you’d take the easy way out and then hop on board the reaction if and when it came along. Had conservatives worked as hard as they did in the Brown campaign in any one of a number of other states there wouldn’t ever have been a 60 vote democrat majority in the Senate. Of course, working that way is a lot tougher than waiting for the worm to turn and then hopping aboard as if you’re a character in ‘Dune’.
Over the coming decades as the little yellow chicks Obama is kicking out of the nest come home to roost as huge bad azzed roosters, may you and yours always be the first in line to pay the bill for Obama having ever been elected and for democrats once again having control of both houses of Congress.
have a nice day
Not only do we need politicians to show some back bone but the GOP must get out of the social business. Which i mean they must set aside the social agenda, you dont hear many(if at all)tea partiers talking about abortion, gay marriage being bad, drinking is bad, gambling is bad, pot ect… Many of us have christian values but dont feel its the gov’s role to enforce them!!!
Many of us want the GOV to stay out of these areas and let us decide what is good for ourselves.
If the GOP has a chance they must become REAL fiscal conservatives, not just when they campaign or when it suites them, they must become more constitutionalists, less intrusive in our lives. As i stated in a previous post they MUST DO MORE THAN CAMPAIGN AND SAY THEY WILL DO THESE THING…but actually when in power, suck it up and get it done!!!
“Yes, and given the fact that we’re still struggling to overcome the mess Carter created…”
Really? What mess is that? If I recall, Carter’s abject failure was a primary reason that Ronald Reagan was able to win and govern convincingly – every time some Democrat slammed Reagan, people simply looked back at the hapless, whining statist he had replaced, and supported him more strongly.
The GOP has no claim on peoples’ votes. If they refuse to support and nominate candidates libertarians and conservatives want to vote for, they shouldn’t be surprised when libertarians and conservatives don’t vote for them. And all the outraged squalling about how traitorous we are to the GOP misses the point: If the GOP wants our votes, all it has to do is nominate and support people we want to vote for.
David Thompson and his wailing ilk aside, I’m glad I pursued the strategy I did. For the first time in years, it looks as if libertarians and conservatives may finally find their principles taken seriously in the GOP. As for the “irreparable damage” Thompson tries to browbeat me with, what, exactly is he talking about? Cap and trade hasn’t passed, and won’t. Scamnesty hasn’t passed, and won’t. Socialized medicine is down the drain. And those projected deficits as far as the eye can see aren’t going to happen either, because Obama and the Democrats have exposed themselves as the tax, spend, and control statists and socialist they are, and have destroyed themselves as a consequence.
Had Thompson had his way, he’d have a massively Dem House and Senate running wild, with a compliant sellout in McCain signing half their bills as is, and accepting watered down versions of the rest as a gesture of “bipartisanship.” And in the meanwhile, the Dems would be blaming everything bad about the economy and everything else on the GOP, because there was a Republican in the White House.
If McCain had squeaked in, we would already have some form of a “compromise” version of socialized medicine, McCain would already have signed a cap-n-trade bill, and moreover, he would have already signed a scamnesty bill.
Thompson doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but, thankfully, fewer and fewer are listening to his feckless, pathetic message.
The problem that conservatives and liberals both share is that they seem to think that the TEA Party movement is a conservative movement.
If you look around, check some polls, question people who attend TEA Party events, you’ll find that in most regions of the country, conservatives among the TEA Party movement are outnumbered almost 2-1 by Independents and Democrats.
Just as the Socialist PArty faded away after the Democrat Party had embraced all of its key tenets, the Libertarian PArty will fade away as the Tea PArty methodically roots out the quasi-socialist RINos over the next two-three election cycles. It will at last be statism versus individualism, fascism versus liberty, socialism versus capitalism. Bring it on. Obama DID deliver change and hope, just not quite the hope/change he was anticipating!
:…conservatives among the TEA Party movement are outnumbered almost 2-1 by Independents and Democrats.”
That’s pretty slippery. Neither “Independent” nor “Democrat” are necessarily something other than conservative. Conservatism is an ideology. Democrat and Independent – and Republican – are labels. And I notice you left libertarianism – socially liberal, politically conservative – out of your mix entirely.
Again, a lot of it is in how you discover what people really think. Ask people if they are libertarians, and most will say they aren’t. Ask people if they favor a smaller, less controlling, less powerful, less expensive government, but don’t support imposing bans on abortion, on homosexuality, and the laundry list of “social conservative” desires, and you’ll find that a majority does identify with that.
You miss the point of the Tea Partiers #3. What makes you think they `drink beer on the weekends`? People are tired of being lied too and having their Constitution and futures p*ssed away by politicians and bureaucrats. Don`t think The Tea Party is automatically going to vote for republicans. People can stay home if they don`t have a good conservative candidate in the game. If fact, there is no organized Tea Party so don`t label people with that either. The days of voting for the lesser of two evils are over….
