GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

We’ve been witnessing this first-hand since dawn of Tea Party movement

by

From a letter to the editor in the Washington Post, “The Tea Party’s brew includes gays and lesbians“:

Mr. Meyerson assumes that gay Americans are politically myopic. National exit polls for the November election showed that 31 percent of voters who identified themselves as gay voted for Republican candidates in House races.

Liberals would like to believe they own the gay vote, as if gays were a monolithic voting bloc whose sole, overriding concern is gay marriage and the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Gays are heads of families, professionals and business owners, and issues such as national security, sane economic policy and halting the rapid growth and overreach of government rank far ahead of gay issues for many, though the importance of gay issues can’t be discounted.

The Tea Party movement has three core principles: Fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free markets. While individual Tea Partyers may embrace a wide range of views on social issues, the movement has risen to power because it has formed around this very narrow range of principles most critical to the survival of our nation at this precise moment in history.

The letter’s author Doug Mainwaring may not be a GayPatriot reader, but he sure does sound like one!  🙂

Sees more and more of us freedom-loving gay folk are speaking out!

(H/t:  Instapundit.)

Comments

  1. A little off topic, but “dawn of Tea Party” set off a trigger. I’ve heard Tea Party members claims they started before Obama assumed office, that they were protesting Bush on TARP, and taking government to task for excessive spending, etc. I can’t find any documents supporting this.

    Also, I looked in the archives of GayPatriot and I couldn’t find any thoughts/criticism on TARP around September/October 2008. Am I missing something here?

  4. Dan, for the GOP leadership and the TP Movement’s rank & file, sticking to the narrow core principles will equate to electoral victory in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 –and without those victories, advancing public policy goals consistent with those narrow core principles is almost impossible –as we’ve all watched with the Bush Tax Cuts needing to be coupled to another massive unemployment spending plan.

    There’s more than enough heavy lifting to be done on just those core principles… we can do without the usual soc con/liberal push-pull cultural issues for at least 1-2 election cycles. Mr Mainwaring has the analysis correct; let’s hope the parade can stick together and keep marching with a single purpose til electoral victory and the much needed changes in public policy can be adopted.

  6. narrow core principles

    If we can achieve “fiscal responsibility” and shove the big government toothpaste back into the tube and return to free market capitalism, I say stop right there.

    What outliers from these “narrow” core principles are needed?

    When the government gets to acting on the penumbras emanating from the Constitution we still have work to do inside the the “narrow” path of core principles.

  7. And Helio, it’s not just the federal govt that needs to take its medicine and follow the GOP-TP Movement “therapy”… state and local govts (as well as a ton of K-12 school districts, community colleges and higher ed state colleges) need to have some therapy applied to them. It has to be a sea-change moment or we’ll be back in less than a generation reminded all what their forefathers fought for early in the new millennium.

    That’s why, just on those narrow core issues, there’s a ton of heavy lifting that awaits all right-minded citizens.

  8. I’ve heard Tea Party members claims (…) that they were protesting Bush on TARP

    A little perspective is in order. The TARP inducing crisis occurred at the end of September of 2008 in the heat of the election campaign. It took everyone by surprise. Plenty of us were of the mind that the banks and auto companies should fail and we should let the free market sort things out. There was about a week to react. The germ of the TEA Party existed before TARP, but it did not have the size and clout it achieved by the summer of 2009.

    The House Republicans did noble work in opposing TARP. Pelosi and friends walked right over them. Both Obama and McCain mumbled and sputtered about the “crisis.” And the MSM would not talk about role Freddie and Fannie played in creating the mess. Neither would McCain. The Democrats were in protection mode with Blarney Flanks leading the defensive charge to cover up. From all of this, the TEA Party gained new members and greater strength. Then ACORN demonstrated how openly corrupt the Democrats were prepared to be.

    I opposed TARP, the fundamental transformation of the United States, McCain and the Bush deficits and prescription drugs for seniors. I knew a lot of people who felt the same. Mark Steyn called McCain “Yosemite Sam” and Rush Limbaugh said we would have to drag him kicking and screaming to victory. Some candidate we had there! None of us changed our views and all of us found ourselves agreeing on the core principles of the TEA Party movement as it began to grow and take shape.

