One of the most hopeful signs about the “tea party” movement is that it represents an opportunity to rebuild the Reagan coalition. When I joined my fellow Angelenos last month protesting higher taxes and bigger government on the Santa Monica pier, I noticed the diversity of the crowd, social conservatives, military veterans, veterans of the Ron Paul campaign, businessmen, conservative activists and various and sundry citizens from all walks of life.
If you attended tea parties in other towns, please let me know whether or not you had a similar experience.
Considering the diversity of these rallies, the tax and spending issue should be the one to help lift the Republican Party out of its late doldrums and into productive activity, offering voters that “better vision for the future” that Michael Barone believes we need to build on the growing disfavor Americans are feeling for the Democrats.
Barone has blogged much on the need for Republicans to Target Upscale Voters Unhappy With the Obama Economy. His analysis of polling data help confirm a conclusion I have reached based primarily on anecdote, conversations with friends, fellow alumni of my “élite” New England alma mater and family members. A good number of these people share my fiscal conservatism, yet buy into the media image of the GOP as a party in thrall to social conservatives.
“If the Republican Party were more tolerant,” they say, they’d move back or toward, as the case may be, to the GOP. It’s why, I believe, the GOP needs downplay the social issues to focus on the fiscal ones. To that end, I believe Barone’s point about choices is so important. Young Americans, he contends, “are used to making their own choices, setting up their own networks, taking their own initiatives.”
This issue of choice could appeal to more than just young voters. It could only serve to keep senior citizens in the Republican fold, reminding them that Obama’s health care plan would limit the choices they currently have. As it helps the GOP retain social conservatives as we remind them that less government means more freedom, leaving them with the choice how to raise and where to educate their children, in public schools, parochial schools or at home.
Back, in the 1980s, when I first talked to social conservatives, they defined their involvement in politics as consistent with Reagan’s libertarian message. They were upset with the growing power of government, that is was usurping responsibilities once left to families and private social institutions, including churches.
To appeal to those upscale voters the GOP has been losing over the years, the party needs to focus on an economic message of fiscal discipline. And to show that its economic policies grow from its commitment to freedom, an idea which should resonate with socially liberal suburbanites as well as socially conservative exurbanites –and rural voters.
Maybe the MSM has been ignoring the “Tea Party” movement because it that movement provides a unifying message for libertarians and conservatives of all stripes. Freedom!
Dan, nice stab at hitting this issue from a different direction. I earlier commented that I had attended one of Michigan’s Tea Party rallies on the Capitol Steps tied to the Chicago rally… and included some video reference of the event.
As I said in the earlier thread, my fear is that this stunt nationally will not capture the attention of the media, not expand beyond a group of folks already infected and set to do battle… it’s the broader, wider audience that we need capture their attention –not the pitchfork folk already inside the corral.
As a PR stunt intended to capture the attention of the media, it’s been pointed out that the MSM isn’t buying and it ain’t selling. To do it and then argue that the MSM is biased is kind of a waste since most intelligent voters already know the MSM is biased, as is Fox to a certain extent, the WSJ and this blog. Plus, it makes us sound like a bunch of whiners and complainers, no?
Maybe it’s a question of better organizing by the Tea Party rabble (?). Maybe GOPers need to cast out a net a bit wider and try to construct a coalition of disillusioned voters? I’ve found in Michigan that the organizers seem to be more interested in building walls, maintaining control and decisionmaking over the event rather than getting to some critical mass for our Tea Party.
I’m still looking forward to the Michigan rally on April 15th. I just hope there’s more people than have shown up elsewhere… or else this will be another failure to perform and we don’t need that kind of track record if we’re going to toss Obama and the Dems out of power.