I agree 100% For too long, the GOP has pandered to its conservative and liberal base only to betray them in the end by enacting progressive policies. Sometimes they manage to reduce the rate of growth in government spending, but they never truly reduce it. We still get bigger government – just not as big as the Democrats would like it to be.
The Tea Party Movement represents a conservative and liberal base that is tired of being pandered to. The sooner the GOP recognizes that, the sooner they will rescue themselves from political oblivion.
And offering up an establishment RINO candidate like Romney in 2012 won’t do them any favors. I’m tired of holding my nose and voting for the GOP candidate only because he’s slightly less objectionable than the Democrat. From now on, I’m voting my conscience – and if that means voting 3rd party at the expense of ensuring a Democrat victory, so be it. That’s on the GOP’s head, not mine.
GWB bush was a social conservative I doubt he had strong opinions on fiscal policy at all a dangerous mind set considering his totally flawed compassionate conservative ideas and then 9/11 comes a long making it impossible for GWB to resist deficit spending. Wartime can require exceptions to fiscal principals but should have removed the prescription plan from any fiscally rational agenda. As for no child left behind a far better idea would be to abolish the DOE.
Conservatives shouldn’t deny or hide their conservative social values but should emphasize cutting spending, less regulation, free market principals and strong on national security. This worked in VA, NJ and Mass. If someone walked into your dealership wearing work boots with a double bitted ax on his shoulder you’d tell him how tough your trucks are not how pretty. In the Bush administration they questioned prospective DOJ employees about their views on abortion. They should have been asking at treasury and the fed what those folks thought about Keynesian economics. We will not destroy bolshevism trading the white house and congress with the democrats every eight years or so.We won’t do it by compromising with the current crop of democrats either. Once the people start to trust those we elect to not destroy the economy and steal our liberty and personal independence the people will follow on social issues.
@ Warren Bonesteel, just because Tea Partiers identify themselves as independents doean’t mean they are not conservatives.
Donttreadonme just Google American social democrats or American socialists or USA communist party and you’ll find they’ve not faded away.
There is no reason at this time for a third party. The Republican Party of Ronald Reagan can be restored and moreso. It is time for a NEW American Revolution.
The basis of the New American Revolution is the restoration of original Constitutional Republican Government and adherence to the Principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. There is NO REASON for the rule by judicial fiat any longer.
The American People are rising to the challenge; hundreds of thousands of individuals who have never been involved in politics directly are now on the move and 2010 is just the beginning. First is the defeat of any and all Socialists, Progressives in either Party. Next is the defeat of the Marxist in the White House and his removal from office.
There will be Conservative American Patriots who rise to the challenge of leadership!
I withheld my support in 06 and 08. I will support a conservative person, but my conscience does not allow me to actively support someone who is not good for this nation. The lesser of two evils is still evil, and John McCain, when it comes to the good of this nation, is evil. I completely support going for a third party if the Republican party continues to throw its support behind the McCains and Grahams of this nation in districts where there is a wide berth for choosing someone far more conservative than the current member.
Don’t forget the Crist/Rubio race in FL. For the GOP to be rejuninated it must first be eviscerted.
sp. eviscerated.
Great article Mr. Quick.
It took a Carter to get a Reagan elected, and it took an Obama to get the American people to wake up and take back their government from top to bottom.
M. Stanton Evans was dead on in his characterization of the Democrats as the “evil” party and the Republicans as the “stupid” party. That may be the truest thing ever written about American politics.
I reached the same conclusion as Mr. Quick in the 2008 election cycle. I had held my nose and voted Republican from Bush (Sr.) through two terms of GWB. The late, great symphony conductor Sir Thomas Beecham once explain why he never looked at the trombone section: “It only encourages them.” Voting Republican as the lesser of two evils (they are also the lesser of two stupids) only encourages them to move left. Anthony Downs called that the “strategy of convergence”. Nixon played it to the hilt. Problem is, eventually the rubes (e.g., me) catch on.
When the GOP trotted forth Mr. McCain, I decided, screw ‘em, Homey don’t play liberal Republicans anymore. We don’t even need one socialist party, I’ll be darned if we need two.
Real-time push back:
I subscribe to daily emails from ThePatriot.com. Imagine my FURY when today’s update was not only an endorsement of McCain, but a link to contribute to JM’s re-election campaign. I wrote a quick retort, which mailer-daemon rejected. But posting it here will give it an even greater audience, if you’ll indulge me:
Please take me off your mailing list.
Everything that is wrong about this country, and the establishment Republican party — crony capitalists, socialist lite — is personified in one man: His name is John McCain.
I am so disappointed in your going to bat for him that I can hardly contain myself. How dare you claim the patriot mantel and at the same time sing the praises of J. McCain. Have you lost your mind?
