To the GOP establishment. The tea party is here to stay. We are a force to be reckoned with, and as you all know, once a power base is formed, it tends to like it's power, and because this a country wide movement with no one leader to focus on, good luck with your co-opting, you're going to need it.
Now that we supplied the energy and passion which roused the electorate, you want us to go away. Now, instead of defining the radicals in the administration for what they are, you instead seek to rid yourselves of the very people who made the Republican tide possible. It’s too late. You had your chance. We love America, and we’re taking our country back, as well as our responsibility to give you our consent when you recognize you represent us, and our freedom and as Americans.
Elitism is a condition based on a perception of being among the chosen few, and of a self perception of enlightenment and existing above the fray. That is what's at work in Washington DC.
We will be watching who in the GOP is demonizing our grassroots movement, Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint, or Michele Bachmann, for that matter.
I would remind you that there is an election in two years, and I'm sure Bob Bennett, and Mike Castle would be happy to console those of who should you lose.
O'Donnell and Angle did not receive the help from the GOP that they should have, thereby making their success, nearly impossible.
Furthermore, you embraced primary loser Lisa Murkowski, encouraging her write-in candidacy, proving the existing "buddy system", and liberal lite, is your preference. You did not support the primary winner, Joe Miller.
Here are some past choices you've made. Gerald Ford, Robert Dole, John McCain. And why? Because it was their turn according to the pecking order of the GOP old boys beltway network. Even more amazing, you disdained Ronald Reagan’s nomination. So you’ll excuse us if we don’t swoon at your presumptive "expertise” at backing candidates.
Here's a final reminder, Trent Lott is not elected to anything. The elected buddy system is bad enough without input from unelected interlopers with big mouths.
Z: BRAVO, PRIS! What do you all think? (as if I didn't know?)
geeeeeeeeeeeZ!
62 comments:
Now that we're looking at 2012 Presidential elections, what is the foreign policy agenda of the Tea Party?
Gotta take part of Pris' open letter to task.
Here are some past choices you've made. Gerald Ford, Robert Dole, John McCain. And why? Because it was their turn according to the pecking order of the GOP old boys beltway network. Even more amazing, you disdained Ronald Reagan’s nomination. So you’ll excuse us if we don’t swoon at your presumptive "expertise” at backing candidates.
Didn't John McCain pick some backwoods governor of Alaska to be his running mate?
Pris is a political genius.
Talk to me Pris!!!
I couldn't agree more. The GOP had better stay on the straight and narrow or we're going to end up with a 3rd party, and that would be DISASTROUS!
The problem is that the Lindsey Grahams, Olympia Snowes, Susan Collins, and Juan McAmnesty's of the world despise conservatives even more than they despise the left. Let that soak in for a minute.
At least one third of Republicans have no stomach for scaling back the government, which is why they CANNOT be counted on. They don't see an activist government as the problem. They see "radicals" on both sides of the political spectrum as the problem, which explains their propensity for breaking bread with the left, and "reaching across the aisle."
TRANSLATION: We get more governmrent due to their gd compromises!!
Beamish, I've been involved with the Tea Party from the start, and I think it's safe to say that the TP has no real foreign policy agenda. We all have opinions, but this movement is ALL ABOUT BACKING GOVERNMENT THE HELL OFF. It's a response to a severe internal threat--a looming police/nanny state.
Great article Pris. Thanks for sharing it. Pris definitely addresses some of my and I am sure many of our concerns. Especially the concern of the entrenched RINO'S disdain for the Conservative wing of the Republican Party. I cannot help but wonder at all of the media attention Lindsey Graham has been receiving of late, as if he speaks for us!! And Trent Lott, isn't he a lobbyist? The next two years will be very telling for the Republican Party and for the United States. I can already see the Dam's using these two years to their advantage. I can hear them saying, "We tried but those Tea Partiers would not work with us. We could have done great things for our country but we had no co-operation". Take note Republicans, our life is on the line!! The life of our Great Country is hanging from a thread.
It is still going to be a very bumpy ride so hold on tight.
Let's think back to the summer of 2009, when our so-called elected public servants ignored us, ridiculed us, talked on cell phones in townhall meetings, etc.
By "us" I mean those concerned about the proposed healthcare reform bill.
Never before had I seen elected public servants so disrespectful of those they are sworn to represent. They acted as if no election day were coming!
Pris mentioned: the pecking order of the GOP old boys beltway network.
Therein lies a huge problem with our government! And it's a problem of long standing, too.
How to fix this?
So often, we aren't given good choices for whom to vote!