If it isn’t working, we need to drop it and find something that will work.
http://exiledonline.com/exposing-the-familiar-rightwing-pr-machine-is-cnbcs-rick-santelli-sucking-koch/#more-5239
I dont necessarily subscribe to the contents of the blog above, just as I dont subscribe to the idea that Geroge Soros is a reptilian overlord, but it is a very interesting slant on the origins of the tea party movement.
http://exiledonline.com/exposing-the-familiar-rightwing-pr-machine-is-cnbcs-rick-santelli-sucking-koch/#more-5239
interesting slant on the origins of the tea party movement. i dont necessarily subscribe to it, just as i dont subscribe to the idea that George soros is a lizzard, like many think.
I really don’t believe it’s possible to be fiscally conservative without being socially conservative. The two branches of conservatism share a common root… personal responsibility.
Arnold Schwarzeneggar was supposed to socially liberal and fiscally conservative… but he has increased state spending 40% and enacted massive tax increases. Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter are supposed to models of social liberalism and fiscal prudence, but both eagerly signed on to Dear Teleprompters mazzive spending plans.
If there are any Republicans out there who are socially liberal and really fiscally conservative, I’d sure like to know who they are.
MM,
Maybe I’m naive and idealistic, but I don’t see (and never saw) the Tea Party protests as a PR Stunt. There hasn’t been one in my city yet, but the vast majority of the reports I’ve read of other protests don’t really mention what media outlet was there or wasn’t there. There may be people there who are only concerned about getting on TV, but I’m willing to bet that most of them aren’t there for fame or attention. They’re there for themselves, for their families, and for future Americans. They’re there to represent their beliefs in small government and in the Constitution. Most of them, I’d wager, could care less whether the local news covers it. Hell, if it were me, I’d be happy just to be surrounded by like-minded people.
It is extremely frustrating to disagree with the government but feel completely voiceless, and I feel that these protests are giving people a voice. Even if their voices are ignored by the media establishment, it’s comforting to know that you’ve at least done *something* instead of sitting at home and being upset. Plus, these protests offer a different point of view within the community–an alternative to what all the major media outlets are reporting. If it makes one passerby think critically about the issues, then I’d say it was a successful endeavor.
People already feel disenfranchised and misrepresented in mainstream society–it’s no wonder that some people are upset by the fact that the MSM gave more lip service to an Astroturfed bus tour than to protests that have been going on for months now. But I think that most are, like Dan said in his earlier post, just rolling their eyes in an amused way and going on with their lives.
And finally, I guess I just don’t understand why you continue to go to these events if you think they’re just publicity stunts. You’re cheapening the movement with your statements, yet you continue to participate. It just doesn’t make logical sense.
VtheK, I’m with you, show me the social liberals who are fiscally conservative. Given the choice I will vote for the social conservative, since I find that every time I vote for the socially liberal – I end up with someone like Ahnold. Boy are we paying the price for that one.
I agree with Dan that it would be nice if the Republican Party at this point emphasized the need for fiscal conservatives at this point. No need to eliminate the social conservatives, but no need to play up those issues right now.
We had a very successful tea party in Fulterton CA due in large part to a talk radio show, John and Ken.
Orlando was able to attract 3000 people. I’m interested to see what happens on the 15th, I’ll be there.
Glen Reynolds has a good point about these tea parties, MSM may not be paying attention, but the local politicians are – and that’s what matters.
Leah said:
“Glen Reynolds has a good point about these tea parties, MSM may not be paying attention, but the local politicians are – and that’s what matters.”
Wow, you summed up my TL;DR comment in one sentence. I agree completely with this.
MM here’s why it matters that MSM should report all the news, not just what it wants to.
There is a blogress, Bookworm, http://www.bookwormroom.com/, she has escaped the tyranny of thought of Marin county Ca. Unfortunately her husband hasn’t, if it isn’t in the NYTs it didn’t happen.
She has pointed out a number of times where things we all knew months ago only become apparent to him when MSM slips up. He is shocked, how come he didn’t know.
I’m sure there are many like him. It would be nice if MSM were doing it’s job, since it isn’t it’s nice to see parts of it, as in print newspapers going down the tubes.