    People outside of the movement can not understand it. They think it must be a political party structure with a platform and planks reached by compromise and horse trading. They do not understand core principles. They do not understand that we would rather have an amateur with spunk representing us than a slick politician. They do not understand that the complex is made much easier when you have core principles. They do not understand that while a foolish consistency is the hobgobblin of little minds, principled consistency is the bedrock of progress and prosperity.

  9. The thing is, if the Government spending is cut to the point where it no longer can afford to carry out the culture war on the part of the left, a lot of social conservative issues diminish in importance. If the Government stops spending taxpayer money on things like abortions, perverted and anti-Christian art, the promotion of the gay left and secularist agendas in public schools… If the Government can no longer afford to take sides in the Culture War, many issues of contention will subside.

    Chris Christie can serve as an example. He’s the furthest thing from a social conservative, but he cut spending on Planned Parenthood on the basis that the state could not afford it.

  10. Michigan-Matt,

    Are you meaning to sound like you might forgo a little of the moderation stuff and roll up your sleeves and muck out the stables? If so, welcome to the manure and wear tall boots.

  11. On Sarah Palin’s reality show, she goes moose hunting and kills a moose. The Left complains. Here’s where the Left misses the point–that’s what hunting looks like. Everybody out here hunts. What the Left should have done, instead of complaining of the cruelty, is shown their own hunting pictures. The Left has no clue what life is like for Tea Party people. What is the Left going to attack next? Friday night football games? They’ve already gone after pick-up trucks.

  14. TLW>> Thanks, that’s a handy list. However, it doesn’t address the Tea Party or TARP.

    V the K>> That’s great and all, but it doesn’t address post #1.

    There is a lot of taking to task the Democrats (like a play-by-play) for specific decisions when it comes to spending, but not Republicans. But, I was hoping you could answer my questions from post #1.

    Helio >> “There was about a week to react.” Yeah, but there were ZERO posts on it.

    “The germ of the TEA Party existed before TARP, but it did not have the size and clout it achieved by the summer of 2009.” I can’t find any mention of activity (big or small) before Obama took office on this site or on the internet. I’m not saying it didn’t happen, but I’m having difficulty proving it did and I was hoping I someone could find some evidence to help back me up when confronted on this issue.

    “I knew a lot of people who felt the same.” Do any of them have archived posts (even bulletins of meetings) that you could point me too? Thanks!

  15. Helio, thanks for welcoming me into the barn stalls.

    Contrary to opinion here, moderation doesn’t mean capitulation or selling out. That’s the soc con version/spin from their Wonderland; I never bought it. The first principle of moderation is to admit you can accept 80% of what you want and not hold that prize hostage to the 20% you didn’t get. And like Ronald Reagan oft’ quipped –and can be rightly quoted in context for once– moderates don’t make enemies out of the people with they agree on 80% of the issues.

    When Obama engaged the GOP on extending Bush Tax Cuts in trade for a,b,and c for his side, I thought he was being both moderate and pragmatic… no longer making “perfect” the enemy of possible constructive progress for both parties. I thought the Congressional GOP leadership was being moderate and pragmatic for going along with UEI extensions as a trade. Frankly, I’m not certain the GOP could have stiffed the Prez on UEI extensions and made it into 2011 and the 111th with a positive starting point. I’m glad the farLeft hammered the Prez on his seeming capitulations to the hostage takers… the image was so familiar I think farRight types were kind of pre-empted into silence in maybe their wish to condemn the CongrGOPers for not getting enough in trade.

    The harsh realities and trials in fed governance must be applied to the individual states, local govts and their political subdivisions or else, like whack-a-mole, we’re shifting the untoward results from one gov’tal enterprise to another… or the success we secure at the fed level will be hazarded at another level of govt.

