The Republican Party, under the butt clown Boehner looks to waffling by agreeing to tax increases furthering the ire and subsequent wrath of Americans, or at least those Americans with American values.
Cowboys and the Tea Party political movement have a lot on common. Both believe in individual responsibility; judging a man by his actions not words; and, both are disgusted with government intrusions into our lives and particularly our God given rights.
Showing posts with label Tea Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tea Party. Show all posts
Monday, December 10, 2012
Tea Party Revival
Grover Nordquist Predicts Second Tea Party Wave which is a no-brainer considerating how out of control the Federal Government is with spending (and wasting) taxpayers money and having the audacity to ask for even more taxes!!
The Republican Party, under the butt clown Boehner looks to waffling by agreeing to tax increases furthering the ire and subsequent wrath of Americans, or at least those Americans with American values.
The Republican Party, under the butt clown Boehner looks to waffling by agreeing to tax increases furthering the ire and subsequent wrath of Americans, or at least those Americans with American values.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Not Our RNC Convention
They are being excluded from speaking roles at the Republican National Convention.
The 2012 Republican National Convention has begun to announce keynote speakers and many prominent Tea Party leaders are noticeably absent from the list - Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Gov. Rick Perry, Donald Trump and even Sarah Palin.
The RNC's blatant attempt to silence TEA PARTY voices and ignore the historic success of the Tea Party since 2009 is not only outrageous -- it threatens to had this election to Barack Obama and further bankrupt our country. Fellow Patriots our job is far from finished -- it's just beginning!
"Yes! I want our Tea Party leaders to speak at the Convention!" Sign this petition to tell the Republican National Convention they must reverse this decision and add our national Tea Party leaders on the speaker list. We must act quickly to ensure that Tea Party activists and conservatives from across the country will be represented on the stages of the Republican National Convention in less than two weeks!
Friday, August 3, 2012
Random Venting
Will Holder Prosecute or even investigate Jon Corzine? Fat Chance of that. With Holder and the Obama Administration going after Conservatives States,..first suing States who are trying to fix the illegal alien issue and secondly suing the states who are trying to solve voter fraud, Holder has no time to investigate or prosecute crimes such as Corzine stealing money from investors or Black militants intimidating voters. I find it funny that the Black Militants only chose locations where elderly white people voted as opposed to trying to intimidate voters in states like Texas, or Arizona or Montana, or Wyoming,....or Alabama, etc.
Ted Cruz and the Tea Party Victorious in Texas Republican Senate Run Off Election. The Tea Party, yet again, showed it's grass roots strength by Ted Cruz winning the run off election against David Dewhurst an entrenched old school Republican in the Republican stronghold of Texas. So all those Liberal and Rhino declarations that the Tea Party is dead are vastly over stated and in fact, totally wrong. And what is telling is that Cruz won by such a large margin,.....56 % to 44%, even though he was outspent $24 million to $9 million.
More Legacy Media Bias demonstrated in the news reports about Anne Romney's and Michelle Obama's clothing. First we had the Legacy Media, also known as the Mainstream Media or Obama's fifth Column, beating up Anne Romney because she was wearing a $900 blouse,...."Oh, she is so out of touch with middle class America by wearing and flaunting that expensive item of clothing,...shame on her."........ Contrast that with the Media reporting on Michelle Obama wearing a $8,600 shirt/vest,...."Oh, Michelle sets a high bar for style,.....oh, her arms are so toned,.....". Come on, even you Liberals have to see that the media is so slanted towards Democrats, that they may as well get paid by the DNC. Well, ......maybe they are.
Facebook Poll on Welfare Do you think welfare recipients should be drug tested?
Yes: 168,439 (94%)
No: 7,575 ( 4%)
Don't Know: 2,724 (2%)
Ted Cruz and the Tea Party Victorious in Texas Republican Senate Run Off Election. The Tea Party, yet again, showed it's grass roots strength by Ted Cruz winning the run off election against David Dewhurst an entrenched old school Republican in the Republican stronghold of Texas. So all those Liberal and Rhino declarations that the Tea Party is dead are vastly over stated and in fact, totally wrong. And what is telling is that Cruz won by such a large margin,.....56 % to 44%, even though he was outspent $24 million to $9 million.
More Legacy Media Bias demonstrated in the news reports about Anne Romney's and Michelle Obama's clothing. First we had the Legacy Media, also known as the Mainstream Media or Obama's fifth Column, beating up Anne Romney because she was wearing a $900 blouse,...."Oh, she is so out of touch with middle class America by wearing and flaunting that expensive item of clothing,...shame on her."........ Contrast that with the Media reporting on Michelle Obama wearing a $8,600 shirt/vest,...."Oh, Michelle sets a high bar for style,.....oh, her arms are so toned,.....". Come on, even you Liberals have to see that the media is so slanted towards Democrats, that they may as well get paid by the DNC. Well, ......maybe they are.
Facebook Poll on Welfare Do you think welfare recipients should be drug tested?
Yes: 168,439 (94%)
No: 7,575 ( 4%)
Don't Know: 2,724 (2%)
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Tea Party Battle in Texas over Senate Seat
We'll soon see just how far the Tea Party has come with the Texas Republican Primary for retiring Kay Bailey Hutchison's Senate seat. Current Deputy Governor David Dewhurst is thought to be in the lead and has the most name recognition, but Tea Party favorite Ted Cruz, former Texas Solicitor General is right behind him.
Cruz has probably got his momentum from several things, but the standing environment of general distrust of the old party politicians who sole goal seems to be to get re-elected and the bad economic straight they have put this coutnry in with the debt and tanking economy,....I know, I know most of this is the fault of the Democrats, but failure of congress to get anything done makes both parties look terrible,......what? a 8% approval rating for congress?
Cruz enjoys another bump with the endorsements of Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum, as well as the Tea Party apparatus in Texas. While Dewhurst has Governor Rick Perry standing firmly behind him. This will be an interesting race and there are several other candidates (foprmer Dallas Mayor Leppert and former NFL Craig James) in the mix, that could siphon of votes for Dewhurst and Cruz and lead to a run off between the two largest vote getters prior to the November elections.
On the surface, the candidate list for the GOP seems to make it look like we has a depth of good candidates as opposed to the ballot for anyplace who has Nancy Pelosi, Schumer, Barney Frank and Harry Reid types on it. Can't you just see Democrats voters holding their nose when they pull the lever for any of those clowns? But the tight race in the Texas Republican Senate primary is not such a good thing when it seemingly forces the canddiates to butcher each other in ads and speeches. I think we'l all tired of this. Lay out who you are, what you stand for, and what your legislative priorities will be and let the people decide. The negative campaigning, as we can see from the Republican Presidental primaries just hurt the candidate with all voters.
Cruz enjoys another bump with the endorsements of Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum, as well as the Tea Party apparatus in Texas. While Dewhurst has Governor Rick Perry standing firmly behind him. This will be an interesting race and there are several other candidates (foprmer Dallas Mayor Leppert and former NFL Craig James) in the mix, that could siphon of votes for Dewhurst and Cruz and lead to a run off between the two largest vote getters prior to the November elections.
On the surface, the candidate list for the GOP seems to make it look like we has a depth of good candidates as opposed to the ballot for anyplace who has Nancy Pelosi, Schumer, Barney Frank and Harry Reid types on it. Can't you just see Democrats voters holding their nose when they pull the lever for any of those clowns? But the tight race in the Texas Republican Senate primary is not such a good thing when it seemingly forces the canddiates to butcher each other in ads and speeches. I think we'l all tired of this. Lay out who you are, what you stand for, and what your legislative priorities will be and let the people decide. The negative campaigning, as we can see from the Republican Presidental primaries just hurt the candidate with all voters.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Who said the Tea Party is Dead?
