Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Our tent

    Our tent

    The Tea Party movement has been pronounced dead more times than one can count.

    Vilifying and demonizing that great unwashed semi-libertarian freedom movement has been an almost full-time focus of the mainstream media and left blogosphere; in a sign of national unity, Republicans have held the left’s hand when it comes to the Tea Party movement.

    So it’s no surprise that the Tea Party movement’s negatives have risen.

    But a funny thing happened on the way to the hatefest visited on the Tea Party movement over the past four years.

    The Tea Party movement has driven the national dialogue since 2009 over issues of national debt and deficits, taxes and entitlements, government control versus individual freedom.

    Would you like a drone with your Obamacare?

    That dialogue could not stop Obama’s reelection for a variety of reasons many of which were peculiar to the Obama phenomenon and the nature of the Republican primary system, but even Obama is talking (only talking) about the issues the Tea Party has driven to the forefront.

    Also listen to Karl Rove (the new shiny object of hate glimmering in the eye of the conservative movement at the moment) and Bill Kristol (frequently cited as part of the problematic Republican establishment) in recent interviews:

    The question normally is phrased as to whether the Tea Party movement should have a place under someone else’s tent.

    Pop quiz —

    Whose tent is it now?

    You just didn’t realize it.

    Keep on keeping on.

    And in my humble opinion, our tent should be big enough for Karl Rove and Bill Kristol, and Democrats who share our concerns. But more on that later.


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.



    Henry Hawkins | February 7, 2013 at 11:39 am

    What is the purpose of ‘the tent’ and could its size ever defeat its purpose?

    Rove, and so many, many others like him, insert themselves between the voters and the candidates as a self-imposed filter designed to screen out whichever candidates and/or ideas are disliked by those who finance the Roves and all the other players. On the one hand it feels like unwanted and undue negative influence on the voting process. On the other, it feels like freedom of speech exercised by letting one’s donated dollars speak through a organization trusted by the donor.

    The tent holding everyone doesn’t get bigger, just more crowded. It gets louder and uglier. (Hey, maybe if we put all these cats and dogs in the same cage they’ll learn to get along!).

    If you wanted to create a Washington insider too hooked on power, money, and influence (HIS) to recognize his moment on the stage has passed and that his successes, such as they were, are far, far behind him, you’d use Karl Rove as your model.

      Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | February 7, 2013 at 12:57 pm

      If you wanted to create a Washington insider too hooked on power, money, and influence (HIS) to recognize his moment on the stage has passed and that his successes, such as they were, are far, far behind him, you’d use Newt Gingrich as your model.

      Now, that is NOT my position, but it has been stated by others with passion (and accuracy) equal to yours.

      Ron Paul is a terrible person to me, but he still has some valuable things to contribute.

      PLUS, what are you gonna do? Do you want to muzzle Rove?

      Let me suggest a better idea; let’s beat him in the arena of ideas. Maybe better still…convert him.

    I support a third party movement. If enough Senators and Congressmen would switch parties to a third party, it would bring both sides to their knees. A stray Senator or Congressman here or there leaving the GOP isn’t significant, but if an orchestrated mass defection could be arranged, it could work to bring some common sense to the insanity in our government.

    The Senate belongs to Dems, so not much to do there. In order to influence the House, we need to alter the balance by controlling at least 17 seats. I think that’s do-able. Using that bloc of 17 votes can swing the majority. Even better would be if that group could control at least 33 seats, which would put the Dems and Repubs even at 201, which would be a much more powerful group. The first scenario would impact Repubs most; the second would impact Dems and Repubs alike.

    The unfortunate reality is the threat of a group like that trading pork. In theory, a group that went to that extreme would be adverse to such a deal, but human nature and slippery slopes would keep it a threat, although probably not a serious one in the current session of Congress.

    Desperate times demand desperate action.

      Radegunda in reply to windbag. | February 7, 2013 at 1:55 pm

      “Third party”? If you’ve looked at a ballot lately, you would have noticed that there’s already a third and a fourth … How many of those parties have gotten even one seat in the House or the Senate?

      Dems are thrilled when conservatives fantasize about a “third party.” It makes elections easier for them.

      The far left figured out long ago that gaining power was best done by infiltrating and reshaping an existing major party. And now, the “Democratic” party is headed by someone steeped in revolutionary Marxism and Islam.

      Conservatives (and independents) should all have realized that pushing out the radicals was the highest imperative. Many did, while others were saying “I don’t like Romney; I’m gonna sit home and teach the Republicans to nominate someone better next time.” It’s idiotic.

        Joan Of Argghh in reply to Radegunda. | February 7, 2013 at 2:15 pm

        We already HAVE a third party. It’s the NRA, apparently. And it’s organized, well-funded, has a great network of diverse Americans all united under one shining ideal: self defense against tyranny. Talk about being focused and leading from in front! Even with a less than exhiliarating leader, a focused, serious group of citizens can make a difference.

        Yes, I’ve looked a ballot recently, and I’m well aware of The Libertarian Party, the Green Party, etc. I’ll go a step further and tell you that I’ve looked at the historical record of third parties in the US. The Republican Party was a third party at one time.

        Third parties have traditionally been spoilers. Perot in 1992 gave us Clinton. The Liberty Party in 1844 probably handed Polk the election by delivering New York. Roosevelt’s Bull Moose ticket won more votes than Taft’s Republican ticket in 1912.

        The GOP couldn’t beat the most beatable President in the past 100 years. Something needs to change. A bold move by a group of liberty-loving elected officials could tap into the sentiment that has birthed the Tea Party movement. Trusting the status quo to be deliver anything but the status quo is not a winning strategy.

        The ideas that have been stirred up in the past few years are what can get us back on the right track. The current political parties and the process by which they operate have proven to be lacking in will and ability to avoid the disaster that awaits us.

    jakee308 | February 7, 2013 at 1:38 pm

    “our tent should be big enough for Karl Rove and Bill Kristol, and other Democrats who share our concerns.”

    Thought I’d fix that for you.

    I firmly believe that before someone can take on a label of “conservative” they should be able to provide some generally agreed upon bona fides to prove the point.

    And if their public pronouncements and support begins to show signs that they are no longer, that should be made known and the label rescinded.

    (yes, I know there’s no practical way to do this. And who would be the judge? So let’s take it on ourselves to truly make and individual effort to honestly evaluate those the State Media parades before us with the “label” of conservative and not accept that designation as accurate unless confirmed by supporting evidence NOT provided by said State Media.)

    Neither Karl Rove or William Kristol could be said to have had over 50% of their pronouncements to be conservative in the strictest sense. IMO

    Kristol is just a step to the right of David Brooks and Karl Rove borders on a step to the right of James Carville.

    And I don’t think it behooves us to make the tent that large as it begins to fill up with those who’s true goals are contrary to the majority of the rest of the occupants.

    As they have proven so well recently.

    Just sayin’

    Benson II | February 8, 2013 at 4:37 pm

    Our tent is big enough for any Tea Party denigrater who wants to come crawling back with an apology on their lips and money in their pocket.

    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