    It’s why I’m heading out to Simi Valley next month to attend the Fed Soc’s conference on what next to do with the fed govt. Should be a blast.

  16. So let me see…

    You complain that no one was “protesting Bush on TARP, and taking government to task for excessive spending, etc.”

    So, being the kindly old Hermit I am, I post a link to a post that lists GP posts that do just that.

    “In the immediate aftermath of that defeat, party leaders should have done on domestic issues what the president did on Iraq, acknowledge past mistakes and implement a new strategy.”

    “Instead, Tom DeLay sought to retain Republican power by the means the Democrats has used when they were in the majority, building alliances with lobbyists and using earmarks to set-aside pork for the districts of the various representatives.”

    “Eighteen years, after he left office, Ronald Reagan’s ideas still resonate with the American people. Polls show the American people, by comfortable margins, want smaller government and lower taxes and favor judicial restraint. In their spendthrift ways, particularly with earmarks, House Republicans ran away from many of the ideas which accounted for their rise.”

    Just to show a few.

    Now, please explain to me how these are not examples of taking government to task for excessive spending, etc.

    And this is just GP, one of the loudest oponents of TARP was Glenn Beck (after an initial flirting with accepting it)

    I could include Michelle Malkin National Review or Hot Air as well.

    So the answer is yes, you did miss something.

  17. “I post a link to a post that lists GP posts that do just that.” No, no mention of TARP. Which, at the time it happened, was the talk of the town. I asked for Tea Party references to discussing TARP while it was all happening. You gave me links that dealt with no such thing. Or were post-mortem assessments of past decisions.

    Glenn Beck did change his mind after the fact. But, that’s as good as it gets. Nobody raising their voice to how awful TARP was when it came up. No gloom and doom.

    Please provide links (as I read them all) that address how awful TARP was when it entered the public discussion. Thank you!

  18. You mean like this link from Michelle’s article I posted?

    “But it is September 19, 2008. And this is a Republican White House presiding over the Mother of All Bailouts. Every step along the way since stimuluspalooza began last summer, we’ve heard that every bailout step was just a one-off. Each step was supposed to calm the markets. Each new government intervention and allocation of taxpayer dollars was supposed to achieve “stability.” Each new package of goodies rewarding irresponsible behavior and bad financial decisions was supposed to prevent new ones.

    None did. And now, here we are.”

  19. Not to mention you conceed that GB did exactly what you accuse ‘nobody’ of doing. You asked for proof “that they were protesting Bush on TARP, and taking government to task for excessive spending, etc.”

    This claiming that no one can provider your proof, when people provide you proof is becoming most troublesome, Vince.

  23. “when people provide you proof is becoming most troublesome, Vince.” Yeah, all of the proof you provided was after-the-fact. I was asking for real-time. And you finally provided a link (one).

    Thanks, TLW.

  24. Well, I figured you’d well, you know, read the link I provided (as you indicated you did) and see all the other links in the article I linked. (Including the second article I linked to).

    Troublesome.

  26. Still, I’m surprised at such little outrage there was during that period of September/October 2008.

    Today, I’m one of the most vehemently anti-bailout people you will find. At the time however, I didn’t know any better. I knew that deficits and money printing were bad, and I criticized Bush for them, at the time. And I knew Obama was lying about being a deficit-cutting centrist, so I opposed him. And the bailouts sounded wrong; they went against my instincts. But I didn’t oppose them “in high dudgeon” (let’s say) because I was sort of in shock, and only later understood the full extent of how “screwed” we were – both in general situation and by the nature of the bailouts.

    I think a lot of Americans were in the same boat as me. Or still are. There is still a lot of (what I would consider) economic ignorance out there. Even Powerline, one of the most politically conservative blogs, published a piece recently where they tentatively approve of Bernanke’s QE2 policy. What a mistake!

    But they don’t know any better. The world has been misled by generations of Keynesian nonsense. The Austrian School is the only real economics. Supply-siders are almost OK, they are halfway there, but sometimes still get it wrong or spew neo-Keynesian nonsense without realizing. I have only figured that part out since after November 2008.