Richard Mourdock, state treasurer R-IN, beat incumbent six term Senator Richard Lugar R-IN, 60% to 39% for the 2012 Republican candidate for Senate in Indiana. This was not just a win,....this was a butt whooping. Lugar is the same, less-than-conservative-big-government Senator who was re-elected to his sixth six-year term with over 87% of the vote.
The Tea Party movement within the state of Indiana, as well as Nationally, made a tremendous statement with the nomination of Mourdock. This should answer the question, at least in Indiana, if the Tea Party is going to be the players they were in the historical 2010 election where there was a 60+ shift in seats from Democrats to Republicans in the house.
Democrats are running so scared in Indiana that Harry Reid D-NV, Senate Speaker, has dropped money into the race on behalf of the Democratic candidate, whose names doesn't matter as their politics are all the same,...bad for this country.
Watch the video below as Real News discussing the race and repercussions on the national scene.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Mike Lee - Fighting for the Constitution
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) is a gem. He continually stands up to the seemingly daily attacks upon the U.S. Constitution by the Obama Administration.
Senator Lee is currently co-sponsoring a bill to make the Obama Administration, and future Administrations, Democrat or Republican, have to seek Congressional approval for any regulations formed through the Departments, like the EPA, that have more than a $100 million effect on the national economy as determined by the GAO.
This is a welcome and much needed change, as Obama directs his administration to legislate through their implied regulatory authority as opposed of going through the People's representatives in Congress. What has transpired is hundreds of regulations that are choking our economy and individual/states rights.....
He is also looking to scale back the federal government's control over federally owned land within a state. Just this week Lee introduced a bill in the Senate that would require the federal government to seek approval from a state legislature prior to making a federal land designation in that state. Such designations could include classifying an area as a national park, national monument or national recreation area.
"Too often, the federal government ignores the people's rights to determine for themselves how best to utilize their own land," Lee said in a statement announcing the bill's introduction. "States with smaller populations, like Utah, end up with only a limited voice in Congress. The process should include greater protections for states and local communities against unwanted and often economically damaging decisions."
The bill comes on the heels of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar dedicating two new conservation areas in southern Utah this week. The areas are a result of a bill that passed through Congress in 2009 sponsored by Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, and Lee's predecessor, Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah. Had Lee's proposal been in place then, the state Legislature would have had to sign off on the land designations.
The proposal also would have an effect on the president's ability to use the Antiquities Act to designate areas of federally owned land as national monuments. President Bill Clinton designated a portion of southern Utah as a monument via the act in 1996. Under Lee's proposal the president would need approval from the state legislature before the president's actions become permanent.
In the video below, Senator Lee appears before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, testifying against President Obama's unconstitutional appointments to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the National Labor Relations Board. Mike Lee is a first term Senator and rising star in the Republican party and Tea Party community. It gives me hope to see Legislators like him, Allan West, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and a few others.
This is a welcome and much needed change, as Obama directs his administration to legislate through their implied regulatory authority as opposed of going through the People's representatives in Congress. What has transpired is hundreds of regulations that are choking our economy and individual/states rights.....
He is also looking to scale back the federal government's control over federally owned land within a state. Just this week Lee introduced a bill in the Senate that would require the federal government to seek approval from a state legislature prior to making a federal land designation in that state. Such designations could include classifying an area as a national park, national monument or national recreation area.
"Too often, the federal government ignores the people's rights to determine for themselves how best to utilize their own land," Lee said in a statement announcing the bill's introduction. "States with smaller populations, like Utah, end up with only a limited voice in Congress. The process should include greater protections for states and local communities against unwanted and often economically damaging decisions."
The bill comes on the heels of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar dedicating two new conservation areas in southern Utah this week. The areas are a result of a bill that passed through Congress in 2009 sponsored by Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, and Lee's predecessor, Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah. Had Lee's proposal been in place then, the state Legislature would have had to sign off on the land designations.
The proposal also would have an effect on the president's ability to use the Antiquities Act to designate areas of federally owned land as national monuments. President Bill Clinton designated a portion of southern Utah as a monument via the act in 1996. Under Lee's proposal the president would need approval from the state legislature before the president's actions become permanent.
In the video below, Senator Lee appears before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, testifying against President Obama's unconstitutional appointments to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the National Labor Relations Board. Mike Lee is a first term Senator and rising star in the Republican party and Tea Party community. It gives me hope to see Legislators like him, Allan West, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and a few others.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Tea Party Targets Republican Old Guard?
From an ABC news article posted on Yahoo! News, we "learn" of a Tea Party Republican Hit List for 2012 , supposoedly targeting "moderate" Republicans. The article, short as it is in length, is immediatley below, followed by comments:
Spinners and Winners
In Texas, conservative Ted Cruz is looking for a Marco Rubio-esque victory. Like Rubio, Cruz came out of nowhere to challenge an established Republican candidate for the Senate nomination.
The similarities are striking: Rubio's father came from Cuba to the U.S. in 1958 and got a job as a bartender; Cruz's father came from Cuba in 1957 and got a job washing dishes; Rubio is 40, Cruz is 41; Rubio took on a powerful governor, Cruz is taking on a powerful lieutenant governor.
Ted Cruz is the whole package, says Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks, a conservative group with links to the Tea Party. "He's got the values, he's got the resume of someone that has always fought for these ideas, he's got the charisma, and he's willing to burn a little shoe leather getting elected and it's got to be that combination." Cruz has already raised $4 million - a staggering sum for an underdog.
Conservative activists are also trying to topple Senators Orrin Hatch and Richard Lugar, the two most senior Republicans in the Senate. In Indiana, State Treasurer Richard Mourdock is looking to take down Lugar. Over in Utah, recently resigned State Senator Dan Liljenquist is trying to topple Hatch.
These battles pit Republican against Republican, which have the potential to hurt the party's chances of taking back the Senate.
"Well sometimes you got to clean house," said Kibbe. "Sometimes you got to bring in new energy. If you have a firm that's failing, sometimes you go to bring in new management, new ideas, that's what we're doing."
It's a Tea Party's power test, whether any of these three end up in the U.S. Senate.
Cowboy's comments: I'll have to admit when I first stumbled across the title to this article I expected some Bull Crap from ABC about Republicans tearing the party apart, etc. Actually, it's a benign article, however it is now really a test of the Tea Partie's power to elect new comers over estabished Republicans icons. It will be more a test of the People's will to save the country across the entire country. But for one thing the Republican Party is not timid in brusing debates between candidates so the people can tell their stances apart on the issues and get the measure of the candidate.
In the on-line version, at the time I read the article there were over 4,200 comments and not surprisingly most of them were comments like, "through all the bums out", "what about term limits for everyone?",
"All the Parties need to be cleaned up! Corruption is the norm now", "Career politicians are the ones that caused this mess!" and hands down my favorite, which sums up what I wanted to say in the first
place,. ......"There are term limits in any society such as ours. It is called get off your butt and vote." - thanks to RD from Buckfield, Maine.
Spinners and Winners
In Texas, conservative Ted Cruz is looking for a Marco Rubio-esque victory. Like Rubio, Cruz came out of nowhere to challenge an established Republican candidate for the Senate nomination.
The similarities are striking: Rubio's father came from Cuba to the U.S. in 1958 and got a job as a bartender; Cruz's father came from Cuba in 1957 and got a job washing dishes; Rubio is 40, Cruz is 41; Rubio took on a powerful governor, Cruz is taking on a powerful lieutenant governor.
Ted Cruz is the whole package, says Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks, a conservative group with links to the Tea Party. "He's got the values, he's got the resume of someone that has always fought for these ideas, he's got the charisma, and he's willing to burn a little shoe leather getting elected and it's got to be that combination." Cruz has already raised $4 million - a staggering sum for an underdog.
Conservative activists are also trying to topple Senators Orrin Hatch and Richard Lugar, the two most senior Republicans in the Senate. In Indiana, State Treasurer Richard Mourdock is looking to take down Lugar. Over in Utah, recently resigned State Senator Dan Liljenquist is trying to topple Hatch.
