Showing posts with label Conservatives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservatives. Show all posts

Sunday, April 19, 2009

And now the angst of Tea Party Politics

The Rally
I attended the Macon (GA) Tea Party during lunch this past Wednesday. It was unclear who organized it, and which organization(s) were behind it, but being loosely billed as a tax protest I felt obligated to show my support.

It was already being labeled in the media as an astroturf campaign organized by billionaires to create the illusion of a grassroots movement against government spending and taxes. Since I participated in several past "tea party" actions during the Ron Paul presidential campaign, and was aware of CNBC's Rick Santelli's impromtu call for a protest against the bailouts and how motivating that was to the libertarian/liberty groups I occasionally frequent, I assumed the media branding was more propaganda than actual truth.

There were about 300 people present when I got there, and about half of them had all sorts of clever signs that mostly reflected an anti-tax, anti-government sentiment. Signs ran the gamut from "Don't Tread on Me" to "T(axed) E(nough) A(lready) Party" to "Don't Share My Wealth, Share My Work Ethic" to "Pass the Fair Tax." I walked around and through the crowd several times trying to read all of them while hoping to recognize friends I'd met through the Ron Paul campaign. I only encountered three or four that I knew, but it was pointed out to me several others who were also involved.

I read somewhere that the state libertarian party was behind at least some of these rallies, and was aware that Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty supporters were enthusiastic about them also, but still was not sure who/what was really behind this one. Local talk radio personality Chris Krok assumed credit for organizing the event, but one of the speakers tried to attribute the organization "Americans for Prosperity" as the event organizer, and instructed people to sign up with the volunteer making her way through the crowd. Since I consider the DC-based AFP to be more concerned with redirecting government resources toward big business rather than reducing the size of government and spending, this Tea Party's significance suddenly began to wane.

I started to realize that this grassroots effort was in the process of being hijacked by those whose agenda was not entirely in sync with the crowd's. This assessment became even more pronounced when the participating elected officials began to hoist "socialist/fascist Obama" above the crowd as the single unifying target toward which all our anger should be channeled.

Prior to handing the mic over to some of the elected officials, a few regular folks made speeches that were right on point. Their speeches were focused on genuine conservative issues that included shrinking the size of government, reducing both taxes and spending, restoring freedom and returning to the principles of our country's founders (but alas no mention whatsoever of the insidious inflation tax). However, these speakers had the gall to suggest that we hold our representatives accountable by voting them out of office when their votes violate these principles (ie. the bailouts), be they democrats or republicans. And the crowd seemed to receive these remarks with enthusiasm.

But as one elected official after another took the mic, the rally shifted from its original anti-tax tenor to the primal anti-Obama (and by extension anti-liberal) rage. I commented to a friend that the rally was starting to sound more like an attempt to reinvigorate the GOP than to address the issue of taxation. A stranger overheard me and turned around to say that's correct, that's what we're trying to do. I asked him what about the tax issue, and he said they talked about the Fair Tax a few minutes ago. I just rolled my eyes and sauntered on, trying to come up with a concise rebuttal that explains how horrible the Fair Tax is and how it's designed to keep the government as corrupt and well-fed as it is now, in case the opportunity comes up again in the next few minutes.

By this time I'm no more hopeful that we'll accomplish any significant reductions in the government's size, spending or modes of taxation than before the rally started. This event had truly been overtaken by establishment party members and their accomplices intent only on deflecting all accountability and protecting the status quo.

In retrospect, I wish I'd had the guts to ask for the mic for two seconds and thank everyone for being here and especially the speakers who remained on point, turn to the crowd and empower them with their first assignment as a participant of this tea party movement: charge them with the task to impose accountability on our representatives by firing every representative who voted for any of the bailouts, and rally them as an army who's got Congress in its sights. "We're coming after you, Congress! If you voted for TARP I, TARP II, The Stimulus, the Auto Bailouts, then you're fired! Accountability starts right here, right now!" Sigh.. the good stuff always happens in retrospect.


