ContrairiMairi of Chi-town just sent me this e-mail:
Honestly, Mitchell, I think we MUST look outside BOTH parties! I do not trust ANYONE on an inside track that either party will endorse right now.....The rhetoric during election cycles all sounds so wonderful....then BAM! Once they are in office, the hierarchy pull all the strings!
I think if the Tea Party Movement is going to be ABSOLUTELY successful, we MUST disassociate from ANY and all candidates running on a Dem or Repub ticket. That is going to put a ton of pressure on the Libertarian and Constitution Party candidates, but I believe it is THE ONLY WAY! Repubs and Dems MUST be taken to their knees.
Look what happened with Brown in Massachusetts. I DID contribute, but only to send a message to D.C., "You're next!" But what really changed? Brown is a RINO from the get-go. His term will be an abbreviated version, and I can live with that for now.....but if we REALLY want America and The Constitution back, then ALL DemocRATic and Republican sponsored candidates MUST be refused!
I believe we MUST make a list of focused demands. Once that list is compiled, we MUST make candidates sign a pledge to adhere to it. If they do, they will be supported by the Tea Party Movement, grassroots, NO big-money backers......the people know how to, and WILL, spread the word.....it's already underway.....
I think the information I sent you previously form the Thomas Jefferson Center is an EXCELLENT place to start. The one thing I feel badly that they have not included, is a DEMAND that all candidates PLEDGE to rid this Country of illegal aliens. They must also pledge that there will be no such thing as an "anchor baby"......any mother who illegally enters this Country to deliver, passes her crime on to the child.....baby shall NOT be eligible for citizenship and BOTH will be thrown out summarily! The arrangement shall be retroactive......no baby born here by a mother entering illegally should EVER have been considered a citizen. Only babies born to individuals here on a legal basis shall have that distinction!
Not sure what you will think, but we have GOT to get smart in this Country, and quit standing back wringing our hands and complaining. We have to INSIST on REAL applications to already existing laws. We have enough laws already to keep us busy....time to roll up our sleeves and get the hard work done.
E-verify MUST find and remove the illegals here.
GOD Bless,
airi
Friday, February 12, 2010
A Dem-GOP Split is Preferable to a Bush-Like Palin
The recent election of Scott Brown has two sides. The good side is that it amounted to a rejection of the destructive Obama-Democratic health bill. The bad side is that Brown turned out to be a Progressive. For how long have the Republican rank and file been falling for this? The Democrats produce toxic policies, and in reaction the Republicans support politicians who are committed to maintaining the Democratic policies. This kind of self-destructive stupidity has become so habitual that now a supporter of government sponsored health care in Massachusetts is hailed as a savior.
The Tea Party has demonstrated that it is capable of perpetuation of the Progressive habit. Hence, there is no large-scale voice in America for small government. There is a chance that the Tea Party can be influenced in a libertarian direction, but I do not see any backbone or leadership that would be necessary to reject the nasty GOP national leadership. The Tea Party's connection to Fox News, an integral part of the current tax-and-spend establishment, is evidence enough. Their applause for bailout supporters like Sarah Pailin also gives pause. Let us hope things can be turned around. I am not convinced.
I think the best that libertarians can do at this point in time is support the GOP at the local level and sit out the presidential election. A split with the Republicans controlling the Senate or hopefully both houses and a Democratic president, especially a joke like Obama, is preferable to the GOP controlling both branches. The chief downside is Democratic access to the Supreme Court. But the author of the New London v. Kelo decision, John Paul Stevens, was a Ford appointee (he goes back to 1975). The decision, which gave government the right to steal homes from private citizens, was passed in a court that was 7 Republican, 2 Democratic. As Mike Heuss wrote of New London v. Kelo:
"The Supreme Court is made up 9 individuals. Of those nine people, all but two are life-long Republicans: Appointed by Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr. Of the two Democrats on the Supreme Court Ginsburg is typically considered a moderate and so is Stephen Breyer.
"In truth, nationwide, the Republicans have placed more judges in all levels of the federal judiciary. So when I hear a Limbaugh / O'Reilly blowhard scream about activist judges, I recognize the spin and chuckle. They are saying "Maybe if I talk loud enough and label them all liberal, the Democrats will get blamed instead of us."
Thus, I don't think the GOP has made much difference for good at the presidential level. Libertarians might begin to think of the advantages of a GOP-led Senate and a Democratic president. There would be gridlock, hence government would considerably slow down. Partisan squabbling would be much preferable to what Bush did, such as the horrifying prescription drug law.