He wants to close Gitmo; he won’t deign to support torture of bad guys to save our citizens; he’s for open borders and amnesty; we would have cap-n-trade strangling us if he’d won the White House, and socialized medicine, and all the while stifling conservatives and paying off the establishment power brokers who have backed him since 1987.
I’m absolutely appalled that YOU people endorse him. I’m an Arizonan, and if our primary could do no better than Mickey Mouse, I would vote for him to term limit the DESPICABLE J. McCain.
I’m mad as hell. You better believe it.
DSC
Sahuarita, AZ
G.K. Chesterton: “It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged.” – The Cleveland Press, 3/1/21
All this talk about the GOP leadership ignoring the Tea Parties, it misses the point. The current GOP leadership is uselss. Michale Steele? Please. Most of the rest of them too, they’re in the government business. Smaller government is not in the best interests of their careers. Smaller government means smaller paychecks for them.
What we have is an agency problem.
The solution is to do the job ourselves. We need to take over the GOP, from the ground up. Become PCO, distrect reps, delegates, etc. Stop delegating the job to people who, however nice or decent they may be, have a financial interest in conflict with our political interests.
Waiting around for someone else to solve the problem is what got us into this mess. It’s not going to get us out.
You are kidding, right?
The narrative is that Bush left the path. I agree.
But how and where did Bush leave the Social Conservative path? That is an utter fantasy. At no time to Bush do anything but indulge every demand made of him by Social Conservatives.
On economics and libertarian grounds, Bush went way, way off the path.
that USED to be what the Tea Party was about. Now that the Social Conservatives have co-opted it it is one part fiscal conservatism and one part social conservatism.
We fiscal conservatives know what happens next – the SoCOns get elected and then do Tom DeLay deals while stoking the wedge issues.
Sorry Bill – score one for obfuscation and misdirection. Social Conservatives OWNED WASHINGTON FOR 6 YEARS. Domestically we got deficits, Kstreet shenanigans and a bunch of hand waving about gay marriage, stem cells and faith based organizations. Been to this movie – I know how it ends – they get power and jettison Fiscal Conservatism for Compassionate Conservatism.
Quick is only half right.
Lets say that the Teas sweep away the GOP. Lets also say that the Teas have as part of their platform a ‘in real terms’ reduction of the federal budget by 2% a year till the budget is balanced. Lets say that puts a man in the WH and control of at least one house of Congress.
Were winners right? Sure.
But what would it like if both parties were competing on the platform of reducing the federal budget? Would it not go faster? It would.
In reality the Teas need to infiltrate both parties and get them on the right political and fiscal road. We should not be in the position that we must eschew one party just because another will not adapt. We need to force adaption on both of them.
Our political system is designed for power to ooze up from the bottom.
What country do you live in? I want to move there.
Great article. I am especially glad you said the Tea party represents both Conservatives and Libertarians. That is one of the key secrets to their success, and something they must never lose.
If the tea party was just Conservative, their appeal to Independents and disaffected Democrats would be very limited, and they would just become a rump base group in the GOP.
The Tea party must be absolute on Fiscal Conservatism, limited constitutional government, less spending, gun rights, strong national defense, and other issues where Conservatives, conservative leaning Libertarians, and Conservative Democrats all agree.
However on social issues, like abortion, gays, religion, drug war, pornagraphy, etc, they should maintain a big tent, where any tea party platform allows either Conservative or Libertarian individuals to stay in the party, and state Tea Party views, without violating any Tea Party platform, because that platform specifically allows individual choice on those issues.
JohnMC, good comment. The key is for the tea party to be neutral on social conservative issues. This can also allow them to infiltrate the Democratic party with candidates who are democrats because they are liberal or moderate on social issues, but are otherwise strong fiscal conservatives. It will also attract independent and libertarian voters. At the same time, this does not prevent them from supporting GOP candidates provided they are just as strong on fiscal conservatism as they are on social conservatism.
Two words, free market and constitution. Okay, that’s three words. The Tea Party people should avoid labels like cultural conservative (scares off Reagan Democrats) or Libertarian (sounds fringy cooky). Stay with the basics of free markets and the Constitution and the majority will accept and then support the Tea Party.
65. Adam In California:
Adam is 100% correct. Social conservative got there man in GW. Social conservative love pork and social programs just as much as any union boss or democrat fat cat. Federial money for faith based groups is walking around money for Evangelicals. Being a Social conservative does NOT mean you are a Fiscal Conservative.
I want the budget slashed and kick backs to churches are first on the list.
Ohh and Terrie Shibo is still Dead.
This from the Times about some Idaho Tea Partyers:
“Worried about hyperinflation, social unrest or even martial law, she and her Tea Party members joined a coalition, Friends for Liberty, that includes representatives from Glenn Beck’s 9/12 Project, the John Birch Society, and Oath Keepers, a new player in a resurgent militia movement.”