The Groups
So "Americans for Prosperity" has gotten its tentacles into the movement; how deeply or irreversibly remains to be seen. Browsing around the web to grasp the magnitude of the event nationwide, I ran across these tidbits that only convolute the whole thing into a heaping pile of mess.

1. The libertarians have held tax-day anti-tax rallies for years, before Ron Paul's latest presidential campaign, though they weren't called Tea Parties. The libertarians are rightfully feeling a little bitter over the lack of attribution for this event, with not even an utterance of the word "libertarian" in any of the national media coverage. Thankfully, one tv station included a few words from local libertarian icon David Corr castigating the GOP for taking over and explaining the anti-tax rally origins.

National media coverage: what a joke! ... more on that later.

2. Apparently the "T(axed) E(nough) A(lready) Party" slogan is the brainchild of the American Family Association, whose theocratic extremist agenda includes more government control over all aspects of our lives, and is one of the main reasons the GOP has fallen out of favor with the masses. Come to find out the AFA, in concert with globalist Newt Gingrich and his American Solutions organization, are one of the leading sponsors of this event, which jades the movement even more. And it saddens me that I saw at least 20-30 Taxed Enough Already signs at the rally.

3. FOX News heavily promoted this event, which should give us pause to consider whether the perceived intent of the participants far and wide is genuine, since FNC's one notable consistency is its commitment to run interference for any criticism of the GOP. However, I've come to the conclusion that alot of the criticism from the left over Fox's coverage of these rallies is actually rooted in jealousy.

Over the last decade, the left held numerous nationally-coordinated rallies designed to draw attention to everything from human rights violations of corporations to the largely ignored anti-war sentiment felt across the country. But they never had the aid of a national broadcast network to bring these events into people's living rooms like they'd hoped would occur. So the mere fact that Fox promoted, and then spent ample time covering, these rallies makes them just a little upset. I think the word for that is butthurt, lol.

The Solution
My solution to preventing Newt, et al from being successful in their attempts to ride our angst back into power is to faithfully adhere to the accountability pledge, with only one condition placed on the leading challengers: no former congressmen allowed. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Newt.

"I vow to support the leading challenger of every congressman and senator who voted "yes" on any of the bailouts, regardless of his/her party affiliation, and will continue to do so until the last one of the big spenders has been FIRED."

How about you?

--

Saturday, April 18, 2009

Tea Party politics

I went to the local tea party on April 15th and came away with mixed feelings that I'll share later. What I want to share today is a very inspiring clip from a tea party in South Carolina. The speaker is GOP representative Gresham Barrett, who supported both the $700 billion TARP bailout and the current Obama stimulus package. He's come to be known to his own as Bailout Barrett.

The crowd relentlessly rejects him throughout his speech, and watching this renews my hope that we the people will indeed rise to the occasion and start tossing these faux conservatives out on their butts.


I would like nothing better than to see the tea party movement immediately adopt an interim agenda to hold the big spenders in Congress accountable regardless of their party affiliation, by uniting the people to remove them from office. Anyone who voted for any of the bailouts MUST BE FIRED in the next election, and that means uniting behind the leading challenger in order to be successful in finally throwing the bums out.

So here and now, I'll take the accountability pledge, as a grassroots participant in the tea party movement:
"I vow to support the leading challenger of every congressman and senator who voted "yes" on any of the bailouts, regardless of his/her party affiliation, and will continue to do so until the last one of the big spenders has been FIRED."
Hopefully this sort of action will diminish the clutches of neocons and party insiders on the movement and restore the integrity of the voters' intent. In addition to actually holding our representatives accountable for once by the only means available to us.

Pass it on.

--

Friday, July 06, 2007

Debunking the "Ron Paul can't win" Myths

-Updated July 6, 2007-

It's become a standard component of all discussion surrounding Ron Paul's presidential candidacy: "..but he won't win the nomination." Stop saying it, because it's not true. I'll tell you why, without even mentioning his unshakable voluminous internet support mob (well, except to say his avid supporters have completely taken over Digg and Youtube, and he consistently wins every online poll that's offered - see how this internet support translates to actual feet on the ground here).

