Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Tea Party on

    Tea Party on

    From A.F. Branco (reprinted with permission):

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    I think what he is really saying is…”I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!”

    Where are all the Tea Party commenters? Nothing but party over principles Republicans again.

    The biggest obstacle for the Tea Parties is the very enemy they formed to fight: Assistant Republicans. There should be hundreds of comments on this thread but…..

    I think there will be some very disappointed Republicans after Romney wins the WH when we TPers continue the fight against the corrupt one-party system. This isn’t about restoring Republicans to power. It’s about breaking up the entrenched criminal class. We were fighting this battle before Obama showed up.

      BTW Professor, that is something you should think about. Why is it that when the Tea Party scores big victories the Tea Party message is lost? It’s always a REPUBLICAN victory. There is an important distinction being lost that takes what should be a transformative victory into a victory for the status quo.

      If we can’t adhere to our own narrative, we lose. We are losing. Even Michelle Malkin’s threads are completely dominated by nose-holding Republicans who vote party over principles. For “conservatives”, it’s never the right time to do the right thing. We always seem to allow establishment Republicans to crash our victory parties and throw us out.


         
         0 
         
         0
        CalMark in reply to Pasadena Phil. | August 3, 2012 at 11:24 am

        So…we should vote third party? (That seems to be what you’re stealthily implying without saying it.) In other words, get Obama a second term and the Dems majorities in both houses by splitting the non-Dem vote, then patting ourselves on the back for our ideological purity?

        That’s a STRATEGY? If not that, what’s your solution?

        The GOP Republicrats have been in power since the New Deal. They are utterly unprincipled and control a lot of money and power. They won’t be vanquished overnight.

        As for starting another party…it has to happen spontaneously; try to “fix” it, and you get a re-run, 100 years later, of the Bull Moose party (which put Woodrow Wilson, America’s first Commie President, into office, if you’ll recall). If Romney loses (a very real possibility owing to Obama’s abuses of power and evil ruthlessness), you might see it then. Hopefully, it won’t happen.

        Bottom line: politics is a messy, difficult business. Everything takes time.


         
         0 
         
         0
        Henry Hawkins in reply to Pasadena Phil. | August 3, 2012 at 12:20 pm

        Ask Dick Lugar and David Dewhurst if they were defeated by Republicans or the Tea Party.

        Assistant Republicans are the “very enemy” the Tea Party formed to fight? News to me and speak for yourself. The Tea Party is a nationally inseminated idea, not an organization, though across the nation there are thousands of Tea Party groups organized. The Tea Party idea is limited government, lower taxes, and governance in accordance with the US Constitution, with a bull’s eye on the backs of ‘Assistant Republicans’ only to the extent they stand in the way of limited government, lower taxes, and governance in accordance with the US Constitution.

        “Why is it that when the Tea Party scores big victories the Tea Party message is lost? It’s always a REPUBLICAN victory.”

        It’s because the Tea Party isn’t a political party. The victory is Republican because the local Tea Party support was given to the Republican in the race. It is a rare thing for local Tea Party people to support a Democrat candidate. A typical news article will read something along the lines of: “Republican House candidate John Q Smith’s victory attributed to Tea Party support”, meaning both the GOP and the Tea Party are given credit. In no race has Tea Party support been the sole factor responsible for a Republican’s election victory.

        As Calmark alludes, there is no knock-out punch for the Tea Party to take. This is a chip away at the boulder situation, wherein the Tea Party supports candidates and slowly but surely increases the number of incumbents who act in accordance with Tea Party values of limited government, lower taxes, and governance in accordance with the US Constitution. In time, and assuming continued successes, there will come a tipping point where TP supported incumbents not only influence governance, but come to control it. This will take time because of the innate dishonesty of so many politicians who will create the following dynamic, for example:

        Out of every 100 politicians who win office running on Tea Party values and with Tea Party support, a certain percentage will prove to have merely pretended it to gain office and will revert to general RINOism, say 20 of them to pick a number at random. So, we’ll have to work to unseat these renegers as well as continue to elect newbies.

        As more and more Tea Party-valuing pols get elected, more and more TP governance will occur, and if TP-ers are correct, it will work to improve all aspects of our country’s being. Each noted instance of it working makes TPism easier to promote, and hopefully a snowball effect occurs. But this isn’t going to happen anytime soon.