Yep, the GOP better join the crazies and show its true colors.
Don’t hold it against Tea Party members if they want Christians in office. Go ahead and find your own nonChristian conservative candidates, who promise to support America and honor the Constitution above all. We’ll vote for them even if they don’t go to church. Don’t turn this into a reverse-litmus test where we have to stop caring about our faith in order to be taken at face value.
If it was feasible and if it wasn’t really too late, I’d love to live in Sweden or Denmark. I sense, more and more, that I no longer wish to be an American. I think people with 6 weeks vacation, a strong safety net, education benefits, and healthcare are going to be more relaxed and happier than conservatives and tea partiers. The vast majority aren’t Ayn Rand heroes, geniuses with enormous IQs, quivering with ambition, and railing against the stupid people who are getting in the way of their freedoms and dreams of wealth and power. Most are just middle class people who persist in loving big business even though it doesn’t love them back. They are people who would be happiest in a Social Democratic state who, for cultural reasons hate the very idea. They associate socialism with decrepitude and tyranny even though there is no totalitarian temptation in any Social Democratic country. Swedes and Danes have their wastrels who milk the system. I suppose that Swedes and Danes also believe that there will always be people who seek to self-actualize and accomplish wonderful things even though the tax rates are high. Why Americans continually want to make their lives hard is a cultural remnant that they would do well to get over. Better to be a small nation, not a world policeman, not in the spotlight, minimal military expenditures, not seeking ever more power, wealth, and global influence. What foolishness!
There is no reason whatsoever for the tea party movement to form a 3rd party, and several excellent reasons for not doing so (the major one being, it would split votes between Republicans and the hypothetical Tea Party, resulting is massive Donk wins for Senate and House). Rather the tea party movement can simply focus its energies on Republican primaries and hijack the Pubs from within — just as the far Left did to the Donks. Benefit is gaining all the levers of power within an established party structure.
Simple. And it will work.
And if the water keeps rising Quick, you’ll be swept down river and this article will go with you.
The “Tea Party” answer to “social conservative/libertarian” conundrum seems obvious: decentralized home rule. The majority of the party platform should be left to the local committees, with the national party establishing about 5 planks (just for example, say: strong defense, a balanced budget, a flat tax, oil and gas exploration, secure borders. If a candidate will sign on to this, he or she can run as a Tea Party candidate.
The federalist approach to social issues already places the party on a socially-conservative footing. For instance: if more regulatory power is returned to the states, then restoration of the status quo ante Roe v. Wade is sooner or later a foregone conclusion.
The Democrats and Republicans effectively function as two factions of one party, ensuring that the U.S. continues to be characterized by consensus politics, particularly on the national level. If anything, Barack Obama and his supporters would be considered moderate rightists in the context of Scandinavian or Western European politics, with the description of “socialist” being completely inaccurate. They don’t even muster social democracy; their liberal democratic capitalism sustains the private ownership of the means of production.
The history of the development of socialist ideology as being focused around the collective ownership and management is conveyed through the American Heritage Dictionary’s definition of “socialism” as “a social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community.” With that in mind, where lies the basis for description of the liberal democratic capitalist administration as “socialist” in nature?
Liberalism and socialism are in fact antithetical because of the role of the welfare state in maintaining macroeconomic stabilization in general and sustaining the physical efficiency and employment of the working class, the latter constituting a sustainment of static efficiency. This role occurs in the context of the capitalist economy, which means that the welfare state is supporting the existence of the prevailing arrangement of the private ownership of the means of production. It’s therefore ironically economic rightists who are greater allies of socialists, as their favored policies will destabilize capitalism.
71. Ruebacca:
“65. Adam In California:
Adam is 100% correct. Social conservative got there man in GW. Social conservative love pork and social programs just as much as any union boss or democrat fat cat. ”
Being one, a social conservative, I must take issue with your SWEEPING indictment of us, Ruebacca.
GW was NOT our man; we HATE PORK; and we are about as far removed from “any union boss . . .” as Mars is from Jupiter.
How dare you speak for ME. Social conservatives — just in case you’re curious — represent the SAME VALUES and worldview as did our FRAMERS, YOU KNOW, the ones who actually penned and signed the Declaration of Independence, the ones who wrote the Constitution. The ones who who risked their lives and fortune to say no to King George.
And if so-called social conservatives STICK IN YOUR CRAW, let me remind you that under the PROGRESSIVE REGIME the family is under ASSAULT. And in so far as our political elites, our media sycophants, and our politically correct/coerced culture is concerned, they are more than ELATED to thrill at the demise of traditional moral norms so that they can revell in obscenity and chaos.
If you want to live in a cesspool, fine. But don’t be surprised when social conservatives thrust the mirror of reality in your face.
