Posted on 04/04/2010 1:29:56 PM PDT by SmartInsight
Democrats are attacking the tea party movement because it is a new force that's bringing millions of here-to-fore unengaged Democrats, independents and Republicans into the political arena. If there's something a ruling party doesn't like, it's a new political player converting spectators into participants.
To maintain their influence, tea partiers will have to maintain their current energy and concern over health care and federal spending.
But tea partiers will have to do more than surf discontent with the Obama administration's policies. They will also have to coalesce around a positive agenda.
The unhinged quality of the White House and the DNC attacks show that they understand how much the tea party movement can affect this year's elections. Now is the time for the movement to ensure its energy - and influence - stay high.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Thank you. You post is very helpful.
Good post 1010RD
So Tea Partiers should join the AIP, or copy it? And then Alan Keyes would be a Presidential candidate?
And you're mistaken about abortion and state power.
Unfortunately, I am not mistaken; abortion was legal in several States prior to Roe v. Wade, which basically made it legal in ALL States. Abortion had been a States-rights issue until the time the Supreme Court gave that issue and power to the Federal Government.
I am NO supporter of abortion, but the facts are that it was legal, and something for each State to decide before the Federal Government expanded its power base and nationalized the issue (in the wrong way, unfortunately). And because it's been declared - twice - at the Supreme Court level (once implicitly with Griswold v. Connecticut and once explicitly with Roe v. Wade) as a Constitutional right, it will take a Constitutional amendment to overturn. And the will of the nation is simply not there (2/3rds, basically).
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
On that I would definitely agree; and in fact you don't have to even freeze them! Simply pegging them to inflation plus population growth would solve the deficit AND the debt!
I wrote a small article about the facts of the situation that show a fixed budget that grows annually at a reasonable rate (to allow for increasing costs via inflation and increasing users via population growth) will grow over the long term slower than the GDP, meaning that tax receipts will soon outstrip the budget and allow us to work down the debt.
I think it's a common sense approach that would be politically viable; a complete freeze would never work unless you had a 60% majority in the Senate, and the GOP has NEVER had that luxury. Force the Democrats to explain why the budget must increase faster than real-world costs require; that's a losing argument for them. And it does not allow the charge of "hurting women and children" against the GOP since not a single budget item is touched. if you make such charge, then implicitly you're admitting that the previous years you WERE hurting women and children!
I've asked about this plan on previous Tea Party revolt threads and been told I was a RINO and sell-out since I wasn't for cutting the Government; yet if you actually understand the plan you see that over the longer term the Government IS necessarily cut! It shrinks - rapidly, near the end I might add - as a percentage of the GDP which is a good thing in limiting its power. But then again, it does require compromise and that is a dirty word for many Tea Party folks.
Courts don't make laws. That power is reserved to the legislative branch.
Abortion had been a States-rights issue until the time the Supreme Court gave that issue and power to the Federal Government
Unalienable rights, including the supreme right, the right to life, are the gift of God, not of any man.
Man didn't give them, man cannot rightfully or lawfully take them from innocent human beings.
Unalienable rights are not the grant of any government.
However, ALL governments do have the imperative DUTY to protect those rights, that being according to the founders of this free republic the primary purpose of government.
Some aspects of the federal government budget will need to grow at a faster rate at certain times. This I think is where your plan gets weak. Someone needs to be willing to make an exception now and then and have the balls to cut something else to offset the exception. This is where all the political fighting and whining is going to come about. Everyone will want to be the guy that gets the exception for his pet program.
Yes, and he also advocated doing it strictly within the GOP by taking over the GOP, not withdrawing and leaving them. It means becoming precinct captains of the GOP, working up into the State GOP power structures, it means taking time. It's not an immediate solution, and Reagan admitted it.
I'm not a fan of John McCain, but I willingly and quickly voted for him over Barack Obama. I share a LOT more in common with McCain than I do with Obama, and where I differ with McCain I also differ with Obama. So what is gained by dumping McCain altogether in that case?
Push for the best candidate in the primaries, then support the least-damaging candidate in the general. If you cannot get your guy into the general, then don't vote in - or allow to be voted in - the person who shares 0% of your political beliefs!
Too many in the Tea Party movement are about tossing anyone who does not share blind allegiance to 100% of their positions, and that simply is not a logical - and in the lessons of Reagan and Buckley and other notable Conservative thinkers - or Conservative position. You take the best you can take, and keep working on those other issues. Like Amnesty and President Bush and the GOP in the 2005 time-line; Conservatives stopped it because they rose up en-mass about a single issue and let their voices be heard.
We have the ability to influence the GOP (amnesty), but that necessarily requires working WITH and IN the GOP. Abandoning them because "they don't share my beliefs" means we lose that influence. And end up as a lot of Perot supporters in 1992 and 1996 - sidelined and pissed off and abandoned.
But then you'd have Tea Partiers (several in this thread, including you just a few posts ago) who want to see a frozen budget only...