These battles pit Republican against Republican, which have the potential to hurt the party's chances of taking back the Senate.
"Well sometimes you got to clean house," said Kibbe. "Sometimes you got to bring in new energy. If you have a firm that's failing, sometimes you go to bring in new management, new ideas, that's what we're doing."
It's a Tea Party's power test, whether any of these three end up in the U.S. Senate.
Cowboy's comments: I'll have to admit when I first stumbled across the title to this article I expected some Bull Crap from ABC about Republicans tearing the party apart, etc. Actually, it's a benign article, however it is now really a test of the Tea Partie's power to elect new comers over estabished Republicans icons. It will be more a test of the People's will to save the country across the entire country. But for one thing the Republican Party is not timid in brusing debates between candidates so the people can tell their stances apart on the issues and get the measure of the candidate.
In the on-line version, at the time I read the article there were over 4,200 comments and not surprisingly most of them were comments like, "through all the bums out", "what about term limits for everyone?",
"All the Parties need to be cleaned up! Corruption is the norm now", "Career politicians are the ones that caused this mess!" and hands down my favorite, which sums up what I wanted to say in the first
place,. ......"There are term limits in any society such as ours. It is called get off your butt and vote." - thanks to RD from Buckfield, Maine.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
The Public Likes Herman Cain's Message
Over this past weekend I was talking to several different people about county and city politics when the discussion turned to national politics. In a group of six people (myself, a school teacher, a technical college instructor, a state highway patrol officer, an office manager and a commercial construction company supervisor) all of us agreed that Herman Cain was the best candidate that has surfaced to lead this country. Two of these people even admitted they had voted for Obama!
A recent article from the internet says Herman Cain is firing up the crowd, all over the country, at a tea party and other rallies. In one West Tennessee town, Cain was speaking when the generator powering his sound system shudders to a halt.
Cain stands awkwardly for a few moments then suddenly begins to sing. Slowly at first but gaining in speed, he belts out "Impossible Dream" in the rich baritone he's honed in church choir. "You know, when it's your rally, you can do what you want to do!" Cain says as he finishes with a raucous laugh. The 500 or so supporters who have jammed the strip mall parking lot to hear the Republican Party's newest star speak roar their approval.
Momentum restored, Cain launches into a pitch for his signature 9-9-9 tax plan, and the crowd is right there with him, chanting 9-9-9 along with the Georgia businessman. The 65-year-old's improbable campaign for the presidency is all about momentum right now. How does he maintain the wave he's riding in recent polls that have catapulted him from an also-ran in the GOP race to the elite top tier?
There are many reasons his bid could fade as quickly as it rose. He acknowledged Friday that he will trail former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Texas Gov. Rick Perry significantly in fundraising. Cain has never held elected office and could wilt under the rigors of the campaign trail and withering scrutiny coming his way.
But Cain's moment is right now, and his everyman image is resonating.
"In the field right now, he's the most like me," said Jimmy Hoppers, a 60-year-old physician from Jackson, who was hoping to meet Cain so he could hand deliver a $1,000 donation to his campaign. "He's run a business and paid the bills. He's authentic."
On Friday night Cain, who is African-American, drew about 2,000 people — some in workshirts and overalls and nearly all white — to a feed barn in rural Waverly, Tennessee. This is a socially conservative country and Cain — ever the salesman — knows his audience. He closes by invoking God and singing the hymn "He Looked Beyond My Faults." "I love him," gushed truck driver James Bland after Cain spoke. "He doesn't talk down to you. I think he gets the working man."
"And it makes me so happy that he's put God back into things," chimed in Bland's wife, Karen. In a year of anti-government fervor, Cain is casting himself as the anti-politician Main Street candidate who would bring common-sense business know-how to the bureaucratic thick of Washington. The former conservative radio show host is brash and straight-talking, saying that "stupid people are ruining America." He mimics liberals with a high-pitched whiny voice.
"Well, he doesn't have foreign policy experience," he says to laughs. "And the guy we have in there now does?"
Cain doesn't ignore the race issue, saying that some critics have called him "a racist" and an "Oreo" for leaving the "Democrat plantation."
"I have grown up telling it like it is and I am going to continue to tell it like it is," he said at a campaign rally in a suburb of Memphis, where he was born. "I don't talk politician."
Voters are responding. He drew large and enthusiastic crowds Friday as he kicked off a two-day bus tour in Tennessee, hopscotching to a trio of tea party events across the state. Tea party activists make up the backbone of Cain's support and he speaks their language fluently. "My fellow patriots," he begins some sentences. References to freedom and liberty pepper his remarks. He dives into an anecdote about the Constitution and takes a jab at President Barack Obama. "You know what? I kinda like my guns and my Bible," he says.
And at every turn, he stresses his business background, noting that at a recent debate fellow Republican candidates dismissed his 9-9-9 tax plan as politically dead on arrival.
"Politicians put together things that will pass. Businessmen put together plans that solve the problems," he said.
Indeed, Cain's 9-9-9 plan seems to have put him on the map.
Following the rally in Jackson, Cain bolted off the stage and shook hands with onlookers, including Linda Fowler-Cole, who had wandered over after a shopping trip to Lowe's and was wearing a T-shirt with an oversized picture of Obama. (Jesus. what guts that took with what that fool has done to this country).
"I heard the 9-9-9 guy was here and I came to take a look," the Democrat said. "I like Obama, but that 9-9-9 is catchy."
In Bartlett, Tenn., Cain drew a number of black supporters who were excited at the prospect of a conservative African-American of his stature. "To me he represents what Martin Luther King was talking about when he talked about his dream," Reginald Tooley, a 49-year-old physical therapist from Memphis, said. "With hard work and self-reliance you can do anything you want."
Cain says he has been buoyed by support from regular folks. "You just don't know how much this encourages me, the fact that you all came out tonight," he said in
Waverly. "You see, this is what the folks in D.C. don't get because they don't come out here to meet with you."
A recent article from the internet says Herman Cain is firing up the crowd, all over the country, at a tea party and other rallies. In one West Tennessee town, Cain was speaking when the generator powering his sound system shudders to a halt.
Cain stands awkwardly for a few moments then suddenly begins to sing. Slowly at first but gaining in speed, he belts out "Impossible Dream" in the rich baritone he's honed in church choir. "You know, when it's your rally, you can do what you want to do!" Cain says as he finishes with a raucous laugh. The 500 or so supporters who have jammed the strip mall parking lot to hear the Republican Party's newest star speak roar their approval.
Momentum restored, Cain launches into a pitch for his signature 9-9-9 tax plan, and the crowd is right there with him, chanting 9-9-9 along with the Georgia businessman. The 65-year-old's improbable campaign for the presidency is all about momentum right now. How does he maintain the wave he's riding in recent polls that have catapulted him from an also-ran in the GOP race to the elite top tier?
There are many reasons his bid could fade as quickly as it rose. He acknowledged Friday that he will trail former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Texas Gov. Rick Perry significantly in fundraising. Cain has never held elected office and could wilt under the rigors of the campaign trail and withering scrutiny coming his way.
But Cain's moment is right now, and his everyman image is resonating.
"In the field right now, he's the most like me," said Jimmy Hoppers, a 60-year-old physician from Jackson, who was hoping to meet Cain so he could hand deliver a $1,000 donation to his campaign. "He's run a business and paid the bills. He's authentic."
On Friday night Cain, who is African-American, drew about 2,000 people — some in workshirts and overalls and nearly all white — to a feed barn in rural Waverly, Tennessee. This is a socially conservative country and Cain — ever the salesman — knows his audience. He closes by invoking God and singing the hymn "He Looked Beyond My Faults." "I love him," gushed truck driver James Bland after Cain spoke. "He doesn't talk down to you. I think he gets the working man."