This calling out of “social conservatives” flies in the face of the “diversity” that moderates and liberals try to peddle.
The “radical right, fundamentalist Christian doctrinaire conservatives” can not muster the numbers to cram their belief system down the throats of the general public any more than left wing gays can force their extreme agenda on the general public.
Abortion, homosexuality as sin, creationism and priggish opinions about general behavior seem to be the big turnoffs that moderates and leftists are most bothered by.
I never argue with a person over his religious belief system. I rarely encounter a zealot who is totally focused on my imperfection. When I do, I make the encounter as brief as possible.
But I do know many, many people who verily froth at the mouth over what the Jerry Falwells “want to do to the country.†Little Green Footballs can not quite figure out which is the greater danger: radical Isam or Intelligent Design. There is something fetching about serving on a reverse inquisition that sends a tingle up the leg of the nonbeliever. If a child turned adult has doubts about religion, isn’t it fairly obvious that a child taught only creationist doctrine is also capable of reading and weighing the evidence of the Darwin school of evolution?
Somewhere in the past forty years or so, Christian fundamentalists became more and more “subversive.†Certainly the bombings and sniper killings at abortion shops gave stark evidence of religious extremism. But Christian religious cults interfering with the general public are in very short evidence.
Black Christian fundamentalists can dunk each other in the river and experience the rapture and break out in tongues and be perfectly acceptable. I suspect that is because the moderates and liberals have a sort of missionary zeal toward the childlike, primitive actions of the blacks who need their elite, enlightened guidance.
The point is, where does social conservatism present a danger to the existing order? If the pure bigotry of Jeremiah Wright and his convoluted theology didn’t taint Obama with the moderates and the liberals, why should Robertson or Dodson be such a major deal?
I bristle when moderates and liberals start in on the religious right. It is the moderates and the liberals who have defined the religious right out of the “ideal†and “diverse†public square. They want, actually demand, that the Republicans ditch the religious right.
The confessional is open and an obligation to Roman Catholics Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, et. al. They must make some huge donations to the Cardinal’s discretionary fund to escape the grief that the priest lays on the little people.
Isn’t it a rather obvious fact that the religious right is a constant problem for moral relativism?
Only social conservatives can be fiscal conservatives? Right; there’s a perfect syllogistic construct for convenience.
I’d say it all depends on how rabidly the limtus tester foams at the mouth when interrogating its subject on the matter. For some here, you can’t be a socially progressive person without placing yourself outside reason and sanity… and their unique version of political reality… where not voting on Election Day and turning the govt over to the farLeft and Obama is the “right” thing to do. Alice in Wonderland must be looking for Toto and the Yellow Brick Road in all that upside-down silliness.
There are people who are social liberals on issues like opposition to the death penalty (which a limtus-test approved soc con should be for and not against… heck, probably, if you’re a farRight soc-con you’re in favor of the death penalty for illegal aliens if mass deportation and forced marches aren’t available at the moment -just kidding) and yet that person could be soc-con on abortion, soc-con on stem cell, soc-con on gay marriage, etc and fiscally conservative on cutting spending, cutting taxes, reducing govt debt burdens, in favor of local decision making on budget issues (devolving federalism).
I can imagine a soc-con even being in favor of certain judicial activist moments in case law while maintaining a veneer of soc-con’ist’s strict constructionism for judicial nominees that they hold so dear. Heck, I can imagine a progressive on social issues even adhering to AynRanders on certain fiscal questions.
I’m a moderate to progressive GOPer on social issues and a fiscal conservative… gee, I even learned to embrace Reagan’s voo-doo economic theories. I know lots of gay GOPers who would be classified as progressive on social issues but fiscal conservatives. Of course, the litmus test boys from the soc-con camp would impeach them as not being real, true blue, pure enuff fiscal conservatives because… oh, I don’t know… those pesky progressives would support spending for the natl defense or might be opposed to the flat tax. Fiscal conservatism doesn’t have to be limtus tested by whether or not one supports a return to the Gold Standard.