    But I digress. I believe the Tea Party burst into existence in 2009, when people like me started realizing more of what I’m talking about. So no, of course they weren’t around yet to criticize the bailouts as they were happening in 2008.

    Our leaders are supposed to know not to pull sh*t like that. They didn’t. Again, partly it’s that we’ve all been misled by the economists of left-wing academia. But also, any leaders out there who truly believe in human freedom and SMALL GOVERNMENT should have instinctively recoiled from the bailouts. Some did (the ones who rightly voted against it.) McCain didn’t.

  30. What does it matter when the tea party started or whether they criticized Bush and Obama equally? If spending is a problem, then their objections to the fiscal policy under Obama are valid. Backtracking and trying to blame people for not criticizng Bush is just a deflection. Just my 2 cents.

  31. ROL >> The problem is that it makes it easy for leftists to question, at least partially, the legitimacy/integrity of the Tea Party movement. That if small government was their goal and the Republicans had completely deviated from that concept, why is it that they waited until a Democrat started his term as president. This, along with the fact that Obama is half-black, made it easy for leftists to throw around the “racist” remarks.

    ILC got to the heart of my question and offered a reasonable explanation (unlike TLW who didn’t understand my query nor addressed it very well, which is becoming a theme with TLW).

    So, yes, it was very important for people like me to understand, rather then wonder.

    Just my 2 cents.

  32. Vince: What is your issue?

    The Tea Party did not exist in September/October 2008 period. The roots of the TEA Party did exist. Is that part of your issue? You write:

    ” I’ve heard Tea Party members claims they started before Obama assumed office…”

    TARP and the Bush/Paulson full court press overwhelmed Congress, the MSM and citizens in general. Many of us instinctively believed that there is no such thing as “too big to fail” and that propping up selected failed enterprises while letting others collapse was beyond any common business sense. It was triage on Wall Street under “Chicken Little” chaos with no guidelines or guardrails other than Paulson playing God and Bush and Congress signing on.

    ….that they were protesting Bush on TARP….

    I imagine you want documented evidence that the people who became the TEA Party expressed their concerns during this short period; that they rose up in a groundswell of opposition. Well, it did not happen. They were caught in the confusion of watching the snowball gather speed and watching to see what McCain and the Republican would do and what Obama and the Democrats would do. Meanwhile, the House Republicans did try to stall Paulson and TARP but were bulldozed by Pelosi, Bush and Paulson while the all knowing MSM gaped in stunned ignorance.

    …. and taking government to task for excessive spending, etc.

    This is the easiest part of your chosen words to deal with. Many people spoke out against Bush and the Congressional Republicans after they lost Congress in 2006 by playing Democrat-lite games of deficit spending, pork barrel games, etc. Bush never used the veto pen and unleashed “no child left behind”, prescription drugs for seniors, “compassionate conservatism” on us. Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Malkin, Levine, Boortz, and many others clearly expressed displeasure at these initiatives.

    Here is my concern:

    I’ve heard Tea Party members claims they started before Obama assumed office, that they were protesting Bush on TARP, and taking government to task for excessive spending, etc. I can’t find any documents supporting this.

    This is so convoluted as to be almost beyond the possibility to decipher.

    I could say that I heard Democrats claim that they could swallow an elephant whole before hurricane Katrina, but I can not find any documents supporting this.

    What is your point? Is this about whether the TEA Party existed at the time of TARP or whether there were any protests against TARP or if “dissatisfaction” with TARP rises to the standards to suit what you report you have heard?

    My, oh my. This thing is has all the characteristics of chasing butterflies.

  33. Vince, I think as soon as we focus on people’s motives and start trying to undermine people’s intentions we lose sight of the real issue. Leftists do this all too often — claiming, for instance, that people who want to fight for women’s rights in the Mideast are really interested in oil, when in fact the need for intervention in the area of women’s rights is obvious and easily documented. Or they can claim that people voted for Bush because of swift-boat ads and homophobia even though John Kerry’s stances on foreign policy, at a time when foreign policy mattered, were indeed contradictory and self-defeating.