Jingoist makes a very important point, IMO:
The GOP had better stay on the straight and narrow or we're going to end up with a 3rd party, and that would be DISASTROUS!
Conservatives yearn for a 3rd party. But a 3rd party typically ends up kicking votes to the worst possible candidate.
I admit it: I don't trust the GOP. Too many RINO's in there.
Jingoist,
Beamish, I've been involved with the Tea Party from the start, and I think it's safe to say that the TP has no real foreign policy agenda.
I've been watching the Tea Party movement for Presidential material. None has cropped up there. A big part of that is the lack of a foriegn policy depth. Love or hate what's going on here domestically, we're at war.
I'd hate to discover the TP's foreign policy views align with Rand Paul's. He's one of the TP darlings that if nominated to run for President would see me campaigning hard for Obama's re-election.
Bravo Pris! Great job. You give voice to all the righteous indignation we Conservatives endure. We're sick of Republican Party leaders who disparage REAL people like Jim DeMint, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin and YES THEY DID-DID-DID -- the best President of our lifetime Ronald Reagan! I look particularly at the shots being taken at Sarah Palin and remember all that same crap was aimed squarely at Reagan.
Who the hell do they think they are? It's bad enough for Democrats and the MSM to attack our Tea Party candidates, but for Republicans to do it is outrageous. They better get their heads out of the sand or we'll replace them next. Enough of this political power chasing, get back to American values, restoring freedom, cut the massive Federal budget, pay off the national debt. How about this? DO YOU DAMN JOBS. You ran for them, got yourselves elected --- You wanted them --- you got them --- now get to work. NO MORE POLITICAL MANEUVERING.
We have serious problems to address in this country and one of them isn't the rising power and influence of Sarah Palin. Hell, she and Jim DeMint & Michelle Bachmann will help solve these massive problems. Stop attacking our side!
And Beamish, Sarah Palin will make a great President.
Sounds right to me.
Remember folks the "Old boy network" exsists on the State and local levels as well so be VERY vigilent in those areas as well.
The in fighting as the right devours each other and start trying to figure out who to blame when unemployment stays high is going to be entertaining.
Take a look at who lost in this last election --- blue dog democrats got pounded and the tea party cost Republicans the Senate.
We've found a limit to right wing irrationality and Dem complicity.
Palin/Snooki 2012
Great post, Pris!
beamish, the Tea Partiers have Republicans they can choose from......Paul Ryan for one...not all are RINOs, and the TP has finally given a voice to those Republicans in office now because they've shown how powerful they are and that good values DO count in this country...
Rand Paul...let's see what he does with KY. I think he is the WEIRDEST of the bunch, personally.
But, if I liked him, I'd be asking you what foreign policy experience most presidents have had....that's why they get advisers WITH experience.
Expecting newly elected republicans to help devise a cogent foreign policy may be a bit much. First of all, the House doesn’t have a responsibility in foreign policy —that remains within the purview of the Senate and the President. Next, this country hasn’t had a cogent foreign policy for the past 110 years, which is why the State Department Logo features an image of a nincompoop.
The Tea Party isn’t a national political party; it is a national movement. I am not surprised that Ducky is quick to point out O’Donnell and Angle, but while this probably gives him some perverse sexual rush, it is a fact that underscores the point Pris was making. It is a movement, and one with a clear message to freshmen politicians: get back to American traditions, or don’t plan being in the House very long …
beamish said,"Didn't John McCain pick some backwoods governor of Alaska to be his running mate?"
She was the token conservative to appease the more right of the party. They also hoped she would bring in more woman voters to the party.
The blue blood Republicans didn’t care for her much then and care even less for her now! She’s a thorn in their sides.
Sam.."don’t plan being in the House very long …"
That's the rub and everybody in Congress knows it....who (other than Beamish if Rand runs for president!) would support Obama or ANYbody who COULD support him? NO Republican, that's for sure. SO, the RINOs have us where they want us, or THINK SO....."don't plan on being in the House very long..." Who ELSE will be there? DEMOCRATS? Yes, so Republicans in Congress know that and, while they know the Tea Party's on them, they know that they won't vote them out for Democrats to step in, either.
And we all know a Third Party will kill this country. I WISH the Democrats were that optimistic and that PROGRESSIVES would break off from the Dem Party, but you can see they won't..they know what would happen...REPUBUBLICANS WOULD TAKE EVERYTHING.
SO, the TPers and the GOP must find a platform on which they agree and get on with fixing the country!
Well said, Pris.
I'm not sure if "foreign policy" is a life or death issue when the most apparent problem is getting the fire under control in your own house. Is there really a role for an "America as world policeman" in a world which more than ever is taught to look at America as the enemy?