I guess the question is like the one from the farLeft where people ask, with a str8 face, can you be a conservative and patriotic and still shred the Constitution on issues like torture, eavesdropping, permanent incarceration, etc. Before ILC goes off on his tangent, no… I don’t think the Bush 43 Admin shredded the Constitution on those or any other issues… but I can imagine the farLeft making that argument about soc-cons and their own soc-con enititled sense of exclusivity on patriotism.
Probably the two current issues that spilt progressives from soc-cons are environmental concerns and the treatment of immigrant laborers… and maybe limiting assault weapon sales to people of sound mind and at least 18 yrs of age -just kidding again.
Socially progressive gays inside the GOP are not all that rare. Do we go to church and pray to God on Sunday? Yep. Do we think Obama’s Wall of Debt is immoral? Yep. Would we like to see GM fail? Nope but that doesn’t mean giving ’em the storehouse. Should we forgive all 3rd World debt? Nope. Are we in favor of extending federal benefits to gay couples? Yep. Is the death penalty ok for some crimes? Yep. Are govt spending programs way out of bounds? Yep. Do we want Barney Frank in charge of our kids’ future? Nope. Should taxes be cut? Of course.
I just don’t get how soc-cons are so bloody comfortable ascribing fiscal conservatism only to their camp but when they were last in charge of Congress, the soc-cons ran up federal spending without even stopping to grab the crisco.
Oh, I get it… rose-colored glasses looking backward with 40-200 hindsight maybe.
jellibean asks: “And finally, I guess I just don’t understand why you continue to go to these events if you think they’re just publicity stunts. You’re cheapening the movement with your statements, yet you continue to participate. It just doesn’t make logical sense.”
Sorry, the stunts are important attempts to educate the public IF –and it’s a huge if– we can make them work and attract attention. But if they don’t work, let’s cut ’em loose and move on to something that does.
What makes logical sense to me is that some soc-cons should have never, ever stayed home on Election Day no matter how disgusting they found McCain-Palin because, as the Election results proved, to stay home was to vote for Obama and turn over the govt to the farLeft. We wouldn’t need TeaParties if the soc-cons had done their duty on Election Day.
Logic, jellibean, isn’t the strong suit for some soc-cons who comment here. By the way, I think the power of logic is something held sacred by progressives… it’s never been a strong suit for soc-cons.
I’m not a Republican so you may prefer me to sit this one out but I have long considered myself socially liberal and fiscally conservative though now I say socially apathetic and fiscally conservative. I absolutely believe in personal responsibility. For that reason, I’m a Libertarian. I really don’t care what people do as long as it’s respectful of my and others’ health, safety, rights and freedoms.
I’m not religious at all but am very respectful of those who are. I’m not a big fan of abortion but I don’t feel it’s my choice to make for others. I can appreciate the family values issue but it’s just too strictly interpreted for my comfort zone. I oppose welfare of all kinds, foreign aid, government support of stem cell or any medical research, which in my understanding, most social conservatives support to a degree.
However, with that said, I’m not sure I know the formal social conservative platform so I could be mistaken. I would and have voted for Republicans locally and nationally more often than other party. The bottom line for me is small, unintrusive (or at least minimally intrusive) government above all else. I haven’t seen that given more than lip service by the Republican party in a long time.
I think the filter is profiling me!
The question that should be asked is what do these small demonstrations accomplish? I suspect that these protesters are frustrated with a lack of vocal opposition to the current regime and are in their way voicing theirs. Fine, but that shouldn’t make us feel good about our prospects, electoral, societal, financial, otherwise.
I’m a Republican not because I like the sound of the word but because it currently is the only viable opposition to what I despise. If folks want to organize protests, that’s great — but I’d like to see a more coordinated effort with the RNC that translates into giving the voters a real choice, a positive choice. Let’s not forget to direct some of our ire at those whose statements include opposition to what is currently being done with seemingly no organized effort to stop it and offer a completely different and better alternative.