Gridlock sounds good to me. Better than seeing the national Tea Party played for a bunch of patsies with a Bush-like Palin in the White House. As well, it is more likely that the Tea Party can be influenced in a libertarian direction at the local level.
The Tea Party has demonstrated that it is capable of perpetuation of the Progressive habit. Hence, there is no large-scale voice in America for small government. There is a chance that the Tea Party can be influenced in a libertarian direction, but I do not see any backbone or leadership that would be necessary to reject the nasty GOP national leadership. The Tea Party's connection to Fox News, an integral part of the current tax-and-spend establishment, is evidence enough. Their applause for bailout supporters like Sarah Pailin also gives pause. Let us hope things can be turned around. I am not convinced.
I think the best that libertarians can do at this point in time is support the GOP at the local level and sit out the presidential election. A split with the Republicans controlling the Senate or hopefully both houses and a Democratic president, especially a joke like Obama, is preferable to the GOP controlling both branches. The chief downside is Democratic access to the Supreme Court. But the author of the New London v. Kelo decision, John Paul Stevens, was a Ford appointee (he goes back to 1975). The decision, which gave government the right to steal homes from private citizens, was passed in a court that was 7 Republican, 2 Democratic. As Mike Heuss wrote of New London v. Kelo:
"The Supreme Court is made up 9 individuals. Of those nine people, all but two are life-long Republicans: Appointed by Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr. Of the two Democrats on the Supreme Court Ginsburg is typically considered a moderate and so is Stephen Breyer.
"In truth, nationwide, the Republicans have placed more judges in all levels of the federal judiciary. So when I hear a Limbaugh / O'Reilly blowhard scream about activist judges, I recognize the spin and chuckle. They are saying "Maybe if I talk loud enough and label them all liberal, the Democrats will get blamed instead of us."
Thus, I don't think the GOP has made much difference for good at the presidential level. Libertarians might begin to think of the advantages of a GOP-led Senate and a Democratic president. There would be gridlock, hence government would considerably slow down. Partisan squabbling would be much preferable to what Bush did, such as the horrifying prescription drug law.
Gridlock sounds good to me. Better than seeing the national Tea Party played for a bunch of patsies with a Bush-like Palin in the White House. As well, it is more likely that the Tea Party can be influenced in a libertarian direction at the local level.
Has the Tea Party Become a Drag?
I just submitted this post at the RLC website:
I was reviewing Sarah Palin’s speech at the Tea Party convention on Youtube and was reminded of her position on the 2008 bailout. In a September 24, 2008 television interview Palin supported the bailout. But at the recent Tea Party convention she objected to bonuses that the support she had previously advocated made possible. I think the expression is that she has been shedding conservative crocodile tears.
Conservatives love to hate Saul Alinsky but in fact all activists, conservative, libertarian or left-wing, follow his advice if they aim to succeed. One of Alinsky’s rules for radicals is that a tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. This seems to be occurring with the Tea Party.
A reader suggested this blog by the Alantic Magazine’s Andrew Sullivan. Sullivan argues that the Tea Party convention was not economically conservative but was rather dominated by Christian activists. Sullivan writes:
“They have no plans to cut serious spending whatsoever. They love their Medicare, as they screamed at us last August. Do you remember them revolting against Bush’s unfunded, Medicare prescription drug bill, the worst act of fiscal vandalism since the Iraq war?”
I have attended my local Tea Party meeting in Kingston, New York. I do recall others, besides myself, talking about economic issues. One individual brought up the exit of manufacturing from the US, another talked about corruption in government. There are frequent references to the nation becoming worse for future generations. These are all good signs and say to me that the Tea Party has potential left.
Since the Atlantic is not a libertarian source (disclaimer: I read it regularly more than a quarter century ago and not since) my gut would be suspicious of anything its writers have to say about the Tea Party. However, Sullivan makes a good point.
It was obvious from the beginning that the Tea Party rank and file is largely inexperienced. Moreover, these are people who have developed a bad habit of voting for big government candidates who say that they are for small government. They did it for George W. Bush and they did it for George H. Bush. They nominated John McCain, who lept at the bailout like a terrier at a steak, along with Palin and Obama. The Tea Party people realize that something has gone wrong after decades of their de facto support for big government and their solution is…to do the same thing once again. This is seen in their decision to ask John McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin, to be the keynote speaker at their convention. Palin may speak economic conservative rhetoric at times, but she is not schooled in basic economics and can be seen in the September 2008 interview to be in the Progressive tradition.
I believe that libertarians need to work with the Christian right. However, we have been hammered once before, with respect to George W. Bush. The tactic of working with the Tea Party has helped expose our views, and it has been successful. But should libertarians continue to support the Tea Party? I am not certain that the leadership of the Tea Party supports our mission of limited government. Sarah Palin does not. I don’t think she understands that government activism in the bailout is logically inconsistent with support for limited government. The Tea Party may soon become a drag.