"And it makes me so happy that he's put God back into things," chimed in Bland's wife, Karen. In a year of anti-government fervor, Cain is casting himself as the anti-politician Main Street candidate who would bring common-sense business know-how to the bureaucratic thick of Washington. The former conservative radio show host is brash and straight-talking, saying that "stupid people are ruining America." He mimics liberals with a high-pitched whiny voice.
"Well, he doesn't have foreign policy experience," he says to laughs. "And the guy we have in there now does?"
Cain doesn't ignore the race issue, saying that some critics have called him "a racist" and an "Oreo" for leaving the "Democrat plantation."
"I have grown up telling it like it is and I am going to continue to tell it like it is," he said at a campaign rally in a suburb of Memphis, where he was born. "I don't talk politician."
Voters are responding. He drew large and enthusiastic crowds Friday as he kicked off a two-day bus tour in Tennessee, hopscotching to a trio of tea party events across the state. Tea party activists make up the backbone of Cain's support and he speaks their language fluently. "My fellow patriots," he begins some sentences. References to freedom and liberty pepper his remarks. He dives into an anecdote about the Constitution and takes a jab at President Barack Obama. "You know what? I kinda like my guns and my Bible," he says.
And at every turn, he stresses his business background, noting that at a recent debate fellow Republican candidates dismissed his 9-9-9 tax plan as politically dead on arrival.
"Politicians put together things that will pass. Businessmen put together plans that solve the problems," he said.
Indeed, Cain's 9-9-9 plan seems to have put him on the map.
Following the rally in Jackson, Cain bolted off the stage and shook hands with onlookers, including Linda Fowler-Cole, who had wandered over after a shopping trip to Lowe's and was wearing a T-shirt with an oversized picture of Obama. (Jesus. what guts that took with what that fool has done to this country).
"I heard the 9-9-9 guy was here and I came to take a look," the Democrat said. "I like Obama, but that 9-9-9 is catchy."
In Bartlett, Tenn., Cain drew a number of black supporters who were excited at the prospect of a conservative African-American of his stature. "To me he represents what Martin Luther King was talking about when he talked about his dream," Reginald Tooley, a 49-year-old physical therapist from Memphis, said. "With hard work and self-reliance you can do anything you want."
Cain says he has been buoyed by support from regular folks. "You just don't know how much this encourages me, the fact that you all came out tonight," he said in
Waverly. "You see, this is what the folks in D.C. don't get because they don't come out here to meet with you."
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Maine Governor LaPage Tells It Straight
He brought down the house at his inauguration when he shook his fist toward the media box & said, "You're on notice! I've inherited a financially-troubled state to run. Observe, cover, but don't whine if I don't waste time responding to your every whim for your amusement."
During his campaign for governor he was talking to commercial fishermen who are struggling because of federal fisheries rules. They complained that President Obama brought his family to Bar Harbor & Acadia National Park for a long Labor Day holiday & found time to meet w/union leaders, but wouldn't talk to them. LePage replied, "I'd tell him to go to hell & get out of my state." Media crucified LePage, but he jumped 6 points in the pre-election poll.
The Martin Luther King incident was a political sandbag which brought him national exposure. The 'lame stream' media crucified him, but word on the street is very positive.
The NAACP specifically asked him to spend MLK Day visiting black inmates at the Maine State Prison. He told them that he would meet w/ALL inmates regardless of race if he were to visit the prison. The NAACP balked & then put out a news release claiming falsely that he refused to participate in any MLK events He read it in the paper for the 1st time the next morning while be driven to an event & went ballistic because none of the reporters had called him for comment before running the NAACP release.
He arrived at that event & said on TV camera, "If they want to play the race card on me they can kiss my butt" & he reminded them that he has an adopted black son from Jamaica & that he attended the local MLK Breakfast every year that he was mayor of Waterville. (He started his morning there on MLK Day.)
He then stated that there's a right way & a wrong way to meet w/the governor & he put all special interests on notice that press releases, media leaks & all demonstrations would prove to be the wrong way. He said any other group which acted like the NAACP could expect to be at the bottom of the governor's priority list!
He then did the following, & judging from local radio talk show callers, his popularity increased even more: The state employees union complained because he waited until 3 p.m. before closing state offices & facilities & sending non-emergency personnel home during the last blizzard. The prior governor would often close offices for the day w/just a forecast before the 1st flakes. (Each time the state closes for snow, it costs the taxpayers about $1 million in wages for no work in return.)
LePage was CEO of the Marden's chain of discount family bargain retail stores before election as governor. He noted that state employees getting off work early could still find lots of retail stores open to shop. So, he put the state employees on notice by announcing: "If Marden's is open, Maine is open!"
He told state employees: "We live in Maine in the winter, for heaven's sake, & should know how to drive in it. Otherwise, apply for a state job in Florida !"
Governor LePage symbolizes what America needs; Refreshing politicians who aren't self-serving & who exhibit common sense!
Saturday, September 18, 2010
STRATFOR - The Tea Party and Insurgency Politics
I listened to John McCain (R-AZ) last night on Fox News. McCain claimed that the Tea Party spawned from the declining economy. Well, John you are about clueless. The Tea Party was born from the Anti-Constitutional governance by the Democrat Party aided by some Republicans, which have modeled their view of government from Socialist-Marxist ideology. While economy and unemployment is a big concern from Tea Party activists and other conservatives, it is the arrogance, growth of big government and increasing governmental powers, massive spending, and taxation without representation by and of the Obama Administration and Pelosi-Reid Congress that has birthed the Tea Party Movement. If we downsize the Federal government, deregulate where smart, repeal Obamacare, tighten government waste and abuse, and do not further tax an already over taxed population, then the economy will take care of itself.
Good article from STRATFOR http://www.stratfor.com
The Tea Party and Insurgency Politics
September 17, 2010
By Robert W. Merry
Nearly every American with a political memory recalls that Texas billionaire Ross Perot captured 19 percent of the vote when he ran for president as an independent candidate in 1992. Less well known is what happened to that vote afterward. Therein lies an intriguing political lesson that bears on today’s Tea Party movement, which emerged on the political scene nearly 17 months ago and has maintained a sustained assault on the Republican establishment ever since.
Just this week, the Tea Party scored another upset triumph, this time in Delaware , where protest candidate Christine O’Donnell outpolled establishment scion Michael N. Castle in the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate. It was merely the latest in a string of political rebellions that have shaped this campaign year much as the Perot phenomenon influenced American politics in the 1990s.
Two years after the Texan’s remarkable 19 percent showing, the Perot vote — a protest movement spawned primarily by political anxiety over what was considered fiscal recklessness at the federal level (sound familiar?) — washed away the Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. In a stern rebuke to President Bill Clinton, the Perot constituency gave full congressional control to the Republican Party for the first time in four decades. And then, just two years later, it turned around and helped elect Clinton to a second term.
The political lesson, worth pondering in these times of Tea Party rumbling, is that serious protest movements such as the Perot phenomenon or today’s Tea Party revolt never just fade away. They linger in American politics, sometimes largely unseen but sometimes quite overt, and exert a continuing tug on the course of electoral decision-making. Eventually they get absorbed into one major party or the other. In the process, they often tilt the balance of political power in the country, occasionally for substantial periods of time.
Back in the 1990s, the Perot constituency declared in word and vote that the country was on the wrong track, that the federal government was dysfunctional, that bold reform initiatives were needed to restore American democracy. These voters’ numbers and intensity of feeling rendered them a potent political force. Yet Clinton never clearly addressed their concerns during his first two years in office. He sought to govern as a vigorous leader with a huge electoral mandate when, in fact, he was elected with a mere 43 percent plurality. He announced boldly that his aim was to “repeal Reaganism” — in other words, to throw his 43 percent mandate against the policies of the most popular president in a generation.
Further, he sought to govern from the left at a time when many Americans wanted the Democrats to reshape themselves into a more centrist institution. On issue after issue — gays in the military, his big (for the time) stimulus package, his huge and complex health care initiative — Clinton positioned himself initially on the left, then sought to gain votes by inching his way toward the center. Only on the North American Free Trade Agreement, his most notable accomplishment during those two years (and also an initiative that Perot vehemently opposed), did he begin the process by going for a bipartisan coalition.