    The only time I have stooped to this game is in my attempts to understand the gay community’s obsession with repealing DADT. Repealing the gay separation chapter means disabling the 98% of DADT discharges which were voluntary and honorable, for the sake of the 2% if cases that caused people to get fired in years past. I had to speculate about something deeper in the gay psyche and concluded that there was an underlying fixation with military masculinity, a fetish, which led them to continue arguing for something despite the simple fact that their argument was misdirected. In the case, I tried to understand people’s motives, and I took a risk and linked the obsession to the wave of porn about military men. Even then I tried to remain rooted in the specifics of military life and how gay spokespeople clearly had a fantasy rather than a real perspective on it.

    But in most cases, if you stay on the details of the argument itself we’re much better off. Clearly the Tea Party objects to fiscal problems that are easy to document. I think people shouldn’t take the bait and get into a he-said-she-said, esp. if charges of racism are involved.

  34. I think Vince is putting forth a hifalutin version of the weak ass “They didn’t complain when Bush did it.” and trying to sound sincere in the process. As if it really matters WHEN people decide enough is enough.

  35. Helio >> Thanks for your reply, but ILC, as you can see, and I acknowledged, provided a sufficient answer. If you can’t recognize me as someone trying to make a genuine effort to understand where the Tea Party was coming from, instead of being someone who doesn’t inquire and just writes them off as racist idiots, then I can’t make you see that. ILC appeared to have understood where I was coming from and gave me the benefit of the doubt. If you read ALL of my posts on this thread objectively and cannot see I’m making a genuine inquiry, then I can’t make you see it.

    And, yes, I was listening to This American Life two months ago and they profiled Tea Party members who claimed they were actively protesting Bush during TARP in the FALL of 2008. If you don’t believe me, it was from broadcast #417: This Party Sucks aired originally on the 31st of October, 2010. I was only trying to get more information on it. If you don’t believe me, THEN LISTEN TO IT YOURSELF!

    TGC >> I am sincere. And if you doubt it, it’s your choice. But, your arrogance isn’t going to win you any converts. In fact, your arrogance is equivalent to that of Gay, Inc. And if that’s the level you want to sink to, it’s your choice. I’m here to be converted. And, if I don’t agree with something, right or wrong, I will speak up. But, my posts on this thread were purely to extract information.

  36. And if you doubt it, it’s your choice. But, your arrogance isn’t going to win you any converts. In fact, your arrogance is equivalent to that of Gay, Inc.

    Arrogance? Moi? Really?

    I am sincere.

    One might have indicated thus in the first place.

  40. Wow! Vince.

    If you can’t recognize me as someone trying to make a genuine effort to understand where the Tea Party was coming from, instead of being someone who doesn’t inquire and just writes them off as racist idiots, then I can’t make you see that.

    “…a genuine effort to understand where the Tea Party was coming from…” is nothing more than garbled syntax. Please reveal what “where the Tea Party was coming from” means in English.

    I was listening to This American Life two months ago and they profiled Tea Party members who claimed they were actively protesting Bush during TARP in the FALL of 2008.

    Let me get this straight. You listened to a scripted, edited, highly produced show that profiled a few TEA Party members and those few TEA Party members said they actively protested Bush during TARP in the Fall of 2008. Then you came here and asked for documentation from GP and the rest to substantiate what you heard on that show and we have failed to serve you properly.

    Is that about it?

  41. Helio >> Like I said, listen to it yourself. And, then, criticize.

    After listening to the show, I did my own research on the internet, as best I could and had trouble finding information. I came here for help as a short-cut.

    You’ve criticized me for doing so.

    Thanks. Have a great day.

  42. Naw, listening to a show is not the point. This is the point:

    A little off topic, but “dawn of Tea Party” set off a trigger. (….) Also, I looked in the archives of GayPatriot and I couldn’t find any thoughts/criticism on TARP around September/October 2008. Am I missing something here?