What about the insanity displayed on a daily basis at the United Nations—shining a bright light on that intsitution and its "plans" would likely be more timely in attacting supporters to a party than defining "foreign policy". Can any sane individual pretend that the UN doesn't represent all the vile foreing countries on the planet while using that platform to undermine and detroy what was once the greatest nation on the planet?
Waylon
Pris:
We love America, and we’re taking our country back, as well as our responsibility to give you our consent when you recognize you represent us, and our freedom and as Americans.
I really appreciated this point. Regardless of whether one believes the Tea Party is a legitimate threat to the Republican/Democrat lockup, the fact that it exists at all is evidence that at least some Americans are waking up to the reality that we need to be responsible in the way we choose our leaders and that we are supposed to be holding them accountable for the way they govern.
H
James Kunstler pretty much nails it in today's column at Cluster****Nation.com:
"Don't worry folks, that sound of heavy breathing you hear is the exhalations of the big banks reviving on their IV drip lines of financial liquidity. Pretty soon, the nurses will bring them Kansas City strip steak dinners, with truffled mashed potatoes, asparagus flown in from Chile, and even a nice year-2000 Clos Du Val reserve cabernet. You - you can go down to the food pantry and get yourself some government cheese. Melt it over some ranch-style Doritos and hunker down with Fox News where a dry drunk will explain to you the morbid workings of the Trilateral Commission and how the Rockefellers are scheming to take over the National Football League for the greater glory of Karl Marx while selling your daughter to Albanian white slavers. You'll think you understand the world. You'll feel fulfilled and easy in your mind."
Big train in the tunnel and "supply side" silliness and stopping gay marriage won't make any difference at all.
It should be noted that one of the hallmarks of both the Tea Party, and Candidate Obama when he was running, was the elimination of earmarks.
As Obama learned when he got into office, the Tea Party learned this past week as well.
Both Senator McConnell and Speaker to be Boehner said there will be no permanent end to earmarks. Why?" Because as they pointed out, our people like earmarks.
Remember, it was John McCain who railed against this practice in both parties, all to no avail.
We will soon see how the Tea Party responds to this.
As for foreign policy, if the GOP retreats from this arena, as is seemingly being advanced by some of the people commenting here, they will be rejecting years of GOP international involvement for a position of isolation.
Is that what you are advocating?
Thanks everyone for your interest and your input.
Beamish, I believe McCain chose Palin to attract women and conservatives, and to energize his campaign, and she did fulfill those expectations. She was a draw to his campaign.
However, when it was over, his staff proceeded to trash her. I don't believe that was done without McCain's blessing.
Having said that, I don't see how her selection negates that McCain was a typical pecking order choice by the GOP.
If you'll remember fairly early on in the primary race McCain was said to have run out of money, yet somehow was resurrected. Money and support came from somewhere, didnt it?
It's true that foreign policy is not on the tea party agenda. The coalition in this movement is concerned with curing the disease we face from within.
Foreign policy is hugely important, and to fight this war, we need a healthy economy, and that is in peril as is our freedom at home, thanks to Obamacare.
Jingo, I agree. I don't yearn for a third party at all. My interest is taking the Republican party back to Reagan conservatism.
We have to hope cool heads prevail. This grassroots movement as it stands, is much more effective. However it doesn't hurt for the establishment to worry about it.
Ducky, I'll remind you that Move On announced in 2006, "we bought it we own it", meaning the democrat party. Looks to me like the dems have their own problems. There are rumblings that Obama's in trouble with the democrat party. How's that for infighting.
You can spin the results however you want. However, the split between the House and Senate ironically, may work to our advantage.
I have to laugh at how the dems can get hammered, and find solace in not losing more. They face losing more in two years unless they drop your Socialist agenda and vote to undo the damage which has been done.
This would not have happened to the extent it did, without the tea party movement.
Don't concern yourself with our side Ducky, your Socialist agenda has been roundly rejected. Btw, we have gained Governorships, and state legislatures as well.
That's the reality, a place you don't choose to live.
Pris
beamish: "I'd hate to discover the TP's foreign policy views align with Rand Paul's...if nominated to run for President would see me campaigning hard for Obama's re-election."
Rand Paul might not be the best of all possible choices for president, but he is thousands of miles ahead of any liberal/progressive, because they will destroy the country, after which it won't matter about foreign policy.
You need to re-think that.
"As for foreign policy, if the GOP retreats from this arena, as is seemingly being advanced by some of the people commenting here, they will be rejecting years of GOP international involvement for a position of isolation."
