The TEA Party and the GOP
Tags: Second American Revolution.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
And we GOPers better pay attention:
While the energy of the anti-tax and anti-Big Government tea party movement may yet haunt Democrats in 2010, the first order of business appears to be remaking the Republican Party.
Whether it’s the loose confederation of Washington-oriented groups that have played an organizational role or the state-level activists who are channeling grass-roots anger into action back home, tea party forces are confronting the Republican establishment by backing insurgent conservatives and generating their own candidates — even if it means taking on GOP incumbents.
“We will be a headache for anyone who believes the Constitution of the United States … isn’t to be protected,” said Dick Armey, chairman of the anti-tax and limited government advocacy group FreedomWorks, which helped plan and promote the tea parties, town hall protests and the September ‘Taxpayer March’ in Washington. “If you can’t take it seriously, we will look for places of other employment for you.”
“We’re not a partisan organization, and I think many Republicans are disappointed we are not,” added Armey, a former GOP congressman.
I’m not – I want the TEA Party and the GOP to remain separate – though, of course, I want my GOP to bid strongly for TEA Party support. It is what I intend to do – and I warn all my fellow GOPers that if we spurn these people and/or take them for granted, then we’ll pay a high price. But more important than the sheer political battle, the TEA Party offers us a chance for real reform.
P. J. O’Rourke wrote – only half-jokingly – after the 2008 election that we conservatives had blown it for good and all. We had the world at our feet, and we threw it all away. In a very real sense, we did – we forgot what we’re here for. Its not for tinkering around the edges of Big Government; its not to be a kind face for Big Corporation idiocy; its not to merely harp upon one-issue themes…it is to rescue our Republic from the leftists who seek our destruction. We are the party of Life; we are the party of Family; we are the party of Faith…but in order for us to defend Life, Family and Faith our first task is to bring government back under control. Our first task is to restore the Constitutional order…after that, the rest will fall our way of its own accord. If we can’t do this, then all our arguments against abortion, against gay marriage, in favor of family and faith are pointless…the left will just roll over us and take us down along with the economic conservatives. Divided we really do fall.
The TEA Party wants just this – government under control, out of the way and reduced to its proper functions. If we can demonstrate to the TEA Party people that we are serious about this, they’ll come out and vote for us in droves, and provide all the enthusiasm we need to sweep this nation. So far, I only see a few Republicans who are picking up on this – Sarah Palin is the most prominent, but most GOPers either are shying away, or are foolishly thinking of ways to get the support without carrying out the promise.
Barack Obama and his leftist Democrats have concentrated our mind – it is now time for us to put together the winning coalition; it can be done, it must be done. All it takes is a willingness to listen and then the courage to act.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
29 Responses to “The TEA Party and the GOP”
Caucus of Corruption
I am hoping that the Tea Parties will help bring out more conservatives and libertarians for the next election. We need to look at removing almost all long term Representatives (I include my Republican one, Lee Terry) simply to remove the influence of lobbiests.
The two words of “career” and “politician” should never be in the same sentence. And just as people have to pass a test to drive a car, graduate from college, etc, I think people should have to pass a basic compentency test to vote. I believe we just have too many people in this country that couldn’t even tell you what the constitution is, let alone what it says.
A thriving democracy requires a vigilant populace, and educated voters
cluster
A thriving democracy requires a vigilant populace, and educated voters
Like they did in FLA in 2K……gave cigarettes to street bums and took then by bus to vote…..donk of course.
neocon1 says:
October 12th, 2009 at 8:57 am
so “street bums” should NOT be allowed to vote?
kjstrouble1 says:
October 12th, 2009 at 12:17 am
agree on term limits.
Cluster: disagree. Citizens have few basic rights that they are simply born with, and deserve simply for being born, and voting is one of them. Unless somebody commits some crime which results in the forfeiture of their right to vote, they have every right to vote for whomever they choose. Your test would certainly end up discriminating against the mentally disabled and the uneducated in this country. In any case, many who don’t care enough– probably disproportionately those whom your test would exclude– end up not voting anyway. Also, if such a test were to be created, who would ensure that it is not biased against any one group or another in any way?
Ohio: only Democratic street bums shouldn’t be allowed to vote
fruit
, and deserve simply for being born, and voting is one of them. Unless somebody commits some crime which results in the forfeiture of their right to vote, they have every right to vote for whomever they choose.
you seem we had to pass legislation to get this “right” it is no where in the constitution.
“Although found nowhere in the national archives or known writings of Benjamin Franklin, it is widely accepted that he once said “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
According to the most recent data from the Congressional Budget Office, the bottom 50% of all income earners pay just 3.4% of the taxes collected! Conversely, the top 20% of income earners pay a whopping 85% of the taxes collected. In other words, 80% of income earners contribute a miserable 15% of the taxes collected! When you consider that this lower income bracket is totally dominated by politicians that overwhelmingly favor wealth redistribution, Americans are now able to “vote themselves money.” One is left to wonder if we have already begun to “herald the end of the republic.”