Perot’s constituency, which held the political balance of power in the 1994 campaign year, reacted by turning against the president. Election Day exit polls told the story. In Tennessee , the Perot vote broke for the two Republican Senate candidates by a margin of about 75 percent to 20 percent. In Pennsylvania ’s Senate race, it was 59 percent to 33 percent. In California ’s Senate contest, it was 60 percent to 27 percent. In New York ’s gubernatorial race, it was 70 percent to 16 percent. It appeared that the Republicans would be invited to ride the Perot constituency right into the White House two years hence. But then, reacting to major missteps by the new Republican House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, and to Clinton ’s forceful change of direction (encapsulated in his declaration that the “era of big government is over”), the Perot constituency rewarded a chastened president with another term in office.
Again, exit polls told the story in comparative numbers between the 1992 election and the 1996 election, when Perot’s share of the vote declined to 8 percent. Among independent voters, Perot’s vote share declined from 30 percent in 1992 to 17 percent in 1996; among Democrats, from 13 percent to 5 percent; among self-identified liberals, from 18 percent to 7 percent; and among moderates, from 21 percent to 9 percent. Meanwhile, Clinton ’s share of the presidential tally among independents rose from 38 percent in 1992 to 43 percent in 1996; among Democrats, from 77 percent to 84 percent; among liberals, from 68 percent to 78 percent; among moderates, from 47 percent to 57 percent. It’s clear that Perot’s 1992 voters gave Clinton his margin of victory in 1996.
Clinton’s center-left governance and deft political “triangulation” — seeking to find just the right coalition for success on any issue — had proved highly effective not only politically but in terms of governmental success. Thus did Clinton soothe the electorate and help blunt the anti-government populism that had been percolating in American politics for a number of years, fueled by such things as an attempt by members of Congress to give themselves a pay raise through a back-door maneuver that precluded any need for a public vote and revelations of House members routinely kiting checks at the so-called House Bank. Clinton restored a sense that the government was working again, and given the agitations of the electorate when he took office that represented a significant achievement.
One must always be careful with historical analogies, and the Tea Party movement differs from the Perot phenomenon in many important respects. The Tea Party activists are more conservative, more ideologically energized, probably more intense in their anger, and much more inclined to conduct their insurgency within one party (the GOP). If, as expected, these agitated voters contribute to a big Republican victory in this year’s congressional elections, it is almost inconceivable that they will turn around two years from now and foster a Barack Obama re-election triumph.
And yet, the lessons of protest politics apply equally in both instances. The Tea Party movement will not fade away with this year’s election returns. It will disrupt the routine business of American politics for some time to come. Eventually, it will be absorbed into the two-party system and cease to be an independent force — but only after its angers have been assuaged, one way or another, by a change in governmental direction.
The Perot phenomenon is not the only historical antecedent to consider in trying to understand the Tea Party movement. Another is the 1968 independent candidacy of Alabama ’s George Wallace, who captured nearly 14 percent of the national vote and landed electoral-vote pluralities in five Southern states. Richard Nixon won that year, but the Wallace candidacy rendered him a minority president, with just 43 percent of the vote (the same percentage Clinton received during the first Perot year). But Nixon wooed the angry Wallace constituency throughout his first term, and by 1972 he had incorporated it into his coalition. He captured those five Southern states and also siphoned off a large proportion of the angry white ethnic voters in America ’s big cities of the Northeast and Midwest . Reagan built on that strategy in fashioning his more powerful coalition and transforming the political balance of power in America in the 1980s.
Inevitably, both Nixon and Reagan were attacked from the left for employing this “Southern strategy” and thus — according to the critics — encouraging racist and venomous sentiments in the body politic. It was no doubt true that part of the Wallace following stemmed from the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. But it was much more than that, as any survey of that era of political instability would attest. The critics seemed to be saying that if the political system would just ignore Wallace and his constituency, they would merely fade away. But of course they wouldn’t fade away; more likely they would become angrier and probably more widespread. In the end, the South became a more mainstream region than it had been in 1968, and American politics moved onward, as always.
All of this brings us back to the Tea Party movement. What it represents and portends can best be scrutinized by trying to answer three fundamental questions: First, is this movement for real and is it enduring? The answer is yes. It represents a political wave akin to the Perot or Wallace constituencies. Polls indicate some 18 percent of Americans identify themselves as Tea Party supporters — nearly equaling the vote percentage of Perot in 1992 and greater than the Wallace constituency in 1968. The largest Tea Party group, Tea Party Patriots, says it has a thousand local organizations with 15 million “associates.” Overall, the movement has the political whip hand in this campaign year, which is why it has been able to wreak so much havoc on the mainstream political system throughout this year’s primaries. The Tea Party has banished establishment GOP candidates and pulled forward previously obscure true believers such as Rand Paul in Kentucky, Sharron Angle in Nevada, Mike Lee in Utah, Ken Buck in Colorado, Joe Miller in Alaska, Marco Rubio in Florida and, of course, Christine O’Donnell in Delaware.
Some of these candidates, most notably Angle and O’Donnell, carry sufficiently heavy political baggage that Democrats have concluded their chances are enhanced with those GOP nominations. O’Donnell is given almost no chance of wresting the Delaware seat from the Democrats. But all of them are insurgency politicians whose rhetoric is tailor-made for an anti-establishment, anti-incumbent year. And every indication suggests that this is such a year. Even Nevada ’s Sharron Angle, running against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, is maintaining poll numbers that suggest she actually could win. Two recent Nevada polls aggregated by the nonpartisan Clarus Research Group had Reid ahead by only two percentage points.
The second question is, where did this movement come from? What precisely were the impulses, angers and fears that spawned this seemingly spontaneous wave of civic energy? Of course, like all civic movements, the Tea Party represents a pastiche of various political sentiments and outlooks. Many of them smack of the standard right-wing fare that has been driving many elements of the Republican Party for years — anger over social issues such as abortion and gay marriage, an aversion to the popular culture, the general sense of a remote and self-absorbed Washington .
But most Tea Party leaders emphasize three general principles. The first is “fiscal responsibility,” which includes a strong aversion to huge federal deficits and the yawning national debt. This element also includes an attack on federal policies that constrict the economic freedom of citizens through excessive taxation. The second principle is “constitutionally limited government,” which implies states’ rights and the protection of individual liberties from federal intrusion. And the third is “free markets,” seen by Tea Party adherents as the protection of intertwined “individual and economic liberty.”
In short, the Tea Party outlook is part of a long tradition in American politics. It harkens back to the politics of Andrew Jackson during his battles with Henry Clay. Both the Jackson and Clay traditions have reverberated through American politics for nearly 200 years. Clay and his followers wanted to consolidate greater political and economic power in Washington so it could be wielded on behalf of federal public works such as roads, bridges and canals. Jackson ’s hallmark principles, on the other hand, were limited government and strict construction of the Constitution, both of which animate today’s Tea Party. The movement also harkens back to the more recent politics of Ronald Reagan, who echoed Jackson ’s call for smaller government and strict construction of constitutional powers.
The third question centers on how the Tea Party will influence American politics in the coming years. It would seem that the movement is in part a response to the policies of President Obama, who has sought to bring about the greatest consolidation of federal power since Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s. Hence, it can be predicted that the movement will throw whatever political weight it can muster against Obama when he faces re-election in 2012.
But the real battle now is against the Republican Party, which didn’t exactly embrace Tea Party principles when George W. Bush was president. Indeed, much of the flow of American politics that angers Tea Party adherents — increased federal spending, growing deficits, Washington’s earmark culture, the looming entitlement crises — were in full force during the Bush years. That’s why Tea Party adherents are so bent on busting up the Washington establishment by first busting up the GOP. In that sense, they resemble the Goldwater insurgency that took over the Republican Party in 1964 as a means of later taking over the country. That intraparty strategy differed from the later independent party rebellions of Wallace and Perot, but the political principles surrounding insurgency politics remain the same.