Dave, no one is suggesting we retreat from the arena of foreign policy. The grassroots movement is not running the government, it's engaged and involved for the purpose of influence and having our voices heard.
Conservatives have always been strong on defense, and the security of this nation. That is not in question IMO.
But, as I said in my comment, to fight a war we need a healthy economy at home, and a free people who will be engaged in our fight against the threats we face.
Pris
Duck said:
The in fighting as the right devours each other and start trying to figure out who to blame when unemployment stays high is going to be entertaining.
I rarely give credence to what Duck types in. But this time I have to say that Duck has a point.
This Congress isn't going to work economic miracles overnight.
At the moment, the right is all pumped up. But reality bites!
Now, the GOP can actually take the wind out of the Dems' sails, but not so much via legislation as running an effective ideological campaign. Can the right wing of the GOP do such a thing? That remains to be seen.
Just because the GOP did well on November 2 this year does not guarantee a win in 2012. We have a long, long way to go before the GOP is a shoo-in.
The right is certainly capable of devouring itself.
As for foreign policy, if the GOP retreats from this arena, as is seemingly being advanced by some of the people commenting here, they will be rejecting years of GOP international involvement for a position of isolation.
Isolationism isn't practical...probably isn't even possible. But there's something to be said for making a priority the putting of our own house back in order.
H
That's a fact, Heather. Howeve, we have swung so far in the direction f monopoly capitalism, state capitalism, laissez-faire - whichever you wish to call it that we had better start moving the other way soon to achieve some relief.
Personally, I think that until there is some relief in the housing market there will be no improvement in the economy. Now, the "free market"(LMAO) got us in to that mess so you have to be a real cockeyed optimist to believe the free market will get us out of it.
That's a fact, Heather. Howeve, we have swung so far in the direction f monopoly capitalism, state capitalism, laissez-faire - whichever you wish to call it that we had better start moving the other way soon to achieve some relief.
...Now, the "free market"(LMAO) got us in to that mess so you have to be a real cockeyed optimist to believe the free market will get us out of it.
Well, it appears to me that you've described another form of govt-controlled socialism.
Has not our govt been involved in regulation and manipulation of supply, demand and overall movement of goods and services for decades?
How long has it actually been since we had a genuine "free market" economy?
With that in mind, how can you blame the "free market" for the mess we currently have?
Heather
Beamish, I don't see that any freshman senator or congressman will be up for President this go 'round.
Personally, I see Marco Rubio not Rand Paul as a future Presidential contender, from what I can see now in my crystal ball. Ha,Ha.
For me, I'm not all that impressed by Rand Paul. Let's worry about that when and if that time comes.
This time around, Mitt Romney will be running, probably Newt, Paul Ryan is another possibility, and whether you like it or not, Sarah Palin may be in the mix. The rest we'll have to see. It won't be long before we know.
Good grief, there's no rest for the weary is there?
Pris
"With that in mind, how can you blame the "free market" for the mess we currently have?"
Heather, Ducky's fine with nothing to regulate government and it's control over the people. He's fine with government corruption and greed, but blames the free market for what he sees as it's greed.
What he really hates as a far leftist is profit, yet the government can waste billions and he turns a blind eye.
He doesn't understand or excuses the fact that government intervention in the mortgage boondoggle is what caused the housing collapse, and ultimately the crisis we now face.
That was due to corruption aided and abetted by our government. In fact a program of our government. In Ducky's eyes that evidently doesn't count either.
Maybe it's just the word "free" he doesn't like.
Pris
duckster the banks aren't lending because their big gov't overseers aren't letting them, their afraid of another bubble pure and simple
I know people that are having very good years in their business and they had a line of credit that they paid off and rolled over several times....despite the excellent credit history and business savvy the banks refuse to extend him credit...the bank claims it's the gubmint regulators that won't let them do it
what better way to ruin private businesses and make us more dependent on the gubmint
'free' market is right, the more the gubmint regulates the less free it is, we don't have a free market
That was due to corruption aided and abetted by our government. In fact a program of our government. In Ducky's eyes that evidently doesn't count either.
Maybe it's just the word "free" he doesn't like.
Hi Pris.
You all have a much longer history with Ducky's thinking than I do, so I'm not going to argue with you on that. Maybe Ducky doesn't trust the concept of "freedom" enough to allow people to make decisions and learn from the resulting consequences?
And, I'll admit I'm not as well-studied on some of this information as many who comment here.