Let’s not forget plank number two in Karl Marx’s ten planks toward communism in his Communist Manifesto, which is “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”
a repost
Every evening, the same 10 friends eat dinner together, family style, at the same restaurant. The bill for all 10 comes to $100. They always pay it the way we pay taxes:
• The first four are poor and pay nothing.
• The fifth pays $1.
• The sixth pays $3.
• The seventh, $7
• The eighth, $12.
• The ninth, $18.
• The 10th, (the most well-to-do) pays $59.
One night the restaurant owner announces that because they’re such good customers, he’s dropping their group dinner bill to $80. Let’s call that a tax cut. They want to continue paying their bill as we pay taxes. So the four poorest men still eat free. But if the other six split the $20 tax cut evenly, each would save $3.33. That means the fifth and sixth men would end up being paid to eat. The restaurant owner works out a plan: The fifth man eats free; the sixth pays $2; the seventh, $5; the eighth, $9; the ninth, $12; and the 10th guy pays $52. All six are better off than before, and the four poor guys still eat for nothing. The trouble starts when they leave the restaurant and begin to compare what they reaped from the $20 cut. “I only got a dollar of it,” says the sixth man, “but he (pointing at No. 10) got $7.” The fifth guy, who also saved a dollar by getting his meal free, agrees that it’s not fair for the richest to get seven times the savings as he. No. 7, grousing that the wealthy get all the breaks, points out that he only got two bucks. “Wait a minute,” the first four poor guys yell in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!” The nine men jump the 10th and administer a severe beating. The next night he doesn’t come for dinner. They shrug it off and eat without him. The customary $80 bill comes. Surprise! They’re $52 short.
Yes, those who pay the most taxes get the most back from tax reductions. But tax them too much — punish them for the wealth they may have — and they just might stop bringing their money to the table.
I guess this is why American businesses have about $10 trillion in offshore deposits. You can’t blame them. After all, they got tired of getting beat up to forfeit their “fair share.”
I like this…
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer
cluster: And just as people have to pass a test to drive a car, graduate from college, etc, I think people should have to pass a basic compentency test to vote.
I disagree too. But I do I think candidates should have to pass a basic competency test to become candidates — and should they get elected, congresscritters should have to take a basic competency test on each and every bill that comes up for vote before they are allowed to vote.
http://www.breitbart.tv/fox-news-lays-out-facts-after-white-house-escalates-war-on-network/
Rico,
So you don’t mind some moron who doesn’t even know who the SecState is to cancel your vote on an important election?
This just in: Fox News are bullies!
LMAO
ricorun,
I agree with you. Our congresscritter’s should be able to demonstrate some competency on at least the important bills.
As for requiring competency tests to vote, that was used in the South as a method of keeping blacks from voting. Do we really want to go there again?
“So you don’t mind some moron who doesn’t even know who the SecState is to cancel your vote on an important election?”
It’s not something that I like, but I live with it. That’s one of the prices of living in a red state.
Personally, if the tea party movement would have started three of four years ago, I would have been all for it. At least the parts about smaller government and holding politicians accountable.
cluster: Rico, So you don’t mind some moron who doesn’t even know who the SecState is to cancel your vote on an important election?
Heck, I’m not even sure you should be eligible to vote, lol!
Truthfully though, I suppose I do mind (although I would weight eligibility on the basis of analytical abilities rather than rote memory, but that’s beside the point). Then again, so did our founding fathers. That’s why they created a representative republic rather than a popular democracy. One hopes, however, that they assumed the popularly elected represetatives (which in those days were limited to those elected to the House of Representatives) had a certain minimal level of competency. And it might have been true at the time. The question is, in the world of district gerrymandering, etc., how realistic is it to continue to assume that?
Personally, if the tea party movement would have started three of four years ago, I would have been all for it. At least the parts about smaller government and holding politicians accountable.
But now that you’ve seen how well large government and unaccountability are working out, you’re against it? Do you ever think before you type, Casper?
retiredspook,
Actually, I saw how well large government and unaccountability didn’t work with the last administration. That’s one of the reasons I wanted a new one. The questions is why weren’t you against it four years ago?
That’s the reason why you wanted a new large government that’s unaccountable Cap??
And if I remember correctly, Spook was very much against the size and scope of the federal government under Bush, as most of us were. What we did support fully was his GWOT.
But I would never expect you to acknowledge that. Just doesn’t fit that agenda thang you got going on.
Nice dodge, Casper; and you have a short memory. I was one of the first Conservatives on B4B to criticize Bush for signing off on a spending binge that was only exceeded by his successor. And, for the record, I was NEVER a big Bush supporter, even from the beginning of his first term. I respected him for the fact that he kept us safe after 9/11, for two superb SC Justices, the near total lack of scandal in his administration (a pleasant change from his predecessor) and for his unwavering support for the military, but not much else.
cluster,
When have I ever said I wanted a large government that’s unaccountable?
retiredspook,
You are correct. I made the same mistake a lot of conservatives do when they try to put anyone that opposes them into a nice little box. While there were a lot of conservatives on this blog that defended everything Bush did, there were also some who at least questioned his spending. My point is that overall, there wasn’t much opposition to Bush”s big government. It only became a big issue when a liberal became president.