First off, how much does the media establishment really control the message? Let's look at a little recent electoral history: at this point in 1975, Jimmy Carter was at 1% in the national polls and went on to win the Presidency. In 1980, amidst a crowded field of GOP contenders, Ronald Reagan was flat out told he couldn't win, but he did. In mid-1987, Dukakis was at 1% in the polls and went on to win the Democratic nomination. In 1991, Clinton was at 2% in the polls and went on to become President.

How will it happen for Ron Paul?
Two years ago, Republicans made up 50% of the electorate. Indisputably, Bush's bungling of the war has shrunk that number down to 30%. Did that 20% just vanish, was it absorbed into the Democratic party, or did they drop off the radar as disenchanted conservatives because there was no one in leadership representing their views?

Who are these people that make up the missing 20%? From my own observations, about half of them are what is known as paleo-conservatives, small-government traditionalists who opposed the war from the start, but opposed Democrats even more, whose votes in 2004 were primarily anti-Kerry votes. Another quarter of them are Christian conservatives who've painfully recognized the liberal nature of this administration's policies and failures of its execution of the war in Iraq, the Birchers and Buchananists. Some of them are the free-trade libertarian-minded conservatives who've grown tired of government interference in matters of the economy. A small handful of them are anti-immigration conservatives seething from Bush and the GOP leaders' refusal to protect the borders. All of these groups are primed to embrace Ron Paul's message with enthusiasm, and together they comprise a full 20% of the electorate.

The Voting Electorate
Roughly 35% of the electorate self-identify as Democrats, and a dwindling 30% call themselves Republicans (see chart below). Media polling organizations often limit themselves to voters in these two groups, leaving out the voices of the 35% who claim neither party as their own.

Using the latest polling data, Giuliani has the support of 18% of self-identified Republicans, or about 5.4% of the overall electorate. McCain has 14% support from Republicans, or 4.2% of the electorate. Further, a full 30% of republicans (and 30% of democrats) are undecided, expressing great dissatisfaction with the media-anointed frontrunners. That figure alone equals a whopping 18% of the electorate (9% Republicans, 9% Democrats).

Now let's take that 20% of the electorate that is comprised of traditional conservatives who've abandoned the GOP since 2004 for various reasons. Combine that with the 9% of undecideds from the republican base and what you have is vast potential - 29% of the electorate - for Ron Paul. This gap between the dwindling base and mass of conservatives as a whole poses insurmountable odds to the likes of Giuliani's puny 5.4% or McCain's 4.2%, provided Paul's message is able to penetrate the media din of celebrity frontrunners.

In addition to this obvious GOP chasm (which is intensifying steadily over current immigration issues), we have another layer of influence to consider in how the country will vote. With nearly 3/4 of the country now opposed to the war in Iraq, and only one candidate offering to end it conclusively and expeditiously, odds overwhelmingly favor that very candidate. And there are lots more anti-war conservatives than the media give you privy to.

Remember, Paul consistently ranks very high in conservative credentials as determined by major conservative organizations and pundits alike. Early on, conservative support for Paul was vocalized, while some of these conservatives have already formally endorsed Paul for the GOP nomination.

Disenchanted Liberals
Coming straight out of left field, a third level of opportunity emerges from liberals writhing in their perceived betrayal of the newly elected Democratic majorities. Recent actions by the Democratic congress concerning war and trade issues have party activists livid, as a cursory scan of the liberal blogs will reveal. An undercurrent of Paul's common sense policy proposals already flows through these environs, and can easily separate the more frustrated liberals from the party, motivating them to vote for Paul in the primaries. The reasons are varied in their explanations, but more and more liberals are mentioning Paul in a surprisingly favorable light. Here's one liberal who believes that a Paul nomination will greatly improve the quality of discourse in today's acrid political environment. And another who embraces the taboo amongst liberal peers that comes from supporting Paul.