    You claim to be on a quest based on what you heard in a show. Fine. Have a happy quest. But, instead, you take Dan’s headline words (“Dawn of TEA Party”) and you “challenge” the readers here to come up with extant “thoughts/criticism” on TARP during the time of the birth and enactment of TARP.

    The “dawn of the TEA Party” is a fluid concept. The TEA Party stands for “Taxed Enough Already” which should clearly imply to even the pickiest quibbler that the awakening is incremental and takes place when the epiphany hits you in the gut.

    TARP was a 3/4 TRILLION dollar chunk of deficit out of nowhere. It was the nuclear bomb of emergency spending. It was “do it now or world depression, chaos and ruin begins right after sunrise tomorrow.” Were you there? Did you know what was happening? Did you resolve the issues to your satisfaction in a calm, collected, scholarly way?

    Vince, you personalized your “quest” by toying with readers here. V the K and The_Livewire attempted to deal with your quest, as did I. ILC pretty much said the same things while adding his personal befuddlement during the TARP “crisis” period.

    For the second time, I am asking you what your issue is. Are you uncomfortable with when and how the genesis of the TEA Party took place? If you are challenging what a few people unknown on this site said on a program, why did you come here to ask it?

    Is it clear to you now that many of us who are TEA Party supporters did not have meetings until we spontaneously oozed out of our lairs and discovered one another and reveled in the discovery that we were not alone on the local level? That took place over time all across the country and one TEA Party in the news down the road gave rise to a new TEA Party group elsewhere.

    Sarah Palin did a great job of plain speaking and drawing huge, enthusiastic crowds who got off their wallets and toned down their grumpiness toward McCain and decided (albeit too late) to get into the election of 2008. She alone provided incredible energy to the TEA Party movement that created the results of the 2010 elections.

    I will have a terrific day, regardless of your dismissive wishes. It is you that came poking about for answers to vague questions and proceeded to tell all (except ILC) that they were missing the point. I asked you what your point was and you answered by telling me that you were not getting what you wanted to hear. Think about that. For all intents and purposes, because of your eel like twisting and turning, I assume you are hung up on when the calendar date of the official emergence of the TEA Party movement can be fixed. Who cares?

  43. Helio, he just doesn’t like answers.
    We went from “I can’t find any documents supporting this.” Then when given documentation, he goes “Thanks, that’s a handy list. However, it doesn’t address the Tea Party or TARP.”

    When pointed out that yes it does, and here’s more issues he claims to have ‘read the links’ then somehow misses that they address his questions. So then he’s pointed directly to the links.

    From there we get. ” Too bad her voice was so quiet and people didn’t get organized until after the inauguration.”

    Vince’s mind is clearly made up, and he’ll keep moving the goal posts to avoid changing it.

    Then, best of all, he has the gall to accuse me of ‘not answering the question’ when he keeps changing it. Troubling, really.

  46. I actually found a comment by me about Sherrod Brown’s phonelines being busy because of people calling and complaining back in 08 on this site,

    But hey, it’s hard to argue with facts, best to ignore them.

  49. Good on you, NDT.

    I clearly remember Paulson being tagged as the go to guy for understanding the Great Depression and how he wouldn’t push the panic button if the sky were not actually falling and the FED this and the FED that and blah, blah, blah.

    Then we learned that the $750 BILLION number was chosen for the impact of its size, not for any actual accounting reasons. It was all gamesmanship played by crisis management rules which were made up as the thugs in charge needed them.

    When the clothes were yanked off those charlatans, the TEA Party movement was formed and energized. But too late to stop the Obamessiah and his fundamental change and economy from the bottom up doublespeak and claptrap. Since then it has been charade around the styrofoam columns ever since. Now Obambi has been tossed out of the machine during the spin cycle and he doesn’t know what hit him.

    Man, were we had!

  50. Everybody please relax.

    I’d forgotten that Michelle Malkin did such a great job of criticizing Fannie, Freddie and TARP/bailouts in real time. TL, I also thank you for that link.