As for today’s Tea Party partisans, they don’t trust Washington, which they see as a place of mutual back-scratching, earmark collaborations, power grabs and what seems like unlimited amounts of money sloshing around for buying votes and for the personal aggrandizement of elected officeholders and their minions. The Tea Party aim is to attack that political establishment by capturing the forces of the Republican Party and then directing those forces against the perceived entrenched power of Washington .
Will it succeed? Not clear. But it is clear that this political phenomenon, which burst upon the scene so unexpectedly and has rumbled along with such force the past year and a half, isn’t going away anytime soon. It will continue to wreak havoc in the precincts of establishment politics until this establishment finds a way to siphon off a big portion of Tea Party anger with a brand of politics that absorbs at least some of its sentiment. History suggests there is no other way to tame this beast.
This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR
Good article from STRATFOR http://www.stratfor.com
The Tea Party and Insurgency Politics
September 17, 2010
By Robert W. Merry
Nearly every American with a political memory recalls that Texas billionaire Ross Perot captured 19 percent of the vote when he ran for president as an independent candidate in 1992. Less well known is what happened to that vote afterward. Therein lies an intriguing political lesson that bears on today’s Tea Party movement, which emerged on the political scene nearly 17 months ago and has maintained a sustained assault on the Republican establishment ever since.
Just this week, the Tea Party scored another upset triumph, this time in Delaware , where protest candidate Christine O’Donnell outpolled establishment scion Michael N. Castle in the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate. It was merely the latest in a string of political rebellions that have shaped this campaign year much as the Perot phenomenon influenced American politics in the 1990s.
Two years after the Texan’s remarkable 19 percent showing, the Perot vote — a protest movement spawned primarily by political anxiety over what was considered fiscal recklessness at the federal level (sound familiar?) — washed away the Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. In a stern rebuke to President Bill Clinton, the Perot constituency gave full congressional control to the Republican Party for the first time in four decades. And then, just two years later, it turned around and helped elect Clinton to a second term.
The political lesson, worth pondering in these times of Tea Party rumbling, is that serious protest movements such as the Perot phenomenon or today’s Tea Party revolt never just fade away. They linger in American politics, sometimes largely unseen but sometimes quite overt, and exert a continuing tug on the course of electoral decision-making. Eventually they get absorbed into one major party or the other. In the process, they often tilt the balance of political power in the country, occasionally for substantial periods of time.
Back in the 1990s, the Perot constituency declared in word and vote that the country was on the wrong track, that the federal government was dysfunctional, that bold reform initiatives were needed to restore American democracy. These voters’ numbers and intensity of feeling rendered them a potent political force. Yet Clinton never clearly addressed their concerns during his first two years in office. He sought to govern as a vigorous leader with a huge electoral mandate when, in fact, he was elected with a mere 43 percent plurality. He announced boldly that his aim was to “repeal Reaganism” — in other words, to throw his 43 percent mandate against the policies of the most popular president in a generation.
Further, he sought to govern from the left at a time when many Americans wanted the Democrats to reshape themselves into a more centrist institution. On issue after issue — gays in the military, his big (for the time) stimulus package, his huge and complex health care initiative — Clinton positioned himself initially on the left, then sought to gain votes by inching his way toward the center. Only on the North American Free Trade Agreement, his most notable accomplishment during those two years (and also an initiative that Perot vehemently opposed), did he begin the process by going for a bipartisan coalition.
Perot’s constituency, which held the political balance of power in the 1994 campaign year, reacted by turning against the president. Election Day exit polls told the story. In Tennessee , the Perot vote broke for the two Republican Senate candidates by a margin of about 75 percent to 20 percent. In Pennsylvania ’s Senate race, it was 59 percent to 33 percent. In California ’s Senate contest, it was 60 percent to 27 percent. In New York ’s gubernatorial race, it was 70 percent to 16 percent. It appeared that the Republicans would be invited to ride the Perot constituency right into the White House two years hence. But then, reacting to major missteps by the new Republican House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, and to Clinton ’s forceful change of direction (encapsulated in his declaration that the “era of big government is over”), the Perot constituency rewarded a chastened president with another term in office.
Again, exit polls told the story in comparative numbers between the 1992 election and the 1996 election, when Perot’s share of the vote declined to 8 percent. Among independent voters, Perot’s vote share declined from 30 percent in 1992 to 17 percent in 1996; among Democrats, from 13 percent to 5 percent; among self-identified liberals, from 18 percent to 7 percent; and among moderates, from 21 percent to 9 percent. Meanwhile, Clinton ’s share of the presidential tally among independents rose from 38 percent in 1992 to 43 percent in 1996; among Democrats, from 77 percent to 84 percent; among liberals, from 68 percent to 78 percent; among moderates, from 47 percent to 57 percent. It’s clear that Perot’s 1992 voters gave Clinton his margin of victory in 1996.
Clinton’s center-left governance and deft political “triangulation” — seeking to find just the right coalition for success on any issue — had proved highly effective not only politically but in terms of governmental success. Thus did Clinton soothe the electorate and help blunt the anti-government populism that had been percolating in American politics for a number of years, fueled by such things as an attempt by members of Congress to give themselves a pay raise through a back-door maneuver that precluded any need for a public vote and revelations of House members routinely kiting checks at the so-called House Bank. Clinton restored a sense that the government was working again, and given the agitations of the electorate when he took office that represented a significant achievement.
One must always be careful with historical analogies, and the Tea Party movement differs from the Perot phenomenon in many important respects. The Tea Party activists are more conservative, more ideologically energized, probably more intense in their anger, and much more inclined to conduct their insurgency within one party (the GOP). If, as expected, these agitated voters contribute to a big Republican victory in this year’s congressional elections, it is almost inconceivable that they will turn around two years from now and foster a Barack Obama re-election triumph.
And yet, the lessons of protest politics apply equally in both instances. The Tea Party movement will not fade away with this year’s election returns. It will disrupt the routine business of American politics for some time to come. Eventually, it will be absorbed into the two-party system and cease to be an independent force — but only after its angers have been assuaged, one way or another, by a change in governmental direction.
The Perot phenomenon is not the only historical antecedent to consider in trying to understand the Tea Party movement. Another is the 1968 independent candidacy of Alabama ’s George Wallace, who captured nearly 14 percent of the national vote and landed electoral-vote pluralities in five Southern states. Richard Nixon won that year, but the Wallace candidacy rendered him a minority president, with just 43 percent of the vote (the same percentage Clinton received during the first Perot year). But Nixon wooed the angry Wallace constituency throughout his first term, and by 1972 he had incorporated it into his coalition. He captured those five Southern states and also siphoned off a large proportion of the angry white ethnic voters in America ’s big cities of the Northeast and Midwest . Reagan built on that strategy in fashioning his more powerful coalition and transforming the political balance of power in America in the 1980s.
Inevitably, both Nixon and Reagan were attacked from the left for employing this “Southern strategy” and thus — according to the critics — encouraging racist and venomous sentiments in the body politic. It was no doubt true that part of the Wallace following stemmed from the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. But it was much more than that, as any survey of that era of political instability would attest. The critics seemed to be saying that if the political system would just ignore Wallace and his constituency, they would merely fade away. But of course they wouldn’t fade away; more likely they would become angrier and probably more widespread. In the end, the South became a more mainstream region than it had been in 1968, and American politics moved onward, as always.