His common sense message of freedom, liberty, small government, non-intervention and reduced taxation, so deeply devoted to the Constitution, is uniting people across the political spectrum. Birchers and liberals united in common cause? Yes, it's happening. Despite pundit attempts to discredit Paul with the "he can't win" disclaimer, the vast pool of voters across the landscape who are hungry for strong, proven, Constitutional leadership is Ron Paul's for the taking.



Now say it with me: He can win.

No it will not be an easy task, and no you cannot sit back and relax and just watch it happen. Paul needs our support every minute of every day to carry his campaign into top tier status to help introduce him to the uninspired, quasi-apolitical conservative masses.

One more time: He can win. But only with our unequivocal enthusiasm and support.

Once Paul becomes the Republican presidential nominee, how do you think he'll fair against big government Hillary and billionaire corporatist Bloomberg? In this matchup, I predict a landslide victory for Paul. Though to become the 44th President of the United States, he only needs 33% + 1. It's no longer looking so impossible now, is it?


Update July 6, 2007:
For those still not convinced Ron Paul is the people's only choice for the 44th President of the United States, consider these points:

51% of this country voted for Ron Paul's message when they elected George Bush as president in 2000, because Bush ran on the traditional conservative platform of small-government, states rights, lower taxes and a humble foreign policy. And now for 2008, Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate in a crowded field who is bravely carrying the torch for that philosophy. The difference between Paul and Bush is that Paul has the solid record of 20 years of conservative, Constitutional leadership to back up every single thing he's saying. The people voted for this message just 7 years ago, and with a candidate of impeccable character like Paul leading the way, they'll vote for it again.

Also,
70% of Americans want the war in Iraq to be over, and our troops home. Only one candidate has the temerity to initiate that process on the first day of his presidency, Ron Paul. Ron Paul has been against this illegitimate war since it was first conceived in 1998, and has bravely spoken against it in his writings, in his speeches on the floor of the House, and in his public speaking engagements. There is no doubt where he stands regarding the war in Iraq, and the subsequent build-up of aggression towards Iran. He brings forth the leadership that a full 70% of this country wants.

81% of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, and in the same poll, 72% believe our Founding Fathers would be disappointed with the state of our nation today. Our current course is set for perpetual war, imminent bankruptcy, the continued weakening of our borders, our sovereignty, and our individual liberties, regardless of which party's media-designated "frontrunner" takes the helm in 2008. Only one candidate is offering to put us back on the course our Founding Fathers designed. That candidate is Ron Paul.

A new Zogby Poll has found that 9 in 10 Americans - 90% - believe the U.S. Constitution is still relevant in today's world. Only one candidate has adhered strictly to the Constitution throughout his entire political career. That candidate is Ron Paul. When God-fearing patriotic Americans listen to him speak, they know in their hearts that he's right because the language of liberty touches an inalienable instinct in all red-blooded Americans. We know that both the GOP and our government have lost their way and only one man, with the strength of his convictions, as well as our own, can return them both to the correct path.

There is absolutely no mistake: this country wants Ron Paul as its next president. What have you done today to help make that happen?

Saturday, June 02, 2007

Republicans must let go

Peggy Noonan asserts that immigration is the pivotal issue that turns the Republican Party leadership angrily toward its base in this WSJ opinion piece:

For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome. You don't like endless gushing spending, the kind that assumes a high and unstoppable affluence will always exist, and the tax receipts will always flow in? Too bad! You don't like expanding governmental authority and power? Too bad. You think the war was wrong or is wrong? Too bad.

But on immigration it has changed from "Too bad" to "You're bad."

The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic--they "don't want to do what's right for America." His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, "We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up." On Fox last weekend he vowed to "push back." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want "mass deportation." Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are "anti-immigrant" and suggested they suffer from "rage" and "national chauvinism."

Why would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens? And often, though not exclusively, concerned conservatives? It is odd, but it is of a piece with, or a variation on, the "Too bad" governing style. And it is one that has, day by day for at least the past three years, been tearing apart the conservative movement.