    ILC got to the heart of my question

    Thanks Vince. (blush) BTW, will you be in WeHo over the New Year? I might be.

    if small government was their goal and the Republicans had completely deviated from that concept, why is it that they waited until a Democrat started his term as president. This, along with the fact that Obama is half-black, made it easy for leftists to throw around the “racist” remarks.

    I think the leftists were going to throw around “racist” regardless. I have had leftists imply to me that small government per se is “racist.”

    Having said that: there is no question that the Bushes, both 41 and 43, have been bad news for the “Republican brand” on domestic policy. First Bush 41 broke his given word to the American people about raising taxes – partly to fund his “compassionate” spending increases. Then Bush 43 with his mush of “compassionate conservatism” spent like a Democrat, even before the Democratic Congress started in Jan 2007. And he closed his Presidency with the bailouts. Awful!

    A number of us here are skeptical of the Republican Party, for such reasons. Especially of self-proclaimed “moderates”; a Republican is almost always “moderate” in order to justify his or her support for Big Government. (Huckabee is an exception; like Bush, he says he is conservative and that it is somehow conservative to support Big Government.) And yet, the Republicans are not usually quite as bad as the Democrats. I keep saying, with Republicans you get a Big Government solution 80% of the time; with the Democrats, you get one 100% of the time. I criticize both, as they deserve it – which means I criticize the Democrats more.

    Sooner or later, America is going to run out of money (I would say it has already). Maybe that will bring both parties back to fiscal responsibility – meaning, not tax increases, but huge cuts in government. I’ve been looking for an excuse to post this graph: http://seekingalpha.com/article/240443-how-much-federal-spending-can-americans-afford

    It shows you how Bush 41 expanded spending, Clinton (with Gingrich’s help) restrained spending, Bush 43 expanded spending more, but now Obama/Pelosi/Reid have jacked up spending radically. The party that reverses their increases (bringing spending back to its historical trendline of what the nation can afford) will inherit the next 50 years.

  51. NDT: Awesome comment from Sept 2008. I salute you for putting it so well back then. (I was struggling.) “Deflation” of the prices of bad assets (malinvestments) and consequent re-deployment of those assets is not an economic problem, it is part of economic healing. Obama’s (and Bush’s) policies have been largely directed to preventing it.

  53. My apologies for not finding your links in my hit parade above NDT.

    I guess you were ‘too quiet’ for Vince. That or he was unable to find your documentation.

    Still I’m not surprised. He does seem to demonstrate selective reading skills.

  54. ILC

    I think you have a slight memory lapse. 41 breaking his ¨read my lips¨ pledge of no new taxes probably started to tarnish the Republican brand. The Democrats held the purse strings. He broke the pledge to balance the budget and did so with the Democrats promise of no new spending. As Democrats will do they broke their promise to GHWB. He felt betrayed that they reneged. This should serve as an augur that compromises should not be entered into. Republicans were adamant that all the Bush Tax should be made permaent. It could have done for the middle class and the top tier for two years. Even Stu Varney thought it was a good deal and they could come back with a majority and make the whole enchillada permanet. Yet they´ve got a two year deal with 13 months of unemployment extention, and other riders and pork attached. The establishment Republicans think they´ve done a good job. I expect the Tea Party to punsih them in 2012 for their fecklessness.

  55. Roberto, I’m afraid that I’m not following your point (as something different from my point).

    41 breaking his ¨read my lips¨ pledge of no new taxes probably started to tarnish the Republican brand.

    Yes, that’s what I said.

    The Democrats [as a Congressional majority at the time] held the purse strings.

    Yes. And, the President holds a veto power and other powers to persuade and/or fight with Congress. Let’s refer to Bush’s 1988 nomination acceptance speech. As he put it then,

    My opponent won’t rule out raising taxes. But I will. And the Congress will push me to raise taxes, and I’ll say no, and they’ll push, and I’ll say no, and they’ll push again, and I’ll say, to them, “Read my lips: no new taxes.”

    Which requires and implies (by simple arithmetic, and if deficits are a concern) that Bush would push and push and push against their spending increases. So why didn’t he? Was he just lying, in his speech?