And let’s not confuse republicanism with populism.
#14 Well said. But as the minority party, with no strong voices carrying our message….you want the current Socialist Democrat Party to know they don’t hold 70% or 90% sway over the country. And that their issues, and legislation doesn’t steam roll into law. Potentially crippling the countries capitalist, republican roots.
I’m watching Obamateleprompters Tuesday nite press conference. Two observations…
1. the press, the DC press corps looks unbelievable small. I mean like teenage whimps.
2. the dude’s got some big ears. And he likes to talk, gives 14 minute answers until everyone is bored. It sucks any energy out of the room.
I don’t take it for granted that what we call “social conservatism” is always as well-rooted in personal responsibility as it should be. Or that social liberalism, at least in its moderate forms, necessarily isn’t.
At any rate, it’s clear that social conservatism and fiscal conservatism don’t always go together; look at Huckabee, or at Rick Warren’s public dancing with the Dear Teleprompter.
I think the question is, “liberal in what way?”. If someone is into government-funded abortions, for example, then of course they’re no fiscal conservative… simply because real fiscal conservatives aren’t into government-funded social-anything. But someone could be into drug legalization (say) on constitutional or states’ rights grounds, and be very much a real fiscal conservative.
I’ll concede your point as follows: It does seem, in today’s world, that the people in politics who are the most principled and most able to ‘remember’ their fiscal conservatism are the people with an overarching conservative ideology; people who are comfortable with having an overarching ideology. Not the opportunists / “moderates” / pragmatists.
Getting a message out and hopefully growing into bigger demonstrations, a movement, etc. Ya gotta start somewhere.
I’m not a Republican… because, in fact, Republicans aren’t (or haven’t been) a viable opposition to Big Government.
Maybe they will become one, as the Dear Teleprompter’s policies progressively (haha) make America worse off.
jellibean, very perceptive.
The “tea parties as stupid stunt” theme is fairly weak tea. They are building from the grass roots and growing. Perhaps some “stunt genius” will organize something more dynamic, appealing and generally astounding and tea party advocates will all run over to the bigger parade. Who knows!?!
Meanwhile, carping about the only thing that has brought limited government people out since Sarah Palin put life in the McCain dirge is spitting into the wind.
Obama caught on like measles with the Indians. How often does that happen? He is barely into his Messiah’s coronation tour and the natives are expressing restlessness. Why would we want to pee on them?
2010 is not very far off in political campaign terms, but a thousand miles in terms of public attention and enthusiasm. Bush 41 had approval in the 80’s after Desert Storm and got his clock cleaned two years later. We can’t overthrow Obama, but tea parties and other “stunts” can erode his underpinnings. Sniffing about the cologne the protesters are wearing is a bit short of being a Rove or Axelrod.
ILC is this month’s poster boy for Reading Comprehension Impaired. The answer has been outlined for thoughtful readers at #11 –which of course, by definition, ILC ignored at the peril of appearing ill-informed… again.
Sigh.
But there is some agreement with ILC (keep the fanfare low, pls) on this point, where he echoes my earlier proposition:
“At any rate, it’s clear that social conservatism and fiscal conservatism don’t always go together; look at Huckabee, or at Rick Warren’s public dancing with the Dear Teleprompter.”
Good for you, ILC. Small enlightenments are worth the path we travel toward pragmatic progressive politics.
MM, showing the hateful spirit that lies beneath your surface once again. More insults, please! 🙂
For jellibean: Of course I read your pompous critic before I said what I said. I say again: Your comment was very perceptive; your pompous critic attitudes toward the tea parties and many, many other things are, shall we say… contradictory.
And jellibean, before I forget: welcome to GayPatriot!
I think there’s some value in people getting together and forming networks in any case. And this should be encouraged, not ridiculed. The Republican Party elite has, of late, been wearing its disgust for the base on its sleeve. And the base has noticed.
