GOP candidates' debate Monday will have a Tea Party flavor

This year, Republican presidential candidates are aggressively courting the movement's eager-to-work followers and trying to tap into their influential social and fundraising networks.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, the founder of the House of Representatives Tea Party Caucus, and other diehard conservatives are already activists' favorites. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman are not; they're perceived as too moderate and compromising.

But in his economic blueprint, released last week, Romney lauded the movement, saying, "The rise of the tea party is a classic instance of the self-correcting forces of American democracy in action."

He still has a fight ahead. Tea party activists are particularly adamant that the 2010 federal health care law be repealed, and the Massachusetts near-universal health care plan that Romney signed into law is considered its model.

"Romney has good ideas and can articulate them well. But he doesn't have credibility," said David Woodard, a Clemson University political scientist and also a Republican consultant and author of "The New Southern Politics."

Perry, on the other hand, who overtook Romney in most national polls of Republican voters last month, is regarded warmly by tea partiers.

"He's not a perfect candidate. Bachmann is better. But I think Perry may have a better chance of winning," said Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation.

But activists' approaches vary widely. Some want to see candidates get tougher. "Republicans need to be having a cage fight to see who can best eliminate all the government waste," said Phillips. "What have we heard so far from these Republicans? Crickets."

“Why isn’t Perry asking that question [constitutionality of SocSec] in public as well?”

Because the horse left that barn 70 years ago.

In his book Fed Up Perry does make points wrt unconstitutionality/dubious constitutionality of the new deal stuff. But its not a core argument in a campaign because the constitutionality of things are decided by the Supreme Court. If it’s unconstitutional, you need to convince SCOTUS, president cant change that no matter his opinion.

You THEN have the question of how a program that has been in existence for 70 years and which is being counted on by millions for retirement can be amended, fixed or eliminated. They dont want to be screwed out of the benefits they were ‘promised’. Complaining about Social Security and pointing out its flaws, without being clear about what your fix is, only hands the Democrats a club in the campaign - “oh, you want to kill grandpa”.

So the REAL question that needs to be answered is:
WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION TO FIX THE FLAWS AND CRAFT A BETTER SOLUTION?

Perry will not be afraid to point out that the Constitution does limit the Federal govt, and will, if the nominee, be the first nominee in a long time to make that case:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbV8AUvOEWI&feature=relmfu

Indeed, as Franklin said upon exiting the Convention, it is "A Republic, ma'am, if you can keep it."

Others of the Founders described it as having "democratic" features, though they "soundly rejected" forming a pure "democracy."

Former President John Quincy Adams, in his "Jubilee" Address in 1839, spoke of ours as a "democratic republic." In another statement in that Address, he also made this strong statement about limitations on the President:

"The President himself is no more than a representative of public opinion at the time of his election; and as public opinion is subject to great and frequent fluctuations, he must accommodate his policy to them; or the people will speedily give him a successor; or either House of Congress will effectually control his power. It is thus, and in no other sense that the Constitution of the United States is democratic - for the government of our country, instead of a Democracy the most simple, is the most complicated government on the face of the globe. - John Quincy Adams

WOSG wrote:

Because the horse left that barn 70 years ago.

In his book Fed Up Perry does make points wrt unconstitutionality/dubious constitutionality of the new deal stuff. But its not a core argument in a campaign because the constitutionality of things are decided by the Supreme Court. If it’s unconstitutional, you need to convince SCOTUS, president cant change that no matter his opinion.

You THEN have the question of how a program that has been in existence for 70 years and which is being counted on by millions for retirement can be amended, fixed or eliminated. They dont want to be screwed out of the benefits they were ‘promised’. Complaining about Social Security and pointing out its flaws, without being clear about what your fix is, only hands the Democrats a club in the campaign - “oh, you want to kill grandpa”.

I guess I really need to get a copy of "Fed Up" and read it.
It is important to know where candidates for President stand on issues of Constitutionality of things. It gives some insight into the type of judicial nominations they are likely to make.
The only way to convince SCOTUS to overturn a precedent like that is to have a POTUS with good constitutional roots appoint some strict constructionists to the SCOTUS bench. The ones we have now obviously won't rule any other way.
There's nothing that says that Congress can't repeal something if they believe its either ineffective or unconstitutional. It doesn't have to take a ruling from SCOTUS to get rid of a bad law.
The Democrats will always tell Grandma and Grandpa that Republicans want to kill them. If Republicans don't propose a fix, it will be their fault that Social Security and Medicare are doomed to insolvency and failure. If they do propose a fix, the Democrats will say there is no problem and Republicans want to eliminate the program. Fear is the only weapon they have, and they will wield that and scare seniors no matter what Republicans propose. It's important that Republicans propose something sound that people understand will work, so that the Dems look foolish when they try to play the scare tactics.
I do think it would help in the public discourse to point out issues of constitutionality and the actual limits on the federal government. It also helps to point out that the issues that the Dems try to use to divide people against each other are issues that the federal government shouldn't even be involved in. When was the last time you got into an argument with a liberal about a post office or a patent? Get the Congress out of this stuff and move the arguments to the states and local governments. There are advantages to that. People in different situations can come up with different solutions, and people can "vote with their feet," if all else fails and move to a state or locality which is more in harmony with their personal beliefs.

Perry’s book “Fed Up” deals with the lack of Constitutional underpinnings for the national, mandated Social Security program. I recommend you go there for his views.

The fact that he is emphasizing Ponzi Scheme right now is an introduction to the public of his daring to touch the third rail of politics.

It is good tactics for now, because this is what people can wrap their minds around, that it is a Ponzi Scheme. You start there because that’s where people are.

Constitutional arguments are important, don’t misunderstand me, but people won’t want to start there. It makes people nervous when you say that because it suggests you might plan to ... as Romney’s new ad accuses Perry of already ... “kill Social Security”.

That confuses people into fearing that their current checks will be stopped.

Whereas, they can accept that the promises made on Social Security cannot be kept, that as Perry says, our kids must pay for it but themselves will never see a dime of it.

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.