           
           0 
           
           0
          AA in reply to Henry Hawkins. | August 3, 2012 at 6:09 pm

          Well said. A good illustration of this is how the anti-slavery forces in the 1840s, from both the Democratic and Whig parties, first formed the Free Soil party (which didn’t win any elections) and then, several years later, the Republican party, which went on to displace the Whigs as the opposition to the Democrats (and to have its candidate, Abraham Lincoln, elected six years after it wsa formed, and indeed carry out their platform).


     
     0 
     
     0
    quiznilo | August 3, 2012 at 11:00 am

    I don’t necessarily agree that the Tea Party had anything to do with the showing at Chick fil A on Thursday. Its a movement entirely driven by economic issues, driven equally or more-so by libertarian sentiments, rather than conservative ones.

    Having attended Tea Party rallies and considering myself active in the cause, I still consider myself a text-book conservative first, I can say that no part of the Tea Party message has to do with foreign affairs, or social issues. It’s all about fiscal issues, and too much spending and taxes too high, despite certain social conservatives trying to co-opt the message, Santorum, Huckabee.


       
       0 
       
       0
      Henry Hawkins in reply to quiznilo. | August 3, 2012 at 12:24 pm

      The ‘limited government’ and ‘accordance with the US Constitution’ aspects of the Tea Party agenda bring both foreign policy and social issues into play in ways that are not hard to discern.


         
         0 
         
         0
        Awing1 in reply to Henry Hawkins. | August 3, 2012 at 12:29 pm

        I’m not sure there’s a limited government or a constitutional answer to things like same-sex marriage.


           
           0 
           
           0
          Henry Hawkins in reply to Awing1. | August 3, 2012 at 4:25 pm

          I was speaking to the blanket assertion that Tea Party ideas do not address foreign policy or social issues, which is simply untrue.

          To be sure, there is a constitutional answer to every question or issue under the sun, if the SC decides to address it. It doesn’t mean it’s correct or appropriate however.

          As for same-sex marriage, a TP-er might say it’s wrong to use government to redefine the traditional American concept of marriage.


             
             0 
             
             0
            Awing1 in reply to Henry Hawkins. | August 3, 2012 at 4:36 pm

            As a general rule I suppose there may be some social issue that the Constitution addresses, but I don’t believe it addresses marriage in any way. I would say it’s as wrong to assert that the Constitution protects the traditional idea of marriage as it is to assert that the Constitution gives a right to gay marriage. It’s a purely political issue, the society should decide it with a vote.


             
             0 
             
             0
            Henry Hawkins in reply to Henry Hawkins. | August 3, 2012 at 5:14 pm

            You’ve taken where I said using government to impose same-sex marriage would be an example of an overreaching government and plugged in ‘constitution’ in place of government.

            The state by state referenda on same-sex marriage, all 32 (is it?) of which have gone down to defeat by citizen vote, is the proper way to address that social issue. In other words, society IS deciding it by vote, as most TP-ers would hope. However, a congressional act in defiance of citizen wishes (like Obamacare), or a presidential executive order, would be wrongful overreach of a government to the TP-er, who would want that power limited.


             
             0 
             
             0
            Awing1 in reply to Henry Hawkins. | August 3, 2012 at 5:28 pm

            I didn’t plug in anything, I was separating the issue out into a Constitutional issue and a political issue because you used the blanked “government” which covers both. Regardless, we agree on what the appropriate way to address the issue of marriage is, so that’s what counts.


             
             0 
             
             0
            Henry Hawkins in reply to Henry Hawkins. | August 3, 2012 at 7:44 pm

            The constitution is a piece of paper. The government is something totally different. It is the governing apparatus that is supposed to follow what is written in the constitution. I cannot believe that explanation was necessary.

            I’m beginning to see why other posters often give up trying to discuss anything with you.


             
             0 
             
             0
            Awing1 in reply to Henry Hawkins. | August 3, 2012 at 7:51 pm

            From you:

            “To be sure, there is a constitutional answer to every question or issue under the sun, if the SC decides to address it. It doesn’t mean it’s correct or appropriate however.”

            You just dwell on that, real long and hard, then read my response. If you don’t get it, there’s nothing I can do to help you.


     
     0 
     
     0
    MicahStone | August 3, 2012 at 11:38 am

    Yep, dingy harry was as correct as he usually is : “the Tea Party is dead” !

    dingy-harry’s head is shoved so far up his “bill-maher” that he has not the slightest inking of reality.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend