An Objective View of the Tea Party Movement

I'll preface this by saying that I've never attended a Tea Party demonstration. I do like the initial principles that were espoused by the Tea Party: limiting government, promoting free enterprise, and protecting individual freedom. I am skeptical about where this movement may be headed, given the philosophical predilictions of those who have jumped on board with the Tea Partiers in recent months.

Anyway, I'm going to take a look at the Tea Party, where it can do a lot of good, and what it needs to do to avoid being "hijacked" by people who don't understand the true principles of the movement.

Let's be real, here...the Tea Party Movement is too large to be considered a bunch of "fringe right-wing wingnuts". This movement is something that has appeal to conservatives, libertarians, and third-way/centrist Democrats who saw the prosperity that came with the 1990's and the continuation of non-expansionist government policy.

There are those who think that it is a racist movement, since it is anti-Obama. I'm a bit tired of this rhetoric. As long as Obama is black, there will always be someone who claims any attempt to push back against his agenda is rooted in some kind of blatantly racist motive. Since Obama will always be black, there will always be someone who pulls the race card to discredit the push-back.

While I'm sure there are those who may hold such sentiments within the movement (as there are in all political parties), it is an obviously small minority. There are too many people who favor the Tea Party principles that it isn't some kind of tiny fringe group who happen to make a lot of noise. Get over it, race-baiters, the Tea Party principles of good, limited government are more in line with Ron Paul than with Pat Robertson, despite what others may want you to think.

While many may knock Sarah Palin, she said some things that many people across the majority of the political spectrum (except for dedicated "progressives"). In fact, I was watching MSNBC after Palin's speech, and they had the always-thinking Lionel talking about what Palin said. I do not remember who was hosting the post-speech commentary, but I know it was someone who was a part of the left (I think it was Ed Schultz, but I could be wrong). However, Lionel told the host that in Palin's speech "she said things that, if it wasn't Sarah Palin saying them, you would agree with."

Palin's general stance on the fact that government should roll back it's size and scope is one that many, many people can agree with. Given Palin's populist appeal, she can be a lightning rod for the Tea Party Movement to push forward with more support.

The movement (and using Palin as a lightning rod) is not without faults, though.

First of all, the Tea Party Movement (in principle) should really have nothing to do with religion. However, using Palin as a lightning rod will naturally attract a lot of social conservatives. The same social conservatives who supported the Republicans who allowed government spending and budget deficits to expand on their watch for 6 years under George W. Bush. If we want to move in a different direction, we have to change fiscal thinking and reduce government's size and scope. This will require moving away from the social issues, as they are not part of the Tea Party's principles.

There are those who want to push very "Christian" ideals in the Tea Party (I guess sensing an opportunity to "start over and get it right" in their opinion). Some of the ideas I've heard tossed around have involved pushing Christianity in schools (or "keeping God in school"). I've found this to be odd, because all through my 13 years of primary education, I only found "God" to be a part of school twice...once, in Kindergarten, at a Lutheran school...and the other in 8th grade, at a Catholic school. The rest of the time, I was in public school, and I don't remember there being a God to remove...so how can we put him back if he wasn't there in the first place?

OK, obviously I was going for a little humor there, but the point is made. We can teach kids the basic morals of civilized society (which yes, I do believe are derived from religious beliefs of many different kinds...which goes to show you that religions aren't as different as some may think). Most of the people who are pushing these things are new to the Tea Party, and see it as some kind of new conservative party, instead of a push for fundamental change in governmental philosophy back to the foundation set by our founding fathers.

Secondly, the Tea Partiers must recognize that the Republicans are jumping on board because the concepts of limited government and personal freedom (sound familiar libertarians?) are part of the core of conservatism (see the Reagan quote in the subtitle of this blog)...which the Republicans moved away from over the past decade or so. They know to win back the populous, they need to adopt these aspects of the Tea Party. However, those who hold true to the Tea Party's principles need to make the politicians move to them, and not the inverse.

See, if they move towards the Republican Party in it's current state, you're moving towards such politicians as Tom Tancredo (whose stance on immigration is more than just anti-illegal immigrant), the hardline SoCons (who want to ban gay marriage and all abortions, as well as bring about more theocratic philosophy), and RINOs.

So I warn the Tea Party...stick to the principles that the majority of people believe in (which is a mostly libertarian-based philosophy with some conservative elements). Keep government's size and scope in check, allow for free enterprise for all, a strong national defense that is for defensive purposes (emphasis on "defensive"), and reforms of ineffective government policies (like current immigration laws).

Otherwise, you will allow the more extreme elements that have joined your movement to allow you to continue to be marginalized by politicians and the media elite.

As for Palin for President in 2012? I doubt it. She is better in her role as a spokesperson and rally artist for a governmental philosophy, but I do not necessarily see her as a leader of a nation, as she carries a lot of negative baggage. Then again, if she can prove to me that she is a better candidate in 2012 than she was in 2008, I might change my mind. However, right now, I can't say that I could go with her as a potential presidential candidate.

On that note (2012), I would like to see Ron Paul run for President again, but that's just me :)

**Addendum To This Post - 8:16 PM**

Leslie Carbone, one of my favorite intellectuals anywhere, addresses some of my same concerns in her latest post, "The Problem With Palin", and brings up a few new issues as well.

Zogby: The GOP Could Win Back the Senate in 2010

This is certainly interesting, given that many of us (including myself) thought that the President would deliver a solid bounce in popularity for the Democratic Party with his State of the Union address and subsequent media appearances (meeting with House GOP members, the townhall speeches, etc...).

However, this would require a lot of pieces falling in the right place, as well as the right candidates running. The "right" candidates (in terms of chances of winning in November) include undecided former Governors Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin (who is surprisingly leading Russ Feingold in recent polling) and George Pataki in New York (who leads Kristen Gillibrand).

While I doubt this situation pans out for an out-and-out GOP Senate takeover, it certainly does put the Dems on notice...and calls Obama's ability to deliver popular support through his speeches into question.

Obama's SOTU Address...Surgically Dissected

W.E. Messamore (The Humble Libertarian) dissects and counters Obama's speech section by section, and really could not be more spot on.

It's a remarkable effort, I highly suggest you read it.

Failing to Recognize the Situation

The left is apparently crowing about the Q&A session Obama had with House Republicans because he stood up to them and lectured them and claimed he was not an ideologue and so forth...

They fail to recognize that if the House GOP members really wanted to grill Obama, they would do so. However, if they were gang up on the President and attack him like they want to, it would be an even worse PR move than letting the President have his way with them in a verbal fashion.

If they really went after him, the lefty talking heads and media would say things like "they cornered Obama like a pack of rabid wolves!" and "the way they treated the President was classless and sickening!"

So while Obama did a good job taking advantage of the situation, don't get too excited, my friends on the left...it's not like the GOP had any better options of approach.

How Many Times Can I Get Twisted on This Issue?

Whoa, hold the phone...I may have jumped the gun not once, but twice, on this Supreme Court ruling regarding corporate involvement in elections and campaigning.

Brad Smith at NRO explains where many, including the President, have been wrong about this ruling.

Tonight the president engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

The president's statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication." (emphasis mine)

Interesting...so at least I know that my concerns of foreign corporations (and governments through those corporations) will not be pumping money into campaigns to wield influence over our nation's politics and policies.

That actually explains why Justice Alito said "not true", because what Obama said regarding foreign corporations is not true. I'm definitely relieved to see this.

(h/t Mason Conservative)

SOTU and GOP Reponse Thoughts and Notes

Some random rumblings from tonight's events.

The State of the Union Address...

- Obama says he doesn't quit, and he's right...he wants to push forward the same crap that Americans rejected during his first year.

- Capital Gains tax exemption for small business investments? Good idea, but I think I know where this is going to be offset (increases in Capital Gains tax on corporate investments, higher corporate taxes, punitive fees on large corporations to gain populist support).

- This has to be the longest-feeling SOTU ever. It just seems to go on and on. Obama isn't breaking new ground, either. In the second half of his speech, he has randomly started repeating things he said in the first half of it.

- Attack the Supreme Court in the SOTU address? Stupid move, Barry. It's not the time or place for such a move (even if I also disagreed with the ruling he was referring to). What a lack of decorum.

- Towards the last 3rd of the SOTU, Obama just went into straight lecturing. Way to burn any bridges you were hoping to build, Barry.