Sometimes, though, Z will get a leftist visitor that says something that leaves me wondering if they are joking--or maybe that I completely misunderstood what they actually meant due to the fact that someone as ignorant as I am still fails to grasp their logic. It only seems fair to ask before writing them off...you know what I mean?
H
Mr. Cheney said the other day that Obama was a godsend to the conservative movement in this country. I suspect he’s right about that. Moreover, the GOP win last week gave new life to Ducky, who if anything, hates America with every ounce of his being. Thanks to the Tea Party organizations, Ducky has a new lease on life. If only we were allowed to export leftist slugs. Of course, this can never happen because there is no demand. I hate it when this happens.
"Maybe Ducky doesn't trust the concept of "freedom" enough to allow people to make decisions and learn from the resulting consequences?"
H, I think that sums it up pretty well.
Of couse the governing body is made up of people too. But they have the freedom and power to do us all harm, whether it's out of ignorance, political self interest, ideology, or
corruption.
Knowing this, I'll choose the American people who make their decisions as individuals, and are free to succeed or fail on their own merits and efforts.
There is no perfect system, but the founders laid out the best system for a free people.
To my way of thinking, given human nature, there is no perfection, only an attempt to provide the best system to benefit the people with the opportunity to be their own masters. We can't ask for more than that.
Pris
Pris is absolutely correct that the refusal of the GOP to be CONSERVATIVE and listen to their base cost them, then created the tea party movement.
It's time to weed the garden. If Ducky is content with an overgrown patch of freaks, fine.
Not us.
great find Z!..u bet we are not going to take this lying down and now the Leftards know it!
Oh Pris, stop a second.
Now just how did government interfere in the "free market" (LMAO)?
Did the government tell Goldman Sachs to leverage it's questionable mortgage paper at 60 to 1?
Did the government exercise any regulatory or criminal power over the ratings companies?
Did the government regulate brokers like Countrywide or Ameriquest?
Now you probably believe that the reason the housing market collapsed was because CRA mortgage recipients defaulted and the financial industry couldn't cover the loss. That's the pure stinky cheese.
In fact, Greenspan had regulatory authority and over member bank lending and didn't exercise his authority. Remember, this is the man who admitted that his belief in a self regulating market was flat out wrong and who had in the past stated he didn't believe fraud should be prosecuted since the market would deal with any fraud.
Did the Sec monitor the rating companies? No. Did Bush's crew listen to Brooksley Born when she tried to blow the whistle on the derivative situation. No.
In fact, was there any way to differentiate between "government" and Wall Street? Not much. Same old story, Kapital takes the profit and the populace absorbs the risk. Is that your idea of an ideal market?
Anyway, to the subject at hand. The more established Republican leadership (i.e. Kapital's stooges) know that Palin, Rand Paul and others are a real problem. They are pretty much insane and the infighting is going to be damaging to the right, which is fine with me and good for the country.
And Beamish, Sarah Palin will make a great President.
Barring that she doesn't quit halfway through her term to run for something else, I don't see why not. But Obama's gaining on her in executive experience, or at least what passes for it.
She made voting for McCain a bit easier in 2008, and I was already a McCain supporter in 2000 against Bush in the primaries. McCain took his 8 years during the Bush years to go left and knock himself down from a high A lifetime conservative rating to a B+ (according to the ACU) and that was enough to turn "all or nothing" conservatives against him, hence we have Obama that scores an F in both conservatism and libertarianism. How's that working out for "the movement?"
Sometimes I think conservatives love nothing more than to lose winnable elections, just to have something to snipe each other about.
I don't usually demand "ideological purity" from candidates, but I'll tell you this. If Rand Paul is the GOP's candidate for President in 2012, I'll eviscerate every "conservative" I see.
I'd rather have Obama's lackluster approach to fighting terrorism than Rand Paul's endorsing of it as something America deserved.
Rand Paul might not be the best of all possible choices for president, but he is thousands of miles ahead of any liberal/progressive, because they will destroy the country, after which it won't matter about foreign policy.
You need to re-think that.
Can you tell me one foreign policy viewpoint that the Paul's have (both Ron and Rand, it's rather doubtful son Rand's got his own mind) that would look out of place at an ANSWER rally? A Democratic Party primary? Dennis Kucinich's treehouse?
Foreign policy isn't just war. It's international trade and human rights and a whole slew of other concerns about America's role it the world.
An exceptionalist role. We didn't become the greatest nation in the world be repeating it to outselves in a mirror.
Beamish, how about starting a war with Iran. That would be good for the economy.
Palin/Snooki 2012
That would be good for the economy.
Does everything have to go back to "the economy"?