We will uphold traditional norms of decency, and if you don’t like it, there’s always a willing democrat to welcome you.
Reagan didn’t undo the Carter Dept. of Education and in thirty years that department has effectively destroyed education. Reagan didn’t rid us of the anti-nuke Carter Dept. of Energy and in thirty years we haven’t built any nuke power plants to lessen our dependence on oil. In fact, we’ve got an “Energy” department that wants to make sure we don’t take advantage of any energy we don’t import or pay exorbitant prices for. Reagan couldn’t undo the Carter laws and regulations that are the basis of our recently burst housing bubble but we’re paying the price for that as we speak. Reagan couldn’t undo the effects Carter actively working against the Shah of Iran while favoring an Islamic Iran and we’ve paid the price of having muslim madmen funded by Iran for the past thirty years. Reagan couldn’t undo the damage Carter did to our military and clandestine services, but we’re still paying for the reorganization Carter put into effect.
I’m an avid Reagan fan, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t see how bad Carter was and don’t realize that even if Carter was the price to get Reagan that we’d be better off had we never had Carter. The same is true of Obama. There is no one that is so magical that they’re worth the price of having Obama in order to get the as yet unidentified wonder-Prez in return. Nor is getting the intrepid souls who sit out elections to get off their duffs for a single election cycle (and then expect miracles in return) worth the damage Obama has already done. Don’t forget, the democrats need only hold onto 1/3 of things to stop those they see as rabble in their tracks. Also, don’t underestimate the tantrums of deliberate damage Barry will do when he has no majority and no popularity. McCain would have been only marginally better in many ways, but he’d have been significantly different in others. A democrat congress and McCain as president would have been far better than our current situation. It would still have been bad due to the fact that McCain is worthless, but it wouldn’t have done as much damage that will take decades to recover from.
have a nice day
Mike C. (77)
Mike C. (77)
The BS about “social conservative” vs. “conservative conservative” is in large part another democrat fifth column effort to keep people from becoming involved or voting their self-interest if they do. The vast majority of what comes up as a “social conservative” sticking point is actually something that should be left to the states in the first place if we were abiding by the Constitution. The use of the commerce clause and the 14th amendment as excuses to create a federal nobility and make the states simple delegates of their federal masters has been a democrat strategy to avoid state majorities for long enough. Put some teeth in the tenth and there’s no longer a divide among conservatives and independents (and the democrats know it).
The democrat party is now and always has been the party of slavery, secession, civil war, KKK terrorism, Jim Crow laws, eugenics laws, anti-Semitic immigration laws in the face of Nazi Nuremburg laws, Stalin worshippers, the welfare plantation system, voter fraud, voter intimidation, and the mass murder of minority infants. The democrat party has to be destroyed as a national political party to the extent that the only democrat in the US Congress is an elderly doorman or some such.
Regards
Bill,
The problem with the 3rd-party option is that 3rd parties almost always gravitate to the fringe. Since they are usually formed in reaction to rotten compromise and a flight from principles by the closer main party, the founders tend to be people who are the furthest from the operating center.
The LP is a perfect example. Almost immediately the contest within the party focused on ideological purity. In the case of the LP, the originating document talks about “the cult of the omniscient state” and a litmus test for membership. I suppose the Greens were no better but I can’t bring myself to care.
Now, maybe, the Tea Party folks can avoid that because they are starting with a wide base and haven’t quite got around to chasing people off (and hopefully when they do, it will be the nuts on the fringe and not the bulk of folks toward the center), but it does seem like the easiest thing is to take over the GOP.
You speak of the Republican leadership’s need to accept the tea-partiers and their positions. Why? Goldwater did more with less to hope for, and all the pleading of the GOP establishment didn’t slow them down much.
The party won’t be swept away, just the fossils. Lead, follow or get out of the way.
Gay marriage is only an issue because subversives are on the attack. The people reject gay marriage in every state that has put it to a vote. We’d be happy to just let the issue die, but the subversives won’t let us.
Abortion is a non-negotiable. It is both a human rights issue and a fiscal issue. How can you call yourself pro-liberty and then condone one human being holding the arbitrary power of life and death over another, as though the latter were a piece of property to be disposed of at its owner’s whim? And who is going to pay our debts if we keep killing off so many of our children? Already, legal abortion has cost 53 million lives and over $35 trillion in economic activity. We can make no compromise with evil, and those who propagate eugenics, pray on young women, and kill babies for money can be called nothing but evil.
As for the faith-based initiative, good riddance. Churches that partner with the government tend to die, as they place more value on the money they get from advantageous relationships with the government than they do on standing up for the Truth. Better to kill the programs and use the savings to cut taxes or shrink the deficit. Better still to do the same with welfare programs, as well. Let the Church take charge of caring for the needy, as is our duty. Individuals ought to be contributing 10% of their income voluntarily to churches and charities to spread the Gospel, heal the sick and help the needy.