The GOP Response...

- WOW, McDonnell really outdid himself with the presentation here. Obama likes that podium in front of Congress, you can tell he likes that look and feel of a "leader". McDonnell decided that he would respond to Obama in kind, as the leader of a state. Nice job. He's already topped Bobby Jindal's performance last year without uttering a single word.

- The Gov is in good oratory form tonight, coming across with more personality and vocal skill than usual. He's to the point and succinct without being curt or vague.

- McDonnell really stuck to his guns with "good government" policy stances and some nice nods to the type of federalism expressed by our Founding Fathers. Also, McDonnell struck me as being a bit more aggressive than I thought he might be...but he did it well. Impressive performance by our Governor. He really surprised me.

Overall Ratings...Obama: C+, McDonnell: A-

Obama's meandering lectures and repetitiveness brought down what was otherwise a solid speech for him. Had he left out the whole "Democrats, you've got a majority, so get stuff done...Republicans, you need to be 'bipartisan' and do what we say" bit (ok, I paraphrased), and not been so repetitive, he might have earned a higher mark from me. By the way, the Associated Press (who has been kind to Obama) hits him pretty hard in the fact-checking department. Talk about "truth hurts"...

McDonnell made a memorable impression on me for having such a restricted period of time. He was to the point, made a couple of humorous asides, and was able to accomplish a lot more than many "minority party response" speeches tend to do. Using the GA as a backdrop was a fantastic move on his part. If this was a litmus test to see if McDonnell can be a leader for the GOP going forward, he certainly passed.

What Bob McDonnell Should Say Tonight

Our new Governor has an opportunity that seems to be afforded to Virginia politicians on a semi-regular basis these days, and that is to deliver the rebuttal to the State of the Union address. McDonnell could go a number of ways, but here's some things I would do in tonight's rebuttal if I were in McDonnell's shoes...

- K.I.S.S. - Keep it simple, stupid. Do as you did throughout your campaign. Be straightforward and direct, or at least appear to do so. McDonnell is a competent speaker, but not a tremendous orator. However, a simple, direct approach will provide stark contrast to President Obama, whose oratory skills are top-notch, but can get mired in political speak and go over the heads of some.

- Not too cautious, not too careful. Ensure that you don't go overboard with countering the President's positions, but don't fear taking a few risks, either.

- Lay out a "common sense" conservatism. Don't get mired down in anything that doesn't appeal to the masses, go with what can appeal to a wide majority of Americans from a conservative perspective. Stick to your 60 and 70 percent issues that the President and the Democrats are currently losing popularity. The economy, jobs, and government spending. You can even dig at the Dem's health care plans by pointing out that the sheer number of people coming out against it shows that it is not what the American people want.

- Be personal without getting off track. This is your chance to show American who you are, give them a reason to like you on a personal level and a political level, but don't lose track of your message.

Now, these are merely my opinions, and I'm sure he's got a better perspective on all of this than I do, but I feel that if he keeps his message clear and to the point, he can do a great job putting forward a better rebuttal than the last guy who tried, though he had a much tougher task due to the President's much higher popularity ratings at the time.

Something Funny For Ya...

(h/t THL)

If 2012 Elections Were Today, Obama Would Lose

Allstate/National Journal Poll just came out with the following results regarding whether or not they would elect Obama to a 2nd term...

- 50% said that they would either probably or definitely vote for someone else in 2012.
- 37% said they would "definitely" vote for someone else.
- 39% would probably or definitely vote for Obama.
- 23% said they would "definitely" vote for someone else.

These are NOT good numbers for Barry from D.C. The sentiment against him and his policies (along with the Congressional Dems, whom he supports) is growing consistently. I do believe he will probably get a few points of good will with the voters due to the Earthquake in Haiti (and watch the media talk about his response to Haiti compared to Bush and Hurricane Katrina, it will happen), but this is a downward trend that will continue as long as he tries to push through a health care bill that nobody wants and trumpet stimulus accomplishments that never happened while the unemployment rate remains in double-digits.

Hide The Decline, Redux

Apparently, the White House has now changed the rules for what constitutes stimulus success. Now, it seems, if your company received stimulus funds to cover payroll, that was a job "saved or created" as well. In fact, anything covered by stimulus funds, even if it was still a massive failure, is part of the stimulus "success" story.