  56. (continued) If Bush had really meant:

    My opponent won’t rule out raising taxes. But I will. And the Congress will push me to raise taxes, and I’ll say no, and they’ll push, and I’ll say no, and they’ll push again, and I’ll say, to them, “Read my lips: no new taxes.” *Unless of course they happen to increase the budget. If they put on some budget increases and make the deficit more of a concern, of course I will cave then, and raise taxes.*

    Then he should have said so, in the 1988 campaign.

  57. ILC. I agree. I do think when he made the pledge in his acceptance speech, that he really believed what he said. But so often statements made with good intentions dissolve into campaign rhetoric. I would say my sub-point is that compromises don´t work. He naively believed that the Democrats would hold the line on spending if he would approve the tax increase. I am skeptical of what the the establishment Republicans did with Obama. I believe the Tea Party will punish them in 2012.

    Campaigning is one thing governing is another. Many candidates rarely have an accurate picture of what is inside the White House. Pat Caudell said when CArter walked in, when he saw what he was going have to deal with´said he doubted he could fulfill his promises. Clinton campaigned in92 on a middle class tax cut. Then during the transition found that he could keep the promise. NOt only could he not cut the tax he ended up raising taxes. It´s becoming obvioul that winning the White House is not a turn key operation. I don´t remember who said but it is good advice, ¨promise very little but deliver what you promised.¨

  58. A little off topic, but…

    BTW, Vince: I wouldn’t worry about that too much. It’s the comments section of a blog. The topic is whatever people need to talk about.

    There is a particular individual, you’ve noticed, who tries to use “staying on topic” to shut down comments/commentors that he can’t answer. His tactic doesn’t work, because it’s so blatantly hypocritical. If (note *IF*) we are going to use that kind of rule, then any comment that admonishes others is in off-topic in itself; therefore invalid. Whenever the individual tries to play the card, *he* inherently takes the thread off-topic.

    In that situation, you may see me quote that individual’s advice back to him. But when I do so, my point is about integrity vs. hypocrisy – not about agreeing with or supporting his view.

  59. ILC >>

    Back to my post #1. I saw the phrase “dawn of Tea Party,” and it made me think of an NPR program I listened to months ago, as well as others claiming the same. And, I began to wonder, well, I don’t remember this. And I did my research as best I could, and I came up with nothing. My only objective was to find out if this was a true claim. Not to nit-pick the Tea Party. Why you didn’t take a personal affront to my question and shed whatever light you could and why others assumed the worst possible intention speaks volumes.

    Now, I have a better understanding of the formation of the Tea Party and whomever I heard in the past claim they were a fully formed party protesting Bush is full of horse manure.

    This could have all been achieved sans the attitude. And I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt.

    I will be around New Year’s. My email is vatzjr @ yahoo . com.

    As far as your last comment, I am noticing all kinds of repeated behaviors.

  60. Vince,

    With all due respect, you might reread your #1 for clarity. You can not find: ……

    Now, I have a better understanding of the formation of the Tea Party and whomever I heard in the past claim they were a fully formed party protesting Bush is full of horse manure.

    ….. embedded or even implied in: …..

    I’ve heard Tea Party members claims they started before Obama assumed office, that they were protesting Bush on TARP, and taking government to task for excessive spending, etc. I can’t find any documents supporting this.

    A simple Google search would have established when the TEA Party came onto the scene. However, you can not dispute the claims of people who are now TEA Party members who trace their objections to big government to actions that occurred before the TEA Party existed.

    In fairness to others who responded to your post, you might apologize for smacking down their evidence which apparently did not meet your poorly stated criteria. I do not include myself as the recipient of any curt or cloying response. I am an equal opportunity quibbler with leading questions that seem to dangle.

  61. Vince, may I turn the question around on you? Where was the “No Labels” movement when the Democrats were completely in charge of the Government? Where were the “centrist” groups telling Democrats that they should compromise with Republicans in the name of bipartisanship, even though Republicans were in the minority?