Well ILC, for the discussion here and for the purpose of Dan & Bruce’s plea for more civil discourse, I’ll bypass commentary on your spiteful, mean-spirited name calling in #22 and many instances in the other threads. Let’s hope YOU can do the same and amend your ways, eh?
As far VdaK’s comment that the “Republican elite” are disdainful of the base, nothing could be farther from the truth.
In fact, many of the GOP leadership like Pawlenty, Palin, Steele and McCain are stressing that it’s a Party of addition not subtraction that will make our future secure. A party of addition and reminding some of those in the base that excluding, denying and ostracizing moderates, independents and others won’t get the Party to victory.
Cries about “republican elites” is nothing more than fake populism and easily discredited by touching base with reality.
But why claim it’s a conspiracy of the elites? Because it’s a false argument intent on discrediting the worthiness of critical concerns about the PR stunt. For some Party activists and loyalists, engaging in PR stunts that appear to be flamingly ineffective failures at “rallying America” against the Stimulus, the Budget, the Obama Wall of Debt and other items… detracts from the urgent and critical need to blunt Obama’s and the farLeft’s agenda. What we don’t need, after soc-cons helped contribute to the election of Obama and the farLeft gains in Congress, is to have another failure stamped as “GOP” even though the TeaParties aren’t a function of the Party… that’s exactly who some MSM pundits are saying are behind the TeaParties… the GOP.
The TeaParty events started outside the GOP by a group of farRight types more intent on taking over the Party, asserting the lunancy of RonPaul’s electability and pressing for his agenda WHICH WAS WHOLEHEARTEDLY REJECTED BY RANK AND FILE GOPers IN STATE AFTER STATE PRIMARY. Yep, it’s a Ron Paul original event going back to 2007, Dec 16th –deep in the primary battles.
http://www.ronpaulsteaparty.com/
But you know what, the ol’ TeaParty advocates like to gloss over that fact because they know that if the CrazyUncle Ron Paul’s name is linked to the TeaParty, it’s all toast in a RickSantorum minute or will be about as useless as a TomDelay battle cry to rally social conservatives around another bloody shirt.
But hey, it isn’t going to work (at least in Michigan) because the organizers here seem more intent on keeping well-intentioned, well-meaning and maybe sympathetic people outside the ropes… and far from the microphone or podium. We’re working to fix that hinderance and open it up a bit, but there’s resistance in the Resistance. This is, afterall, a subversive opportunity for the RonPaul supporters to seek vindictation after the disasterous whipping of their icon in the primaries.
And the folks standing in line with their tea bags, Sam Adams and cool tri-corner hats don’t know it’s all about RonPaul… why ruin it for them? Let’s try to make it work and, if it doesn’t, move on to something that will and drop the stunt… of course, the Paulites will still work it into the ground.
Republican elites? Really now, that’s a fiction which should stay on the shelf in the library.
You just broke Peggy Noonan’s heart. She’s in the conservatory crying in David Brooks’s arms. Kathleen Parker is trying to comfort her.
Let’s look at the “tea party as PR stunt” argument.
That does not mean that “regular” Americans won’t hi-jack the “PR stunt” in building a groundswell of opposition to the massive Obama spending.
Nor does it mean than those joining the “PR stunt” know or care about its origins. They may have been Republicans all along, but the may come from independents and the Democrats, as well. After all, don’t they say that nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come.?
Well, now, perhaps I have totally misunderstood the whole tea party “stunt.” It is my impression that the participants are telling Washington to stop the deficit spending, the massive pork that does not create jobs, the growth of entitlement socialism and the government directed redistribution of wealth.
What are the “well-meaning” and “maybe sympathetic people” going to add to that if they get ahold of the microphone? Gay marriage? Increased government spending with a happy face? A guaranteed living wage? A nuclear free zone?
What is this obsession with Ron Paul? Do you really think that squirrel is going to come out of his tree hole at the last minute and be hailed as the new George Washington?
Addition of what? Democrat lite spenders and taxers?