Ultimately, there has to be compromise and flexibility; those considering both a dirty word need to re-evaluate.
You touched a nerve (correctly). Good work!
“Up is down, black is white. Socialism is freedom. Save it, fruitcake.”
Another intellectual giant...that is really the best example of how President Bush is not a conservative (in your mind)?
Gee, how about explaining here how his strong belief in the free market and individual ownership were liberal. Or, perhaps you wish to take on his stance on the right to life, or his Christian morality.
Perhaps you just can’t except to blurb out the same bullcrap you have been hearing from other idiots who would not know if it is day or night out.
Your defense was absolutely pathetic. Just a cursive dismissal of huge Federal socialist programs is a nothing of a debate. I tried you and you came up with nothing.
So, what about TARP 1 which is what President Bush did? Do you have any facts to back up your ridiculous claims? Do you realize he saved the economy from absolute disaster and that it was successful? Are you aware of what caused the emergency influx of cash, without strings (as it should be to respect free markets) to be needed?
You just like to spout off, but you really do not have any facts behind you, just rude rhetoric.
So, what do you and your ignorant friends think TARP 1 was? How was it bad for us? How in the hell was it socialistic?
Try using some facts TigersEye...
No, I don't realize that. He approved of it for one purpose and they used for another just a few days later. Where are your facts?
Are you aware of what caused the emergency influx of cash, without strings (as it should be to respect free markets) to be needed?
I'm not even sure what you're talking about. There was no influx of cash there was an outflow of over $500 billion in a couple of hours that has never been explained.
Still no explanation of how a vast expansion of Federal control of education written by Ted Kennedy at Bush's request is conservative. Are red herrings your specialty?
There's what my ignorant friend said about it.
“”I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system,” - George W Bush
There’s what my ignorant friend said about it.”
And your friend is indeed ignorant...he and you have taken President Bush’s statement out of context in the following way. He did not abandon free market principles in general, he utilized a tactic which normally would not be considered free market. But it was to save the free market system from crashing. The influx of cash I am referring to is the TARP 1 money that was injected into the banking system to stop the run on money accounts that you seem to have a little info on. If, the run had continued it would have been a harder crash than the run on the banks in the last century. There were no strings (government controls) over the banks on TARP 1, this was proper for respecting free market principles. TARP 2 which the democrats imposed just after Obama became president is the one in which the federal government basically took control over the banks with.
I am not sure you can understand what I wrote, but do some research by respectable economists and you will see that most agree with the tactic followed in TARP 1. It wasn’t something pretty, but it beat the hell out of the destruction of our economy...
Regarding No Child Left Behind. The strategy behind that bill is to reduce the strangulation union teachers have on the educational system, where rather than on merit they continue as teachers based upon tenure. President Bush pushed a bill which forced teachers to actually teach, with the very real threat of teacher dismissals and/or actual school closures. The unions and democrats and their media have fought against this and you have picked up on some of their propaganda. But, it is hard to argue that this bill is not conservative...
Let’s talk about President Bush’s attempt to partially privatize Social Security...where were you on that one? He was basically left alone promoting free market principals to save peoples retirements and eventually replace Social Security as a socialist institution. His program would have included the ability to will your retirement account to your children or whomever you wanted actually. This is as conservative as you can get.
How about the growth in spending? He did not use the veto, many criticize him for that. I recognize the huge amount of real emergencies on his plate, from the recession he reduced the depth and length of time on, to the War on Terror (fighting also the democrats on this), to Katrina which he did a tremendous job on, to defending life like no other President ever has, to attempting to destroy the stranglehold the unions have on education, to trying to privatize Social Security...I think he can be cut some slack in keeping as many of his Republican congress on his side for the really important stuff and not vetoing their spending increases.
So, what isn’t there to like? He isn’t perfect, but by God, he is literally one of the best American presidents this country has ever had and very likely the last American president we shall have. So, grow up and show respect to this great man...he liberated over 50 million people after all.
Maybe you missed it. George Bush said it. lol
Well, you ignored No Child Left Behind.
You ignored Shamnesty.
You ignored Medicare Part D.
No surprise, there is no way to make those things sound like conservative positions. Maybe you can explain how promising to sign the Assault Weapons Ban into law is conservative?
Tiger’s Eye, you are showing you really do not understand the facts and indeed a willingness to distort the truth. I have clearly shown how you are taking Presidents Bush statement about free market principles out of context and all you can say is he said it? Of course he said what he said, you simply are incapable of discerning what he MEANT with his statement.
I did not ignore No Child Left Behind...go back and read it if you like...
I am not ignoring amnesty but, there is a limit to time that I have to teach you so that you will not be so dang ignorant, you are failing at this point...
So, before we continue with one line positions, why don’t you go back to my previous post and actually post something worthwhile about those issues...
Then we can move on to other issues if you like. It is insincere TigersEye to simply use one line insults to “debate” someone who has taken the time to explain their positions in more detail. Show some respect.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.