Beamish, how about starting a war with Iran. That would be good for the economy.
heh heh or we could ignore them like Obama and let them bomb Israel....
you and and Ahmadenejad ought to get a room Mr. Ducky
Beamish, how about starting a war with Iran. That would be good for the economy.
That war started in 1979. We need to stop dicking around and fight it already.
Well....Firstly the Tea Party is a movement and has no real congressional organization. Yes,a movement that I agree with but, I, in no way (and neither should you) be in direct opposition to the Republican Party. The Dems will see the divide and conquer.
Realistically, now, count the Tea Party wins and their losses then count the GOP's and compare.
I think the Tea Party's place in America is to bring new life and great ideas to the GOP. It will never be a bonafide third political party and rightfully so.
I would oppose that destruction of the political "right" arm.
If the Tea Party movement wants to be a facet of the GOP, then great. But it will never be a replacement or a direct competitor.
A Continuation of my previous post.
I live and politic in Florida and I must tell you that the GOP gave Marco Rubio a win in this state. 75% old GOP "regulars" and about 25% new right wing "awakeners".
I'm sorry but it is not logical for a certain part (Tea Party) of a political party to split off from it's mother party and make the conservative movement better.
If that becomes the goal of the Tea Party, we can hand America to the liberals on a silver platter.
I like the enthusiasm of the Tea Party but do not see it worthy of it beating it's chest and swinging through the jungle on a grape vine.
" have to laugh at how the dems can get hammered, and find solace in not losing more."
And they still have the audacity, the stupidity of blaming their failure on....we failed to communicate our message!!
On the contrary...you communicated it very well idiots.
And the country rose to your absurdities and nonsense. We rose up against the big government, less freedoms, more regulations, more taxation and the hijacking of health care vs personal choice. We read and understood much to the dismay of the idiots who claimed that "we have to pass these bills in order to find out what's in them"!
We saw your complete disregard for the people that you thought you "ruled". So...thanks for communicatying to Tea Party members, Independents and seniors who crossed over by 30% or more ( lifelong FDR adherents ) to prove that you communicated your ambitious, onerous failures to America at large.
My only hope is that the Tea Party will bury the Repub party once and for all.
Nice job, BTW, Prisc.
Rubio / West ---- 2012.
Unless of course the demrats declare that Rubio and West aren't the "right" type of minorities. Beholden to the stereotypical category of "not brown enough, not illegal, not an Oreo, not an Uncle Tom.
Bravo! And I totally and completely, positively agree with her.
Spot-on!
Beamish, Rand Paul, who seems to be your focus and nemesis, won't be the nominee in 2012. So relax.
The electorate will be wary of voting for anyone who has two years of leadership experience after the last two years of incompetence.
I'm not a purist either, but I supported true conservatives in the primaries and would vote for the lesser of two evils given no other choice. And it wouldn't be the first time I had that choice.
However I am committed to ridding ourselves of those in the Republican party who betray conservative values in the interest of going along to get along.
Democrat lite has not served us well, it has simply slowed down the train to the same place the left want's to take us.
Now, we're almost there thanks to rinos who have compromised us and this country, for their benefit at the cost of our freedom, and our children's future.
We're at a crossroads. It's decision time. Do we soften and throw up our hands or do we put our foot down and say no more?
I say no more! If we are determined to bring us back from the brink, we have to be stalwart in our pursuit for sanity and survival of our way of life.
Please Beamish, if you think that Obama's only flaw is being lackluster, you haven't been paying attention.
Pris
That backwoods candidate actually got my wife to vote in the last election Beamish, so it was a smart move in the long run.
And the GOP better understand that they are on double secret probation right now and if they don't toe the line they're gone in the primaries.
Duckling it was NOT the free market which got us into this mess. It was the GSA's aka Fannie and Freddie which got us into this mess and the Democratic party which did not allow the Bush administration to try to rein in those two 'companies'. And before you try and tell me who was in charge let me remind you that the GOP only had a majority from 2002 to 2006 and it was not a filibuster proof majority which Obama did have until the last election. Were we headed for a recession? Yes, that is the economic cycle. Should it have been this bad? Not a snowball's chance in hell. You can thank Dodd, Frank and the rest of that pack of fools for the situation we find ourselves in.
DUcky, you said "Personally, I think that until there is some relief in the housing market there will be no improvement in the economy. Now, the "free market"(LMAO) got us in to that mess so you have to be a real cockeyed optimist to believe the free market will get us out of it."
This from the man who tried to belittle me for suggesting this nightmare economy happened largely because of the housing market stupidity....and think about if your damned side hadn't maligned everything Bush said; FIVE TIMES, he said "Something better be done with Freddie and Fannie, or something BAD's going to happen" (I paraphrase, of course, but...)