I was reviewing Sarah Palin’s speech at the Tea Party convention on Youtube and was reminded of her position on the 2008 bailout. In a September 24, 2008 television interview Palin supported the bailout. But at the recent Tea Party convention she objected to bonuses that the support she had previously advocated made possible. I think the expression is that she has been shedding conservative crocodile tears.
Conservatives love to hate Saul Alinsky but in fact all activists, conservative, libertarian or left-wing, follow his advice if they aim to succeed. One of Alinsky’s rules for radicals is that a tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. This seems to be occurring with the Tea Party.
A reader suggested this blog by the Alantic Magazine’s Andrew Sullivan. Sullivan argues that the Tea Party convention was not economically conservative but was rather dominated by Christian activists. Sullivan writes:
“They have no plans to cut serious spending whatsoever. They love their Medicare, as they screamed at us last August. Do you remember them revolting against Bush’s unfunded, Medicare prescription drug bill, the worst act of fiscal vandalism since the Iraq war?”
I have attended my local Tea Party meeting in Kingston, New York. I do recall others, besides myself, talking about economic issues. One individual brought up the exit of manufacturing from the US, another talked about corruption in government. There are frequent references to the nation becoming worse for future generations. These are all good signs and say to me that the Tea Party has potential left.
Since the Atlantic is not a libertarian source (disclaimer: I read it regularly more than a quarter century ago and not since) my gut would be suspicious of anything its writers have to say about the Tea Party. However, Sullivan makes a good point.
It was obvious from the beginning that the Tea Party rank and file is largely inexperienced. Moreover, these are people who have developed a bad habit of voting for big government candidates who say that they are for small government. They did it for George W. Bush and they did it for George H. Bush. They nominated John McCain, who lept at the bailout like a terrier at a steak, along with Palin and Obama. The Tea Party people realize that something has gone wrong after decades of their de facto support for big government and their solution is…to do the same thing once again. This is seen in their decision to ask John McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin, to be the keynote speaker at their convention. Palin may speak economic conservative rhetoric at times, but she is not schooled in basic economics and can be seen in the September 2008 interview to be in the Progressive tradition.
I believe that libertarians need to work with the Christian right. However, we have been hammered once before, with respect to George W. Bush. The tactic of working with the Tea Party has helped expose our views, and it has been successful. But should libertarians continue to support the Tea Party? I am not certain that the leadership of the Tea Party supports our mission of limited government. Sarah Palin does not. I don’t think she understands that government activism in the bailout is logically inconsistent with support for limited government. The Tea Party may soon become a drag.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
When It Mattered, Sarah Palin Supported Big Government
September 24, 2008
Last week: "While people on Main Street look for jobs, people on Wall Street — they’re collecting billions and billions in your bailout bonuses." EconomyCollapse.blogspot.com notes:
"Further, in traveling to Texas to stump for incumbent Governor Rick Perry after speaking under the Tea Party Nation banner, Palin is slighting the one real tea party candidate running in Texas-- a rising Debra Medina who is insistent on shaking up the status quo and triumphing over party stooges Perry & Hutchinson."
Has Sarah Palin undergone a major intellectual transformation since fall 2008? Has she read Ludwig von Mises's Theory of Money and Credit? Or is she just yanking the Tea Party's chain.
February 6, 2010 (about 8 minutes in)
I find Alex Jones's emphasis on conspiracy theories to be far fetched, and he is too harsh about Palin. But he is right that unless the Tea Party can find a candidate who opposes the bailout for intelligible reasons, it is an abject failure.
Last week: "While people on Main Street look for jobs, people on Wall Street — they’re collecting billions and billions in your bailout bonuses." EconomyCollapse.blogspot.com notes:
"Further, in traveling to Texas to stump for incumbent Governor Rick Perry after speaking under the Tea Party Nation banner, Palin is slighting the one real tea party candidate running in Texas-- a rising Debra Medina who is insistent on shaking up the status quo and triumphing over party stooges Perry & Hutchinson."
Has Sarah Palin undergone a major intellectual transformation since fall 2008? Has she read Ludwig von Mises's Theory of Money and Credit? Or is she just yanking the Tea Party's chain.
February 6, 2010 (about 8 minutes in)
I find Alex Jones's emphasis on conspiracy theories to be far fetched, and he is too harsh about Palin. But he is right that unless the Tea Party can find a candidate who opposes the bailout for intelligible reasons, it is an abject failure.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