Not surprisingly, after this latest revision of a revision of a bunch of errors that were made to revise the actual history of the stimulus's lack of success, the White House is now claiming that "The Stimulus Worked!" (In past tense, too, as if we're now in some kind of economic boom period).

One can only shake their head and chuckle...until they realize that people actually believe that there has been success due to the stimulus. Then you feel a deep sinking feeling that resonates throughout your body when you realize "some people won't see beyond the White House's claims of success, despite the obvious failures we've seen". Kinda sad, when you think about it.

(h/t Barticles)

Americans Split on Obama's 1st Year, View Him Less Favorably

Some interesting numbers that don't look good for "Barry from D.C."...

Quinnipiac Polls...
- Quinnipiac has a poll that states that Americans are split 45%-45% on whether or not Obama's first year was a failure.
- Another poll has voters nearly tied at 35%-37% on whether or not the country would've been better off with John McCain as President (I say we would've been better off, but not by a whole lot).
- Also, according to Quinnipiac, only 41% of Americans favor Obama's economic management, as well as only 34% favor his efforts to create jobs and 35% support his handling of health care.

CBS News Polls...
- CBS News polls show that only 36% of Americans favor Obama's handling of health care. Down from 42% in December and 47% in October.
- Obama's job approval rating hit a new low for CBS News polls, at 46%.

CNN/Opinion Research Polls...
- CNN/Opinion Research has Obama's health care handling favorability rating down to 40%, down from 42% in October and way down from 57% in March.
- Also, their polls reflected that Americans are 48%-47% in favor of labeling Obama's first year as a failure.

Dem Backstabbing, Back Room Dealing, and Backing Off Promises

HA! This is kinda funny. The Dems were backstabbing each other all over the place when it came to the 2008 election and the run-up to it. For instance, the Obama campaign kept Joe Biden out of the loop intentionally.

"The relationship between Barack Obama and Joe Biden grew so strained during the 2008 campaign, according to a new book, that the two rarely spoke and aides not only kept Biden off internal conference calls but refused to even tell him they existed."

Hillary supporters in Congress undermined her by channelling support through the endorsements of other Senators and Congressmen/Congresswomen.

"Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and a group of other senators who would back Hillary Clinton’s candidacy encouraged Obama to run for the White House as early as 2006. The concern over Clinton was that she would be a weak Democratic standard-bearer while Obama could energize the party. In late summer 2007, Schumer – using an Obama ally, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), as a back channel – pushed the candidate to “take a two-by-four to Hillary,” as the authors put it."

Gets better...apparently Bill Clinton still hasn't managed to keep it in his pants...

"Members of what the authors call Clinton’s “war room within a war room” became convinced in 2006 that Bill Clinton was having a serious extramarital affair, prompting Hillary Clinton to instruct her aides to be prepared to combat the story."

...and Hillary thought Bill would be a distraction to Obama.

"Following the 2008 campaign, Hillary Clinton was shocked to have been offered the Secretary of State job and decided to reject the offer. She prepared a statement explaining why she would turn the new president down and remain in the Senate. But in an after-midnight call between Clinton and Obama, he persuaded her – only after Clinton expressed concerns about the problems posed by her husband, the former president."

Not to mention, Harry "The Weasel" Reid's revealing choice of words.

"Reid said Obama could fare well nationally as an African-American candidate because he was “light-skinned” and didn’t speak with a “Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one.” Saturday, the majority leader said he had used “poor choice of words” and called Obama to apologize; the White House issued a statement indicating that the president had forgiven Reid."

There are others incidents regarding the Democrats, and some with the Republicans (which really were due to the McCain camp not handling Sarah Palin well, and Palin being caught completely off-guard with the whole process due to their mishandling).

Transparancy My @$$!

The White House is only allowing C-SPAN 1 hour of coverage of the health care debate that is currently being done behind closed doors in committee. So much for that "most transparent government ever" line we heard in 2006 from Pelosi and company, and echoed in 2008 by Barry from D.C.

Obama Approves Taxing Health Care Plans

This is exactly what he claimed John McCain would do in the 2008 campaign, and promised that he wouldn't do. This is a crock, a sham, and should be the straw that broke the camel's back as far as any "on-the-fence" supporters of the health care bill go.