80. What do you mean anti-nuke DOE? That may have been their original position, but today the DOE provides a great deal of funding for nuclear training, second only to the US Navy. Obviously that’s not to say they should be making these payments, nor even that they should exist. Still, we’re engaging in nuclear disarmament deals with the Russians, and there’s no reason to have the military wasting personnel on dismantling said weapons and selling off the cores for fuel.
Mr Gunn,
You are spot on, we are here, we are coming for those libs in R clothing and in the end, they are either with us or they are out.
#3, Mr Thompson,
If you thought this would be picnic, if this would be easy, well, it isn’t. But obama had to be to get people off of their duff and into the streets. It is now or never, stand up, get a pair and fight to survive. It is much easier then the next step if the leftist tyrants prevail.
I favor respect for American values. When I point out to my friends something quintessentially American I say “That is as American as Sex, Drugs, and Rock ‘n Roll.”
Can’t argue with that.
Gay marriage is only an issue because subversives are on the attack.
Med pot is more popular in Maine than traditional marriage. By 58% to 53% (both won).
So Drugs and Rock ‘n Roll it is then.
The BS about “social conservative” vs. “conservative conservative” is in large part another democrat fifth column effort to keep people from becoming involved or voting their self-interest if they do.
You are forgetting the “leave us alone” fringe in American politics. Typically called swing voters.
Dems vs. Repubs is just Thugs vs. Country Club Membership Committee Chairmen. Guess who wins?
Steele just lost my confidence with his non-performance “behind closed doors” while meeting some TP-ers.
Soon enought state secession will be the only option.
rashputin # 82: The 2nd paragraph in your comment is completely accurate in describing the democratic party. However I believe one must also include the radical left non government organizations that support the democrats with policy ideas, money and foot soldiers. All of these along with the democratic party, in short the left in general must be crushed and eliminated completely as a force in American politics, no I’m not advocating killing the players the most effective way to destroy bad ideas is with better ideas. To save this country from darkness the moderate centrists must choose between liberty and personal independence or the Democratic agenda.
Many planks of social conservatism scare the moderate independents. This doesn’t mean conservatives have to abandon moral values to be successful. It does mean it is more politically astute to emphasize the more broadly appealing fiscally conservative issues that have a more immediate impact on people’s lives. Just because someone running for office isn’t a child molester doesn’t make that the main topic of their stump speeches. To rescue our government from the left, true conservative candidates must get elected. Without political power social and fiscal conservative policies are merely theories.
Steve Shaak # 74: I’ve read Sweden is beautiful winter and summer I say grab the bull by the horns and live your dreams. If you don’t take your shot while you can you’ll never forgive yourself neither will we.
M. Simon: The independent “swing voters” are the “leave us alone fringe”? Farout.
(85) –
“What do you mean anti-nuke DOE?”
That’s either a very lame attempt at a joke or a really, really, sorry attempt at misdirection. Where are the nuclear power plants that have been built since Carter? How much has the percentage of electricity that is generated by such plants increased since his self-proclaimed “New clear Ing gan ear” expertise (a convenient lie he told and retold without the media calling him on it) opinions were put into regulations?
Selling cores for fuel rather than building plants to use them is a perfect example of stupid policy based on stupid principals. There is no better example of “blind consumerism” than the leftists who sell off material that would produce energy for years in return for sufficient funds to purchase days worth of oil from aboard. The material we’re selling off will produce hundreds of times the electricity that the oil we purchase with the proceeds will but that’s “progressive” way to do things while blathering about average citizens consuming too energy by keeping their homes warm or cool.
There is no reason whatsoever not to generate the majority of our electricity from nuclear plants and no reason whatsoever to be on the “no coal” and “scrubbed coal” bandwagon when we have more energy locked up in coal than the Middle East has in oil. The only reason to avoid using more of our own energy is to deliberately cripple this nation economically and it’s become obvious that the “progressive” folks want to do exactly that. They’ve spent the wealth their parents and grandparents created and are now spending all that their children and grandchildren can create. All the while, they insist that we can’t use what wealth we could create by returning to a society that actually produces something other than uneducated airheads with worthless quota dispensed degrees.
There is no such thing as a “progressive” or even a “liberal” movement in this country, only the same old democrat nobility movement that denies the exceptional nature of our nation and wants to rebuild the old south but with twenty-first century masters and multi-cultural slaves in the entirety of “flyover country”.
have a nice day
91. Adobe Walls:
A little bit of sarcasm goes a long way late at night. And thanks for the “far out” hadn’t heard that in years.
BTW what I see happening here looks to me very much like what made the Rs a minority party in 2008.