Angel, this was no "FIND", this was Priscilla's writing! I commission her (ha!!)
By the way, everybody...thanks so much for your comments; I knew you'd appreciate PRiscilla's terrific post.
I want to thank Pris for her responses, too......you all really kept the ball rolling while I was gone today.
THanks for being here, thanks to Priscilla for her excellent thinking!
Please Beamish, if you think that Obama's only flaw is being lackluster, you haven't been paying attention.
I'm as zealously distrustful of anyone to the left of Goldwater and Reagan as they come, Pris. I was only comparing Obama's counter-terrorism efforts to that of past Presidents, and the prospect of a Paul Presidency (Ron or Rand) guarantees that the bottom line is that Obama would comparatively be "lackluster" counter-terrorism.
I'll take lackluster counter-terrorism over non-existent counter-terrorism. Obama make have some inscrutable formula for deciding which terrorists deserve criminal prosecution in a civilian court and which terrorists deserve a remotely launched Hellfire missile through their vehicle on a dusty road in Trashcanistan, but at least Obama is having that trigger pulled when the coin toss comes up to do so.
I don't have to remind you how very Democrat Ron Paul's foriegn policy was in the 2008 Republican primary debates. Rand Paul's foreign policy is distinguishable from that only in that it's the sequel to delusional.
I don't see a Reagan or a Goldwater in the Tea Party movement. I'm sorry, but there isn't one, or even a libertarian-conservative "fusionist" in there that comes close to attempting to be one.
And as much hating as you and others do (and did) on John McCain and the mythical "Republican Party establishment," they brought you Sarah Palin. The Tea Party didn't.
And what did Karl Rove do but speak the truth about Christine O'Donnell? He knew she was unelectable, I knew she was unelectable, anybody addicted to reality knew she was unelectable. And guess what, she was unelectable. No amount of extra help from party financing to Jesus' blessing was going to get her elected. Democrats outspent Republicans in virtually every race in the last election. Christine O'Donnell was a bad pick to run against an avowed socialist, a loss the "Tea Party movement" must eat alone, sans vitriol.
For all the noise the "Tea Party" makes about taking on the "Republican establishment" the intra-party "us vs. them" shenanigans are a turn off. The Tea Party movement does not have a monopoly on conservative views and never will, so just stop.
Pat Buchanan left the Republican Party in 1996 and "took conservatives with him." Except no conservatives noticed. Enter Pat Buchanan running for President in 2000 with Lenora Fulani at his side, who's about as conservative as Madeline Albright is sexy.
That's the future of "Tea Party" noisemaking. The Republican Party may not always be the choice of the Tea Party movement, but it will always be the choice of conservatives.
Welcome back into the trenches. Now shut up and pass the ammo.
Sorry,
The financial noose around America'a noose around the neck WAS caused by free trade and the Union's greed that ran all our manufacturing out of the country.
The US Government should never guarantee anyone's debt. Fannie and Freddie should have a great status change and not be regulatory in nature, possibly needing to be dissolved. They actually serve no purpose. All banking should be de-regulated except for the FDIC.
The financial noose around America'a noose around the neck WAS caused by free trade and the Union's greed that ran all our manufacturing out of the country.
Don't forget "entitlement mentality" whereby many lazy Americans figured out they don't actually have to work for a living when they can line up for "free" govt handouts.
And how is Unionism practice of "free trade"? That looks more like organized crime and is a result of abuse of our system, not the system itself.
You can't blame "free trade" for the economic problems if there was a secondary contributing factor.
H
That's the future of "Tea Party" noisemaking. The Republican Party may not always be the choice of the Tea Party movement, but it will always be the choice of conservatives.
Interesting.
A couple months before the election, we got a forwarded e-mail that basically posed the same position. The main point was that if disenchanted conservatives start breaking off and forming splinter protest groups, it would cement the governing power of liberal/leftists in our country. The proposed solution was for these groups to flood the Rep. party in order to get a foot back in the door and (hopefully) effect positive reform of the party itself.
Heather
Beamish, did I say the tea party movement has a candidate for President? No, I didn't.
It's a movement, not a third Party, nor do I want it to be.
I really don't get your obsession about the Pauls. Neither of them is Presidential material as far as I'm concerned. Mainly, they are both rather dour, uninteresting, and unimpressive.
Politically speaking, they don't present themselves well, and seem aloof.
I don't hate McCain. I voted for him. I just don't think he was a great candidate for President, and he wasn't. It was "his turn", and that's a criticism of the GOP establishment. That reality you call a myth.