I hereby claim that there are “soc. mods.” Social moderates. Those who don’t like right and wrong. They want the social conservatives controlled and moderated by government soc mods. They want the Ten Commandments, a la George Carlin, rewritten and made more user friendly. They want the 11th Commandment added: “Can’t we all just get along?” (Thanks, Rodney King.) They don’t like keeping score when the loser gets his feelings hurt. They want their little quirks and habits to be sanctified under the umbrella of feel good diversity.
So here is the point. This is a battle between a free market economy and an economy with enormous government control, regulation, ownership. That is a fairly stark set of choices. It has nothing to do with being gay, religious fervor, midnight basketball or being loved abroad.
If Ron Paul is on the side of the free market economy, then he will just have to be your strange bedfellow.
V pens “You just broke Peggy Noonan’s heart” on referencing her as a GOP elite who finds disdain for the base? Really?
V, you need to get out more. Peggy is no more a GOP elite than the guy who cleans the toilets at the RNC. Just because she speaks with a Connecticut lock-jaw and worked in the WH doesn’t make here a GOP elite.
Smart, able brilliant -she is all that and more. I wish she were a GOP elite.
Your use of the phrase, btw, was to take exception to GOP elites finding fault with some in the base… I said that your conspiracy claim was false and the anti-elitism you are famous for wasn’t indicated.
Not that there aren’t GOP elites. I know there are, V. I pointed out to you that GOP elites like Pawlenty, Palin, McCain and others are talking about making the Party’s strategy one of addition –not subtraction as you propose.
Nice try at deflection, but it ain’t selling except to the people at the back of the wagon.
filtered. I’m thinking the filter thing will help restrict commenting and restore civility faster than peer pressure might. LOL
What is this obsession with Ron Paul?
Guilt by association, I suppose. More to the point, what’s the objective in vilifying the tea partiers? These people are angry about Obama’s deficits, opposed to his agenda, organized and engaged. And the response is to marginalize them? Good Lord, no wonder the GOP is in trouble.
I guess we’re just supposed to wait for the “Moderate Republicans Who Would Prefer Less of This Sort of Thing” to energize the party.
helio, I don’t have a fascination with RonPaul –his accomplishments speak for themselves and his ideas have attracted, well, attracted nothing close to a ground swell of average American folks’ support. He’s a loon and belongs in the Libertarian Party. He was grossly disloyal to the Party that begged for his support and we got enough ingrates as it is weighing us down.
I said that if the MSM knows about the TeaParty events being linked to RonPaul’s organization, that may explain why few credible MSM outlets care to cover the events. I’m hoping the Michigan event is better attended than the earlier one –because– as I noted above, my Party doesn’t need to be attached to another losing proposition with failure written all over it. Anymore than it needs to be attached to Rush Limbaugh or Anne Coulter.
I noted the organizers of the Michigan event seem more intent on controlling it for RonPaulite purposes than for making it a mainstream, open, accessible event to protest the excesses of Obama on the Stimulus, his budget, the Obama Wall of Debt, etc.
Here in Michigan we learned today that $274.6 m of the Stimulus Spending bill is going to scarred, decaying urban neighborhoods to tear down crumbling, long abandoned homes and stores. Guess what? It’s a waste. First, every single redevelopment plan for such an area includes resources to remove blighted structures… when redevelopment is viable and the market speaks. We had open blocks and blocks of idled vacant land in the 1968 Urban Renewal Program of Nixon… it didn’t work then, it won’t work now. You can’t force the marketplace… the “you” here isn’t you, it’s well-intentioned DC bureaucrats.
The redevelopment will waste about 9-10 times what it would normally cost to raise abandoned structures… because a few fatcat political buddies of local mayors will get the contracts and tear down buildings at $128k-134k; when to do it at redevelopment time it might cost $9-12k per structure, depending on the mitigation costs.
The opposition to Obama needs to be a serious, concerted effort. I’m not certain the TeaParties ala RonPaul is going to get us there but, like a good trooper, I’m willing to make a go of it because the opportunity for failure is intolerable at this point in time.