Once the fiscal emergency is over the movement is going to fracture. Because so many of the Tea Party people want social control. Just as the other side wants economic control. Both statists at heart. Economic socialism vs. cultural socialism.
Leaving out the fact that changing governments will not change people’s hearts.
I am a recovering Republican. I voted Reagan, Perot, Perot, Buchanan and then Obama [I stayed home in between]
I’m the voter you all are fighting to keep.
Item:
Tea baggers and Liberals are anti war.
Tea baggers and Liberals are nationalists.
Tea baggers and Liberals are anti Wall St and pro Main St.
Tea baggers and Liberals are against Multi National Corporate power and influence over elections, borders, employment and trade.
Tea Baggers and Liberals hate Big Banking.
Tea Baggers and Liberals mistrust Israel and question 9/11 [OMG! - we have lift off!!]
My entire family is conservative… love the Tea Baggers – but think Palin has been purchased by the usual suspects – hint – they have very large noses.
There isn’t enough Limbaugh, Hannity, Medved or Savage propaganda to convince the grass roots on either side
that War on Iran is a good thing.
or that open borders brings prosperity…
or that NAFTA will do the same….
or that Bank of America is our friend.
or that Corporations purchasing elections is good for speech.
Now tell me … again… that the GOP is the party of the Tea Baggers….
70. Mick Andrus:
Two words, free market and constitution. Okay, that’s three words. The Tea Party people should avoid labels like cultural conservative (scares off Reagan Democrats) or Libertarian (sounds fringy cooky). Stay with the basics of free markets and the Constitution and the majority will accept and then support the Tea Party.
Worth a repeat.
G. Marks (94)
“I’m the voter you all are fighting to keep.”
Actually, no, you’re not.
You’re the guy who only gets off the fence when his privates get squashed by another liberal majority he helped to elect then votes against them for squashing him exactly like they said they would. That’s not a recovering republican, that’s a masochistic sheeple. Each issue you mention is a democrat talking point, but each one has been, oddly enough, supported at least as much by democrats as by republicans and mostly supported more by democrats than by republicans.
Since you’re going to get a solid squashing we know which way you’ll vote in the next election as well as how you’ll vote in the one after than when you swing back to asking for a good squashing. That sort of dedicated self-destructive voter isn’t what anyone is trying to keep because they’re so predictable in their lack of convictions (other than wanting a good squashing every time they get the chance to ask for one).
have a nice day
Leviathan,
The Government now owns a majority of the stock in most of the major banks (and the banks own a majority of the government debt). In addition, the Government owns majority stakes in Chrysler and General Motors. So, you are arguing that the current government is not socialist? Ok, you are correct, it is not. Fascism is government control of the means of production, with a blurring of the lines between corporations and government, so perhaps that would be more accurate?
The Republican Party can go &*^% itself. I have watched it pay lip service to small government for 30 years, all while they grow it larger and larger and larger.
I’m done believing their bullsh!t. I would rather watch the socialists destroy the country so we can start over again than vote for a party says one thing but does another once they are in power.
Have you ever noticed that Republicans only talk about fiscal responsibility when they have no control of the Congress? But the instant they take the reigns we get Big Government George Bush and new entitlement programs, bureaucracies, etc.
AGREED MR. QUICK WITH ONE OR TWO CAVEATS,.
1: Third party a good idea to keep GOP honest in its conservative roots
2. A tea-partier strategy for 2010, we only need to take 20 to 30 seats in the house to cause a shift to the right to a substantial degee.
Hopefully we will be able to do that.
DH
92. You’re right, we haven’t built any new commercial plants since the 70′s (though that is changing with new plants under construction today, set to come online in the next few years). However, we have increased the power output from the existing plants by 80% by streamlining outages and improving control mechanisms. Thus while electricity consumption has increased, the percentage of electricity generated by nuclear plants has held steady at 20% with no increase in the number of commercial reactors.
What a bunch of whiners! When you retire, you all want Medicare. When daddy spends his last nickel on his nursing home, you want Medicaid (aka, welfare, the dole) to pay for him until he’s dead so he doesn’t have to come live with you. You want Social Security because what you saved isn’t enough. You have all the rights you could possibly want, you have more freedoms you know what to do with. You have a fat defense budget because you think that America is, and must forever be, the greatest nation on earth. But, you hate taxes and think that cuts are going to raise revenues. That I even have to inhale the same air that you may have exhaled is nauseating – thats how much I despise all of you conservatives.
Tax cuts will raise revenue- why do you think that tax revenues have always been 19+/-1% of GDP ever since WWII, no matter how high the taxes went, nor how much Reagan or Bush cut them? 19% is where the Laffer Curve peaks. As for the dole, it’s high time to get rid of it- all of it. Even if that means my grandmother and uncle will have to move in with my parents.
102. myth buster:
“Even if that means my grandmother and uncle will have to move in with my parents.”