All of this brings us back to the Tea Party movement. What it represents and portends can best be scrutinized by trying to answer three fundamental questions: First, is this movement for real and is it enduring? The answer is yes. It represents a political wave akin to the Perot or Wallace constituencies. Polls indicate some 18 percent of Americans identify themselves as Tea Party supporters — nearly equaling the vote percentage of Perot in 1992 and greater than the Wallace constituency in 1968. The largest Tea Party group, Tea Party Patriots, says it has a thousand local organizations with 15 million “associates.” Overall, the movement has the political whip hand in this campaign year, which is why it has been able to wreak so much havoc on the mainstream political system throughout this year’s primaries. The Tea Party has banished establishment GOP candidates and pulled forward previously obscure true believers such as Rand Paul in Kentucky, Sharron Angle in Nevada, Mike Lee in Utah, Ken Buck in Colorado, Joe Miller in Alaska, Marco Rubio in Florida and, of course, Christine O’Donnell in Delaware.
Some of these candidates, most notably Angle and O’Donnell, carry sufficiently heavy political baggage that Democrats have concluded their chances are enhanced with those GOP nominations. O’Donnell is given almost no chance of wresting the Delaware seat from the Democrats. But all of them are insurgency politicians whose rhetoric is tailor-made for an anti-establishment, anti-incumbent year. And every indication suggests that this is such a year. Even Nevada ’s Sharron Angle, running against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, is maintaining poll numbers that suggest she actually could win. Two recent Nevada polls aggregated by the nonpartisan Clarus Research Group had Reid ahead by only two percentage points.
The second question is, where did this movement come from? What precisely were the impulses, angers and fears that spawned this seemingly spontaneous wave of civic energy? Of course, like all civic movements, the Tea Party represents a pastiche of various political sentiments and outlooks. Many of them smack of the standard right-wing fare that has been driving many elements of the Republican Party for years — anger over social issues such as abortion and gay marriage, an aversion to the popular culture, the general sense of a remote and self-absorbed Washington .
But most Tea Party leaders emphasize three general principles. The first is “fiscal responsibility,” which includes a strong aversion to huge federal deficits and the yawning national debt. This element also includes an attack on federal policies that constrict the economic freedom of citizens through excessive taxation. The second principle is “constitutionally limited government,” which implies states’ rights and the protection of individual liberties from federal intrusion. And the third is “free markets,” seen by Tea Party adherents as the protection of intertwined “individual and economic liberty.”
In short, the Tea Party outlook is part of a long tradition in American politics. It harkens back to the politics of Andrew Jackson during his battles with Henry Clay. Both the Jackson and Clay traditions have reverberated through American politics for nearly 200 years. Clay and his followers wanted to consolidate greater political and economic power in Washington so it could be wielded on behalf of federal public works such as roads, bridges and canals. Jackson ’s hallmark principles, on the other hand, were limited government and strict construction of the Constitution, both of which animate today’s Tea Party. The movement also harkens back to the more recent politics of Ronald Reagan, who echoed Jackson ’s call for smaller government and strict construction of constitutional powers.
The third question centers on how the Tea Party will influence American politics in the coming years. It would seem that the movement is in part a response to the policies of President Obama, who has sought to bring about the greatest consolidation of federal power since Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s. Hence, it can be predicted that the movement will throw whatever political weight it can muster against Obama when he faces re-election in 2012.
But the real battle now is against the Republican Party, which didn’t exactly embrace Tea Party principles when George W. Bush was president. Indeed, much of the flow of American politics that angers Tea Party adherents — increased federal spending, growing deficits, Washington’s earmark culture, the looming entitlement crises — were in full force during the Bush years. That’s why Tea Party adherents are so bent on busting up the Washington establishment by first busting up the GOP. In that sense, they resemble the Goldwater insurgency that took over the Republican Party in 1964 as a means of later taking over the country. That intraparty strategy differed from the later independent party rebellions of Wallace and Perot, but the political principles surrounding insurgency politics remain the same.
As for today’s Tea Party partisans, they don’t trust Washington, which they see as a place of mutual back-scratching, earmark collaborations, power grabs and what seems like unlimited amounts of money sloshing around for buying votes and for the personal aggrandizement of elected officeholders and their minions. The Tea Party aim is to attack that political establishment by capturing the forces of the Republican Party and then directing those forces against the perceived entrenched power of Washington .
Will it succeed? Not clear. But it is clear that this political phenomenon, which burst upon the scene so unexpectedly and has rumbled along with such force the past year and a half, isn’t going away anytime soon. It will continue to wreak havoc in the precincts of establishment politics until this establishment finds a way to siphon off a big portion of Tea Party anger with a brand of politics that absorbs at least some of its sentiment. History suggests there is no other way to tame this beast.
This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR
Friday, April 16, 2010
Allan Combs - Leftist Buffoon
Driving through a remote area last night, the only radio station I could get was the Allan Combs show. I know, I know what you’re going say, but I like to think I’m smart enough to know that when Allan Combs talks, the leftist spins follows.
Accordingly to Allan Combs, Tea Parties are: 1 - funded by ex-Texas Congressman Tom Delay, and, 2- comprised only of rowdy people with the sole motivation of hating the President. The good thing was that 90% of the callers to the show were calm people saying that they were independents attending Tea Party Rallies and did not see any bad behavior, only respectfulness from the crowd. Of course, Allan changed the subject, re-directed questions and cut people off – which is the hallmark of leftist tactics.
Allan spent a lot of time talking about how Victoria Jackson, late of Saturday Night Live, is the face and name of Tea Party as she was spouting racist comments and then performed her son “There’s a Communist in the White House”. Well, no doubt about it, Victoria Jackson is hardly an articulate speaker and her singing career started and ended with that song. However, Allan conveniently forgets about Whoopy Goldberg (another mediocre Television personality) calling for Rush Limbaugh to die and various Democratic Congressman calling George Bush a war Criminal. There again, the left double standard. Allan – you are a Buffoon. Where was your outrage then Allan?
Accordingly to Allan Combs, Tea Parties are: 1 - funded by ex-Texas Congressman Tom Delay, and, 2- comprised only of rowdy people with the sole motivation of hating the President. The good thing was that 90% of the callers to the show were calm people saying that they were independents attending Tea Party Rallies and did not see any bad behavior, only respectfulness from the crowd. Of course, Allan changed the subject, re-directed questions and cut people off – which is the hallmark of leftist tactics.
Allan spent a lot of time talking about how Victoria Jackson, late of Saturday Night Live, is the face and name of Tea Party as she was spouting racist comments and then performed her son “There’s a Communist in the White House”. Well, no doubt about it, Victoria Jackson is hardly an articulate speaker and her singing career started and ended with that song. However, Allan conveniently forgets about Whoopy Goldberg (another mediocre Television personality) calling for Rush Limbaugh to die and various Democratic Congressman calling George Bush a war Criminal. There again, the left double standard. Allan – you are a Buffoon. Where was your outrage then Allan?
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Mark Davis: The dubious logic linking Tea Parties to racism
Heard Mark Davis on the radio and thought everyone should read this column.
05:09 PM CDT on Tuesday, March 30, 2010 Dallas Morning News
A year ago April 15, I looked out onto a crowd at Dallas City Hall as the Tea Party movement launched. On this year's Tax Day, I will again MC the proceedings, this time at QuikTrip Park in Grand Prairie.
We will again welcome speakers who will share passions, strategies and yes, probably even some anger – all designed to give voice to the belief that America is headed in a very wrong direction in terms of government overreach.
Some people with some very loud media megaphones believe that I will be conducting the equivalent of a Klan rally. This is a lie, and their slanders – driven by their political bigotry – cannot stand.
I don't particularly care if some idiot on the street misreads the Tea Party vigor and invents in it a fictional sinister motivation. But when a succession of people who analyze things for a living weave such vast falsehoods, it is simultaneously sad and infuriating.
Frank Rich of The New York Times and Colbert King of The Washington Post are among the columnists willingly checking their honesty – or their brains – at the door to throw political mud. Either these people are too ignorant to know their charges or false, or they don't care and spit their bile anyway.
King wrote last week of looking at "angry faces" at Tea Party rallies and finding them "eerily familiar," resembling protesters seeking to prevent a black University of Alabama enrollee in 1956.