When have I ever said I wanted a large government that’s unaccountable? – Cap
Actually, I saw how well large government and unaccountability didn’t work with the last administration. That’s one of the reasons I wanted a new one. – Cap
Cap,
Do you remembger 2006? When the GOP lost Congress? Can you wager a guess as to why they lost control of Congress?
cluster,
Do you have a reading disability. I’m saying I wanted a new ADMINISTRATION, not a large government that’s unaccountable.
Cap, I read what you posted, which was a freudian slip no doubt. You just need to be a bit more careful with your phrasing.
Now, answer the 2006 question.
My point is that overall, there wasn’t much opposition to Bush”s big government. It only became a big issue when a liberal became president.
I’m confused, Casper. So you’re saying that this chart of Bush’s approval rating from 9/11 on reflects support for his policies? Ya could’a fooled me.
And I think, for the record, most people, even those who voted for Bush and later lost faith in him as a leader, just didn’t see him as a “big government guy”. Other than the MediCare prescription drug benefit, I’m hard-pressed to think of any “big government” programs that he championed. On the contrary, he tried to reform Social Security during his first term — invited the Dems to bring any and all ideas to the table and said nothing was off limits. They told him to pound sand. He prosecuted an expensive war — OK, but a war that the majority of Dems voted to support. Now, in terms of “big government”, Obama is like Bush on steroids. I hope you’re happy with your choice.
Cap, I read what you posted, which was a freudian slip no doubt. You just need to be a bit more careful with your phrasing.
Now, answer the 2006 question.
LOL
The right to vote is probably the most important right we have, and should be the most sacrosanct. Yet it is the most abused and violated of all the rights, and the simpleminded bleating of “street bums should be allowed to vote” is part of the reason this right is being so eroded.
Yes, “street bums” should be allowed to vote. IF they are citizens, if they can prove this, and if they can prove who they are at the voting place. And no one should be allowed to buy those votes with booze or cigarettes.
Anyone who is involved enough to want to vote is able to prove citizenship—it is not hard to track down birth certificates or such documentation. Anyone can get a photo ID for free in any state. Need an address? Allow designated sites, such as shelters, to provide mailing addresses for the homeless, if they meet the criteria for voters. Let “community organizers” help the homeless track down their birth records and get addresses and IDs.
And arrest, prosecute, and jail anyone who transports anyone to any polling place and puts any kind or degree of pressure or even suggestion about how the transported should vote.
Voting is way too important to just scrape drunks off the street and send them in to vote a certain way in return for some kind of payment.
No one has suggested the disenfranchisement of street people, but voting is a responsibility as well as a right, and should therefore be available to those who value it and not handed out like Halloween candy to those who don’t.
In the same vein, I think we need to do some things to clean up voting in this country.
1. Pass a Constitutional Amendment that provides that all ballots cast in a federal election be consistent and drawn up and cast according to the same rules. That is, each state, when handling presidential elections, should have to meet the same standards as every other state.
2. Pass whatever law is necessary to ensure that all ballots are counted. Now, once an outcome is ensured, the remaining absentee ballots are not counted. Wrong. Every legitimate ballot should be counted.
3. Require photo ID to vote in every presidential election. If a state wants a Banana Republic level of voter integrity for its own elections, find, but presidential elections are too important.
4. Eliminate Motor Voter and same-day registrations. If you can’t haul your heinie down to a voter registration office to register, where a trained person can talk to you and take verification information, you aren’t responsible enough to vote. And no registration should be allowed within a month of an election, with the exception of a recent change of address.
5. Enforce laws that only citizens can vote.
6. Purge the voter registration records of all dead, moved, and otherwise disqualified voters. One way to do this would be to mail out confirmations of registration information, in envelopes that cannot be forwarded. Any which are returned are deemed to be no longer valid. Anyone getting a form has to fill it out, under penaly of perjury, regarding the information provided. That information has to include data on naturlization for non-native citizens, date and place of birth, and an affadivit that this person is not registered in or voting in any other location. Don’t mail this back in, or move—go to a local registration office to register.
7. Reserve absentee ballots for those with legitimate reasons for needing them, and abolish mail-in voting for any other reason.
8. We don’t need translators at polling places. If you are naturalized, you had to pass an English test. If you are born here and are old enough to vote, and still can’t speak English, tough. Have someone go over the ballots that are always printed in the local papers, before going in to vote, and mark your choices there.
9. Post, and publicize, the disclaimer that it is YOUR responsibility to mark your ballot in a way that is unmistakably your intent. A ballot is not a vote till it is properly executed. If you don’t know how to mark a ballot, ask for help. If you screw up your ballot, ask for help. But know, with no room for misunderstanding, that if your ballot is submitted and is not a clear and unambiguous statement of your intent, with no interpretation necessary, it will be discarded.
10. Institute very tough laws for interfering with elections, ranging from outlawing the buying of votes as noted in previous posts to intimidation at polling places. This should NOT include silly claims such as passing by policemen investigating accidents or crimes far from the polling place and deciding this is just tooooo scary to be able to continue on to the polling place.