But not move in with YOU? Yeah, you have your limits, you betcha.
103. They can’t move in with me because I don’t have a house. I live in a dorm room, and next year I’ll be renting a single bedroom out of an apartment. I’d be happy to take them in if I had room, but as it is I can barely afford to pay my own rent for now. They can move in with me when I buy a house.
When did “traditional values” get on the ticket? I though these things were about big government and taxation – and now your saying they’re gonna bang on about gay marriage and abortion as well?
Classic mission creep. Big mistake. Still, it does reflect who’s been organizing the movement.
PeterB:
Socialism entails PUBLIC ownership of the means of production; while the state is often seen as the mechanism of public control, the obvious divergences between government policy and popular will illustrates that while this may be true in the de jure case, it is not true in the de facto sense. I’d agree that fascism involves a merger of state and corporate control. However, fascism is associated with extreme military jingoism and racism, and has no actual independent economic system. Since its establishment preserved the private ownership of the means of production, it was capitalist in nature. The present economic structure is also capitalist in nature.
The Tea Party hates Wall st and loves Main St.
The Tea Party hates Big Banking
The Tea Party hates Multi National Corporations influencing immigration policy.
The Tea Party is very much the same membership as the Perot and Buchanan voters… that means Israel may not be free to incinerate its neighbors with impunity.
BIG Banking, multi nationals, Wall St … take those influences out of the GOP and the money is gone. These are the balls of the party.
There is no reconciliation available.. unless we want a merger with Latin America… Bank Of America values…. and Wall Street thievery …. as our every day principles.
Again.. the neocon thump thump thump at this websits.
It’s like the invasion of the body snatchers and every paleo at this website has a pod growing under their computer table… brought to them by the neocon in charge of their demographic…
Medved, Savage, Kristol, Krauthammer, Simon, Ledeen – each is in charge of picking the scabs on a particular conservative sore point and growing little neocon monsters under your bed.
Just on the question of third parties and conservatism, I thought I’d mention the Canadian example. I know that some of you don’t think Canada is worth noting (except to find horror stories about our healthcare system), but something happened in this country that might be worthy of consideration.
From 1984 until 1993 Canada’s government was under the control of a party called the Progressive Conservative Party. Under the PCs (make fun of the initials, we always did) Canada faced a serious constitutional crises, the dawn of globalization, and massive budgetary deficits that came within a hair of the IMF coming in and telling us how to run the country. During the late 80s, a group of more hardcore conservatives said “We need a conservative alternative to the PCs.” By 1993 the PC Party was in shreds. Meanwhile a new party, the Reform Party, pushed for a much more conservative agenda than the PC Party.
The 1993 election sent a clear message to the PC Party. Out of 301 seats, the PC Party won exactly two. Meanwhile the Reform Party won about 50 seats and tried to claim official opposition status (the actual opposition was the BQ, a Quebec only separatist party). The next two elections proved that the vote split between Reform and the PCs quaranteed that the Liberal Party would always form a majority government.
By 1997, the same people who had asked for a conservative alternative were now saying “We must unite the right.” Unfortunatly, the Reform Party was unnacceptable to most Candians and the PCs were too weak to mount a serious challenge to the Liberals. Reform didn’thelp its cause by electing an incompetent leader named Stockwell Day. In 2000 Reform announced that it was uniting with the PCs and to show that unification had taken place renamed the party the Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance Party (the CCRAP. GO ahead and make fun of the initials, we all did). But considering the fact that the PCs refused to join the CCRAP, the effort failed.
By 2004 a merger did in fact take place. The new party once again changed their name. This time they were simply called the Conservative Party (we made fun of the fact that they were no longer progressive). Those PCs that could not join the former Reform-CCRAPers moved to the Liberal PArty.
How have things worked out? Well, at the moment the Conservatives are in power in Ottawa. Scandal and incompetence by the Liberals (partially due to overconfidence and hubris) brought down their government. But the Conservatives govern with a minority status. In Canada if the sitting government loses an important vote in the house, the government is dissolved and an election is called. The Conservatives are in power, but they have to tread very carefully. Because conservatism as Americans define it is unacceptable to most Canadians, our Conservative Party has had to keep much of their ideology hidden from the voters. Even so, the chances that this incarnation of conservatism can form a majority government are slim.
I guess the moral of the story is that when a new party splits from an old one there is a serious possibility that both parties will fail to elect enough members. But Canada’s Conservative Party is a lot further to the right than the old PCs were and they have managed to form a government. The cost to conservatism though was 11 years of wandering in the wilderness. In the case of the USA, a Tea Party would shatter the Republicans, but it might take a few election cycles before the right unites and wins power back.
There could be benefits to conservatives eventually, but the immediate cost would be pretty high. President Obama’s re-election followed by President Clinton comes to mind.