Preemption

Anyone who has dissented against this administration's policies have been called everything from unpatriotic to supporters of terrorists. Where has Peggy Noonan been these last 6 years? Has she not been a member of the loyal press who expanded the scope of this administration's efforts to suppress dissent, the most common being frontal attacks on the patriotism of those courageous enough to vocalize their disagreements?

On March 19 2003, NRO published an opinion piece entitled "Unpatriotic Conservatives: A War against America" in which neocon propagandist David Frum attempts in one long tome to redefine conservative ideology and squelch the emerging pseudo-conservative criticism of Bush's war policies:
But the antiwar conservatives have gone far, far beyond the advocacy of alternative strategies. They have made common cause with the left-wing and Islamist antiwar movements in this country and in Europe. They deny and excuse terror. They espouse a potentially self-fulfilling defeatism. They publicize wild conspiracy theories. And some of them explicitly yearn for the victory of their nation's enemies.


Can Noonan not remember the culture of fear created and perpetuated by this administration's speech-chilling "You're Either With Us or You're With the Terrorists!" mantra, or the incessant insinuations that critics of Bush's policies were un-American?

Remember Ashcroft's 2001 preemption of all criticism regarding the War on Terror's impact on our cherished liberties by simply stating that anyone concerned about the loss of civil liberties were aiding terrorists and giving ammunition to our enemies?

And let's not forget what happens to the "girlie men" who dare to talk about economic policies in anything less than a favorable light, even as these leaders boldly (or I should say baldfaced-ly) proclaim, "If you believe that government should be accountable to the people, not the people to the government, then you are a Republican."


Everyone who had the courage to complain about the deficits, and to question government expansions, and express concerns about White House plans to invade Iraq, were unreservedly pummeled with every label from unpatriotic to anti-American, with Noonan and her peers on the front lines launching these broadsides.

To claim that immigration is the issue that finally brings out the leadership's attack dogs is flagrant dishonesty on Noonan's part.

"Would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens?" Would they indeed, Ms. Noonan. Welcome to life in the new America you helped construct.

Atonement

While she accepts no responsibility for the role she played in empowering this administration, cheering endlessly as it strayed further and further from its conservative roots, Noonan does admit she began backing away from the administration a couple years ago. At last and with almost sheepish enthusiasm, she tries to persuade conservatives to realize how far the Bush Administration has dragged the Republican Party from its revered platform. Then to take the next, most painful step, and let go. Rejoin those conservatives who never grabbed hold in the first place.
Now conservatives and Republicans are going to have to win back their party. They are going to have to break from those who have already broken from them. This will require courage, serious thinking and an ability to do what psychologists used to call letting go. This will be painful, but it's time. It's more than time.


Whether her writings will display the introspection necessary to accept responsibility for her part in dividing the republican party is yet to be seen. But at least we now have in writing yet another rat who's jumped ship.

Forward
I guarantee you, once you latch onto a verifiably authentic conservative leader who will return your party to its roots, you'll have the good company of millions of Americans among whom you'll soothe your long journey home.

Friday, June 01, 2007

2003 WSJ Ad: A Republican Dissent

While researching another article I ran across this: A group of Republican business leaders placed a full page ad in the Wall Street Journal on January 14, 2003 called "A Republican Dissent on Iraq" (Emphasis mine)
A Republican Dissent on Iraq.

To President Bush, his advisors and the American People:

Let's be clear: We supported the Gulf War.

We supported our intervention in Afghanistan.

We accept the logic of a just war.

But Mr. President, your war on Iraq does not pass the test. It is not a just war.

The candidate we supported in 2000 promised a more humble nation in our dealings with the world. We gave him our votes and our campaign contributions.

That candidate was you. We feel betrayed. We want our money back. We want our country back.

War is the most extreme action a society can take. It can only be unleashed after exploring every other road. You have not explored all the roads.