Barry from D.C. has broken another campaign promise, made another move against the will of the people, and given Americans another reason to realize that electing him was not historic, just a historic mistake.

Sympathy?

The Obama family didn't have a vacation free of events, so the media wants us to feel sorry for them.

You know, it is part of the territory. Obama wanted this presidency so bad, to instill his "change", to push this country towards a bigger government and less economic freedom, et cetera..., so to have events happen while you're on vacation while in the midst of a sick economy and two wars should be expected and are part of the job description.

The thing that irks me is that Obama never really stopped his vacation early. He "addressed" the issues in short statements to the press in between his golf games, tennis games, and beach trips with his wife and kids. So, in essence, he did a good job of not letting the real world interfere with his vacation...so, why am I to feel sorry for him again?

Forget Airport Security, Obama Needs to Secure His Current Residence!

There are reports of a 3rd party crasher at November's state dinner. This is getting flat-out ridiculous. Given that we didn't have these problems before at White House state dinners and other functions does not reflect well on Barry from D.C. I have to believe that his administration has to have changed something internally to allow these things to happen. Otherwise, it just doesn't make sense.

Obama Catching Hell Over Terror Plot Response

Looks like "Barry from D.C." has some criticism to answer to...

- The Telegraph gives Obama an "F" for protecting Americans. Hitting him for trying so hard to be "unBush" that his cool demeanor is alarming in it's downplaying of the situation (as well as his downplaying of other terrorist attacks or plots). They also note that Obama did not allow this to disrupt his golf games, tennis matches, or snorkeling adventures in Hawaii.
- Dick Cheney accuses Obama of "trying to pretend we're not at war with terrorists", and cites such examples of the ban of the phrase "War on Terror" and the closing of Gitmo. Cheney believes it is because it does not fit the global views of Obama, and that it would interfere with Obama's goal of the social transformation and restructuring of American society. Ouch!
- Let's not forget that Obama has already tried to pin the blame on this incident on George W. Bush. He's also trying to blame the CIA (nothing new for Dems), but the Agency has rebuked claims of not sharing the information that they had.
- Also, Obama called this a "catastrophic failure", only days after both NHS Secretary Janet "Big Sister" Napolitano and White House Press Secretary Robert "Softballs Only" Gibbs both stated that "the system worked". This signals inconsistency within the Obama adminstration itself.

Tough times ahead for "Barry in D.C."

Al-Qaeda Offensive On The Way?

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the terrorist who attempted to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253, stated that there are "more just like him in Yemen who will strike soon."

Now, Al-Qaeda has made claims like this in the past that either did not come to fruition, or their efforts simply failed. However, we've had two attempts within the past week of a similar nature (blowing up airplanes), and renewed efforts by Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

With this sudden resurgence in activity (some of it successful to a degree in Afghanistan and Pakistan), it makes you wonder if Barry In D.C.'s approach has led them to believe they will be more successful in "destroying the infidels" than they did under President Bush, as many feared would happen.

If this uptick in terrorist activity continues, I would imagine that the question of "are we safer under Obama" will become a more prominent one.

New Podium Policy

If the President is going to refer to himself as "Barry from D.C.", then so will I.

Carry on... ;)

Another Lefty Attempts to Set Back U.S./British Relations

Pop singer/rocker-wannabe Pink compares British royalty to "rednecks" from the South due to their penchant for fox hunting.

Pink is a lefty (vocal in her anti-Bush sentiments during his 2nd term), and she follows the typical celebrity leftist line of being against hunting/fur use. That's fine that she doesn't believe in these things, but to call the British royal family "rednecks" and say that the Brits should replace the fur hats on the palace guards with designs from Stella McCartney shows a blatant ignorance about how the world outside of the celebrity bubble actually works.

Honestly, I'm confused as to how the hunting habits of the British royal family have to do with an American pop singer who has entered the downside of her career. I also wonder why she thinks that they will listen to her...does she think that her opinion will carry that much weight with the royal family?

This is the second time this year that a high-profile lefty has dissed the Brits. Remember, it was back in March that the highest-profile lefty of them all, Barack Obama, decided that 25 DVDs that won't even play on European DVD players was a perfect gift for Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Brits did not agree.