In my filtered comments, V, I addressed helio’s comment about RonPaul.
I was thinking that this 3rd party cross-talk answering for someone else and putting the worst spin possible on it was going to go by the wayside with the advent of a new tone of civility here?
I guess you’re not part of that effort?
Last I heard from Tim Pawlenty, he was a global warming true-believer who was on board with cap and trade who was floating a scheme to tax his constituents by the mile.
If that’s the GOP elite, enjoy the wilderness.
And why is the GOP so gutless when challenging the left on Global Warming? Even as public skepticism about AGW is increasing, the GOP is reluctant to challenge the Democrats on the science or on the economics. And it’s a relatively easy case to make that the Democrats (and McCain’s) cap and trade scheme imposes huge costs for no discernible benefit, and that economics is a matter of trade-offs. Yet the GOP is hapless when it comes to making that case.
ILC: And jellibean, before I forget: welcome to GayPatriot!
Thanks! I’ve been reading the blog for around a year, but am just now de-lurking (as they say on the internets.)
*headdesk* I typed a big reply last night, but it either didn’t go through or it’s stuck in the queue. And I don’t remember it now. Ack.
V asks with some tongue deep in the cheek, “And why is the GOP so gutless when challenging the left on Global Warming?”
Well first there’s your characterization of gutless. Wrong. Then there’s the point about the issue.
I think Michael Steele pointed out this morning that he does challenge global warming group-think.
You know Michael Steele, surely VdaK?
He’s like… I don’t know… the Chair of the GOP?
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/michael-steele-we-are-not-warming/
But lest you think this is a new position, the GOP has been debunking global warming for a while now. Remember Sally Pipes famous line that the Clinton EPA was making global warming the imaginary hobgoblin created by the propagandists at EPA?
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/03/17/pipes-testimony/
Of course, you’re probably speaking about the efforts of a small group of moderate GOP governors intent on tapping into the growing interest of voters to address climate change rather than just endlessly, tirelessly debate whether global warming is real. I know you might want to do the endless debate thing… but this is maybe a tad more fruitful and constructive than just bitching.
Those governors are trying to use mostly market forces to address what a majority of Americans want: reasonable policy to address climate change without hazarding productivity, jobs, economic capacity or causing adverse unintended consequences in the economy.
Politico’s got a good read, if slightly biased toward the GoGreen approach, of the GOP Governors here
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17402.html
As a Wolverine, I have trouble even typing “GoGreen”… except in the NCAA basketball finals.
I read Little Green Footballs every day because I’m sick of the trend of the some Republicans towards science-hating young earth creationist propaganda. If this and gay bashing (don’t you dare try to spin it any other way) is the future of the GOP then count me out.
#4: Here’s an example of “social conservatism” that backfired: France wanted to give gay couples some form of government recognition while keeping marriage pure. So they granted them civil unions. However, heteros got them too, and opted for them instead of marriage. Whoops. Then again, it is France we’re talking about.
I’m all for the Tea Party being associated with Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.
There is no real leader that has emerged for the conservatives. Ayn Rand
laid out a principle that people are gathering around. There will be those
who want to put their spin on this for a candidate but for now, I think it is best left to the principle, gathering the people, who will then find a new person who can best lay out a new plan for Government, after Obama is vilified and gone.
This is not a candidate issue. It is a belief issue and it needs to be expounded until a candidate emerges who can match the real change in conservative policy that meets the needs of the people who are not in favor of socialism or communism.
I fully believe that if we keep having tea parties, buy up Ayn Rand books, it will send a message to our elected leaders that they will continue to make fun of and mock. But it will also send a message out there to someone who will finally decide to put their name out to the public, as the conservative candidate who really will do everything possible to fight for the principles of Ayn Rand.
Government is only allowed to protect the people of a nation who have the right to live their lives as they wish, while using their talents to create, and be paid for their work.