Rich peppered his column with Third Reich imagery, eventually backing up his claim of racism with comparisons to those who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Leaving aside for the moment that much opposition to that measure came from Democrats, it cannot be said plainly enough today: These men and their numerous partners in this smear should be ashamed – if nothing else, for logical flaws beneath a fifth-grader.
Their argument is: (A) This movement is filled with vocal people displeased with the way things are going; (B) I can find examples in history of people whose vocal displeasure was fueled by racism. Hence, (C) these people must be fueled by racism.
OK, boys, let's see how you like it: (A) You are fans of ObamaCare; (B) Castro is a fan of ObamaCare, so, (C) you are communists.
Logic and basic human decency prevent me from making that connection seriously. I would like to believe that if these craven critics actually attended a Tea Party event, their testimony would change. But I doubt it. Theirs is a screeching born of panic, the need to demonize a movement rather than debate it.
Is the occasionally tasteless sign, T-shirt or voice found at the occasional Tea Party rally? Of course. But they are but a tiny fraction of the hateful scope of venom heaped on President George W. Bush after the 2000 election or during the Iraq war.
Don't take my word that the Tea Party critics are full of it. Come to QuikTrip Park on April 15. You will find people looking for leaders who will reduce spending, reduce taxes and obey the Constitution. And they don't care what color those leaders are. If the crowd is overwhelmingly white, it's not because the Tea Party has a problem with people of color. It's because so many people of color have a problem with limited government. Anyone in that crowd will gladly make the case to any skeptic of any color.
I have no problem with anyone who disagrees with Tea Party politics. Tell me such limited government is too risky. Tell me ObamaCare is a great idea. Tell me taxes need to be raised. We'll have a lively chat.
But tell me the Tea Party people whom I have come to know and admire are racists, and you are a liar.
Mark Davis is heard weekdays from 8:30 to 11 a.m. on WBAP News/Talk 820 AM and 96.7 FM. His e-mail address is mdavis@wbap.com
05:09 PM CDT on Tuesday, March 30, 2010 Dallas Morning News
A year ago April 15, I looked out onto a crowd at Dallas City Hall as the Tea Party movement launched. On this year's Tax Day, I will again MC the proceedings, this time at QuikTrip Park in Grand Prairie.
We will again welcome speakers who will share passions, strategies and yes, probably even some anger – all designed to give voice to the belief that America is headed in a very wrong direction in terms of government overreach.
Some people with some very loud media megaphones believe that I will be conducting the equivalent of a Klan rally. This is a lie, and their slanders – driven by their political bigotry – cannot stand.
I don't particularly care if some idiot on the street misreads the Tea Party vigor and invents in it a fictional sinister motivation. But when a succession of people who analyze things for a living weave such vast falsehoods, it is simultaneously sad and infuriating.
Frank Rich of The New York Times and Colbert King of The Washington Post are among the columnists willingly checking their honesty – or their brains – at the door to throw political mud. Either these people are too ignorant to know their charges or false, or they don't care and spit their bile anyway.
King wrote last week of looking at "angry faces" at Tea Party rallies and finding them "eerily familiar," resembling protesters seeking to prevent a black University of Alabama enrollee in 1956.
Rich peppered his column with Third Reich imagery, eventually backing up his claim of racism with comparisons to those who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Leaving aside for the moment that much opposition to that measure came from Democrats, it cannot be said plainly enough today: These men and their numerous partners in this smear should be ashamed – if nothing else, for logical flaws beneath a fifth-grader.
Their argument is: (A) This movement is filled with vocal people displeased with the way things are going; (B) I can find examples in history of people whose vocal displeasure was fueled by racism. Hence, (C) these people must be fueled by racism.
OK, boys, let's see how you like it: (A) You are fans of ObamaCare; (B) Castro is a fan of ObamaCare, so, (C) you are communists.
Logic and basic human decency prevent me from making that connection seriously. I would like to believe that if these craven critics actually attended a Tea Party event, their testimony would change. But I doubt it. Theirs is a screeching born of panic, the need to demonize a movement rather than debate it.
Is the occasionally tasteless sign, T-shirt or voice found at the occasional Tea Party rally? Of course. But they are but a tiny fraction of the hateful scope of venom heaped on President George W. Bush after the 2000 election or during the Iraq war.
Don't take my word that the Tea Party critics are full of it. Come to QuikTrip Park on April 15. You will find people looking for leaders who will reduce spending, reduce taxes and obey the Constitution. And they don't care what color those leaders are. If the crowd is overwhelmingly white, it's not because the Tea Party has a problem with people of color. It's because so many people of color have a problem with limited government. Anyone in that crowd will gladly make the case to any skeptic of any color.
I have no problem with anyone who disagrees with Tea Party politics. Tell me such limited government is too risky. Tell me ObamaCare is a great idea. Tell me taxes need to be raised. We'll have a lively chat.
But tell me the Tea Party people whom I have come to know and admire are racists, and you are a liar.
Mark Davis is heard weekdays from 8:30 to 11 a.m. on WBAP News/Talk 820 AM and 96.7 FM. His e-mail address is mdavis@wbap.com
Friday, March 19, 2010
This is What I Call a Valid Warning
Been extremely busy these past couple days, watching liar after liar on television spinning the Health Care debate. With a reported 73% of Americans disapproving on the current Health Care Bill and with Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) at a 3%,...yes 3% approval rating, and Congress in general not far behind at a 17% approval rating, you can see what promoted the following billboard ad.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Conversation with RNC Fund Raiser
Just had a phone conversation with a Republican National Convention fundraiser asking me if I would support, meaning making a monetary contribution for, Republican efforts to regain control of Congress and oust Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).
I told the young man on the other end of the phone that I supported getting rid of each and every law maker in Congress, and that I wasn't prejudiced about it,....."I want them all out of there,..Democrats, Republicans,...all of them.
He gave me a song and dance about "sharing my frustration, etc." Blah, Blah. I told the young man to call me back once the Republicans start showing some leadership,......once they start showing some fiscal responsibility,.....and that the Republicans better start paying attention to the Tea Party movement rather than bashing it in the press as the "radical right".
I told the young man on the other end of the phone that I supported getting rid of each and every law maker in Congress, and that I wasn't prejudiced about it,....."I want them all out of there,..Democrats, Republicans,...all of them.
He gave me a song and dance about "sharing my frustration, etc." Blah, Blah. I told the young man to call me back once the Republicans start showing some leadership,......once they start showing some fiscal responsibility,.....and that the Republicans better start paying attention to the Tea Party movement rather than bashing it in the press as the "radical right".
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Purpose of Cowboys and Tea Parties
The purpose of Cowboys and Tea Parties is to combined the simple logic of Cowboys with the awakening of the American Spirit as typified by the Tea Party movement.
Both believe in individual responsibility, constitutional protections for individuals as well as limitations on the Federal Government's power and minimal government intrusions into their lives.
Cowboys have long got through rough spots either running a ranch, working cows or training horses by using good old common sense, horse sense and a sense of humor. The Tea Party movement demands this type of approach to our politicians in running the government, albeit far from in use today.
I intend on posting everything from bits of Cowboy Logic, to political commentary, to jokes and stories,...anything that helps motivate people to see the dangers the course set for this country by liberals, socialists or anyone else believing in the Constitution as a foundation for this Country - the way the framers intended. Onsnot
Both believe in individual responsibility, constitutional protections for individuals as well as limitations on the Federal Government's power and minimal government intrusions into their lives.
Cowboys have long got through rough spots either running a ranch, working cows or training horses by using good old common sense, horse sense and a sense of humor. The Tea Party movement demands this type of approach to our politicians in running the government, albeit far from in use today.
I intend on posting everything from bits of Cowboy Logic, to political commentary, to jokes and stories,...anything that helps motivate people to see the dangers the course set for this country by liberals, socialists or anyone else believing in the Constitution as a foundation for this Country - the way the framers intended. Onsnot
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)