How many young American lives will be lost in this dubious war? How many more innocent Iraqis will be killed and maimed and made homeless? Haven't they suffered enough, after two decades of terrible wars and sanctions?

Among the one billion Muslims in the world there is now a steady trickle of recruits going to al Qaeda. You will turn the trickle into a torrent.

A BILLION

BITTER ENEMIES

WILL RISE

OUT OF

THIS WAR.

And out of war may rise an Iraqi regime every bit as brutish as the present one. What will you do then? Our jaws drop when we read that you may decide we have to occupy Iraq for years, that the next ruler of Iraq may be ... an American general! Is there anyone who thinks that will work? Your odds of success are infinitesimal!

The world wants Saddam Hussein disarmed. But you must find a better way to do it. Why would you lead us into a situation where we are bound to fail?

You cannot keep proclaiming peace while preparing for war.

You are waltzing blindfolded into what may well be a catastrophe. Pride goeth before a fall. Show the humility and compassion that led us to elect you.

War with Iraq is not inevitable. Now is the time to stop it. Speak out at your place of worship, at your business, among your friends and relatives. Make your convictions known to your Mayor and Governor and -- above all -- to your elected leaders in Washington.

*Edward H. Hamm, Republican Regent, former Chairman, The Northland Company

*Richard S. Johnson, Founder, former CEO, Hotjobs.com

*Barbara Lifflander, President, Hastings Art Ltd.

*Huyler C. Held, Esq.

*John C. Haas, Rohm & Haas (Ret.)

*Howard S. Brembeck, Founder, CTB Inc., Chairman, Fourth Freedom Forum

*Betty B. Blauner

*Peter A. Benoliel, Chairman of the Executive Committee, Quaker Chemical Corporation

*Vice Admiral (ret.) John J. Shanahan

*Chris Berghoff

*Starr Tomczak, Attorney

*George Zeo, Psy. D.

*Professor Jeffrey G. Barlow, Ph.D.

*Linda and Larry Black, Owners, College Park Bicycles, Inc. and Mt. Airy Bicycles, Inc.

*Albert Lowe

*Roger Mumford, President, Matzel and Mumford Org.

*Martin Resick, Chapter President, World Federalist Assn., Pittsburgh, PA

*Paul Hally, Esq.

*Elizabeth Viering

*Peter B. Viering, Atty.

*Brenda Ungerland, M.A., LifePath

*Brooks Jealous

*Nancy F. Puls

*Pamela Davis

*Frank K. Martin, CFA, Managing Partner, Martin Capital Management, LLP

Affiliations for identification only.

BUSINESS LEADERS FOR SENSIBLE PRIORITIES

P.O. Box 1976 Old Chelsea Station

New York, NY 10113


A ringing endorsement for Ron Paul's position, I'd say.

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

What's it going to be, Republicans?

What's it going to be, Republicans?

Are you a big-government, pro-torture, pro-amnesty, deficit-spending, pro-war, no-dissent corporate globalist who endorses the following:


Is this the party that speaks for you?

Or are you a small-government, pro-sovereignty, fiscally-responsible, principled conservative non-interventionist American like Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul?

Just a taste of Ron Paul, in his own words:


More, if you're so inclined:


Brief Overview of Congressman Paul's Record:
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.


Your party's been stolen, conservatives, and it's time to pay the piper. Do you approve of what's been done to your Republican Party without your express knowledge and consent? Do you approve of the rapid morphing of your small government fiscally agile personal responsibility party into an overgrown big government leviathan that's bankrupting your country?

So which is it going to be Republicans, Big Government Authoritarian Empire or Pro-Liberty American Conservatism?

You need to make up your minds now, while you still can, and if you're of the latter group you best reclaim your party from the freespending warmongering neocon imposters vying for the GOP nomination. With 70% of this country opposed to the war, any pro-war Republican candidate will toss the White House into Democratic territory where they'll continue raping our freedoms and dismantling every last thing that makes this country so wonderful.

You do think this country's worth saving from ruin, don't you?