You could be right about O'Donnell, however, if you're right, how in the hell did she beat Castle?
She did not get the backing from the GOP she needed after she won the primary, nor did Castle endorse her, which btw he had said he would do. She was left high and dry, trashed, and on her own.
I'm done Beamish. I've said enough. The Pauls are your worry not mine. Neither will be President as far as I can see, and I think it's a waste of time to dicker over it.
Pris
The gubmint is paying banks to hold on to their reserve cash, normally that's what is lent out. So the banks are holding on to that money knowing that the gubmint will pay them interest. They're also not lending money because of oppresive government policies and the insecurity of those policies.
it's not 'free' trade that's the problem it's the gubmint.
Same way with foreclosures. The banks are being guaranteed their losses on foreclosures, money they can't make on modifications. So the banks make few modifications, foreclose, reap the benefit of government guarantees and then resell the property. The losers here are the homeownders and the taxpayers. The gubmint gets to blame stingy banks and all the while they're in bed together giving us all a stiffy.
And how is Unionism practice of "free trade"? That looks more like organized crime and is a result of abuse of our system, not the system itself.
Amen to that. My union is nothing more then a bunch of thugs, sent out occasionally to protect the slugs, get mgt. to pay us more for doing less and extorting my union dues.
I did much better on my own, based on my performance. Now, thanks to the union I'm on a fixed income.
Amen to that. My union is nothing more then a bunch of thugs, sent out occasionally to protect the slugs, get mgt. to pay us more for doing less and extorting my union dues.
I did much better on my own, based on my performance. Now, thanks to the union I'm on a fixed income.
I don't know why Blogger wouldn't let me comment with my account earlier, but I think you illustrated my point.
Every time I see "free trade" blamed for our financial difficulties, it has been in connection with some form of corruption--either from the private sector or govt. I'd like to see an example of how free trade on it's own is the actual problem, but I'm not sure how far back in our history we'd need to go in order to get a picture of pure "free trade" in action.
H
elbro..good information. But it kinda makes me sick, this crap union influence.xx
Pris,
I don't get this "his turn" crap you're saying about McCain and a "Republican establishment." He won the primary delegates to become the party's nominee. It probably didn't hurt that his campaign manager from 2000 was in the running as well (Fred Thompson, hardly a liberal) and "America's mayor" Rudy Guiliani was solidly behind McCain as an alternate to himself well before he dropped out of the primaries.
At the end, we had McCain, with a solidly conservative career record despite going wobbly in recent years. We had Mitt Romney, who's accomplishments as Governor of Massofstupids were gay marriage legitimization and the testbed pilot program of Obamacare. And we had Mike Huckabee, who's accomplishments were raising taxes in Arkansas high enough to make them wish Clinton was still around not taxing them so much.
McCain was the clear choice when the field winnowed down to three. If there's a "Republican establishment" it's conservatives themselves.
Considering all the sniping of McCain FROM conservative circles during his candidacy for President, over campaign finance reform and immigration, you'd think we'd nominated the Devil.
Which is why we got the Messiah.
All I'm saying is leave something for the opposition to attack. This sniping at the "Republican establishment" and militant talk of "taking back the party" isn't going to serve the Tea Party well. You all have played your card early. And it's tired. You're fair weather. If you don't like how things are going, you're going to bolt so the worse alternative, the unabashedly left-wing Democrats get power.
How much more party support for Christine O'Donnell would have magically transformed her from a undeniably horrible candidate? Virtually no Republicans in the last election had the amounts of money of their opponents. Democrats across the board outspent Republican campaigns by double or more. And still most Republicans won their races.
And that evil "Republican establishment" guy, Karl Rove, raised more money for Republican candidates in the last election, "Tea Party" candidates included, than any other TP fundraisers all combined. Sarah Palin pulled in a lot of cash for the GOP, but not nearly as much as Karl Rove.
The "Republican establishment" the TP wants to badmouth did their part. Sorry Christine O'Donnell was unelectable in liberal Delaware. But she was. There's no way to alter that.
If you don't want to be on the team, then don't be. But don't strut in on a high horse barking orders in a perfect storm environment when even Democrats are turning against their own and expect consideration that the TP movement tipped the balance in favor of Republicans.
No, a taste of pungent leftism in the form of Obama did that. You know, the President we got because the weather was bad and "Tea Partiers" stayed home.
I'm not aiming this specifically at you, Pris, just the Tea PArty in general. Sober up, there's work to do.
We now return to your regularly scheduled ideological conflicts, already in progress.
Post a Comment