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.

Air America...Bankrupt

Surprising that they lasted this long, considering how much their ratings stunk. Other than Lionel, they really did not have much to offer. Though they made it through Chapter 11 in 2006, they're filing Chapter 7 and have ceased broadcasting as of yesterday.

The lesson learned is simple...if the people wanted leftist talk radio, they would've tuned in. However, I'll just sit back and watch the accusations of "a vast right-wing conspiracy" get thrown out there.

(h/t Michelle Malkin)

Boston Globe Calls Race for Coakley...8 Hours Before Polls Close!

Wishful thinking?

They had the race at 50%-49%-1% earlier today, with Coakley winning by about 21,000 votes. They have since taken the "results" down. Maybe it was a test page for posting the results later tonight, but if the "results" look like this come 10 or 11 pm tonight, we'll know that the fix is in.

Images from the Boston Globe website found at Virginia Virtucon. Good catch!

C'mon Shenandoah County GOP, Keep Up!

The ShenCo GOP website hasn't been updated since before November's election! I know that the GOP is firmly the dominant party in the county, but let's keep this ball rolling!

Going Left...ABC to Replace Stephanopoulos with Koppel?

ABC wants Ted Koppel to come back to the company and host This Week. No mention of what would happen to George Stephanopoulos. I'm assuming the cover will be his Good Morning America duties.

However, I figure it is because he is too moderate for a lot of the liberal media. He caught a lot of hell during the 2008 primary season for asking tough questions during a debate, and the left has not been fond of him since (conservatives don't like him, either, but there is a level of respect that I feel he has earned from them).

I've always preferred George to most other hosts on the Sunday morning political talk shows, as he tries to maintain an independent sense about him and ask tougher questions. However, if they are going to replace George, could they get Jake Tapper to do it instead?

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?

Another D.C.-Area Icon Passes...

George Michael (the sportscaster, not the singer) passed away this morning at the age of 70 after his battle with cancer.

He was the man who gave us "George Michael's Sports Machine" late on Sunday nights, which was the forerunner to SportsCenter. He was a mainstay on NBC 4, and host of Redskins Report for many, many years. George brought a level of energy and enthusiasm that was combined with perfect timing, a very distinct voice, and credible reporting.

I remember when I was little, when cable was in it's more primitive stages and Pay-Per-View was not an option for us with so few funds, I would stay up late on the nights of Pro Wrestling PPV's, and wait for George to give the results and clips from the show.

When I think back to growing up in the glory days of the Redskins in the 80's and early 90's, two voices ring loudly to me...Frank Herzog's play-by-play (Touchdown! Washington Redskins!...so iconic), and George Michael hosting Redskins Report and interviewing players during the week on the 5 and 6 o'clock news.

My thoughts and prayers go out to George's family and friends. He will be truly missed by all of us who grew up in the D.C. area.

Sarah Palin at the Gridiron Club Dinner

If there is one thing I like about Sarah Palin, it is her use of tasteful, but pointed humor. She poked fun at the media, at Obama and Biden, and herself. Don't know what her ambitions are, politically, but (as Dennis Miller would say) I like the cut of her jib, here.

Comcast to Purchase NBC/Universal from GE?

Interesting.

The political ramifications from this would be intriguing, as GE has been a strong advocate of the Democratic Party (this is pretty well-documented), and NBC has promoted such things as "Green Week" and other subtle pushes of items that are on the left's agenda. NBC has been a friend to the Obama administration thus far.

The question that I ask is, "Will this continue with Comcast overseeing operations?" I know nothing of any political slant from Comcast, so who knows.

UPDATE

Comcast CEO Brian Roberts just came out today to endorse Obamacare. I guess that was part of the deal...?

Palin's "Birther" Controversy...Or Lack Thereof

Just because Sarah Palin said it's a "fair question" for the public to ask whether or not Obama was born in the United States, that does not mean she is a "birther". She even stated herself that she would not make a big issue of it.

There is a difference between saying "it's a valid question, but I'm not going to make a big deal of it" (which is basically what Palin said) and saying "He's obviously not an American citizen, he can't prove it, let's get him!!!" (which is how her comments are being portrayed in the mainstream media).

Perspective, people! Let's get serious. I'm in the same boat. I think it's a valid question to ask when there have been so many challenges (and so few responses from the White House) regarding Obama's validity as a natural-born citizen. That doesn't mean I'm going to make a big deal of it either.

(h/t Below The Beltway)

How Did Robert Gibbs Get His Job, Again?

Honestly, you would think that the press secretary of the White House would have a little more tact than this.

Stay classy, Robert.

NY Senate Strikes Down Gay Marriage Bill...

Really, does government need to legislate such things? What consenting human adults do in their private sexual lives is really none of the government's business. Also, I really don't see the harm in gay marriage under law. As far as under God, let the individual religions handle that on their own.

Nonetheless, I love the "objective" reporting in this article. For example...

"The State Assembly passed it, but the dysfunctional Senate could only muster 24 of the 32 votes it needed."

Hmm, I wonder what this reporter was looking for in an outcome...c'mon, let's just report the news instead of injecting commentary. It would be greatly appreciated.

Pre-Return Thoughts...

- If anyone thinks this will be some kind of a "historic blowout" for either candidate, you're HIGHLY delusional. Neither candidate will win by more than 2-3%. The electoral college will be close for McCain if he wins, like a "less than 20 electoral votes victory" kind of close. If Obama gets the nod in the toss-up states, he will have a victory in the electoral college that looks like Clinton's wins in 92 and 96...solid, but nothing spectacular.

- The throwing out of Republican election officials, and the intimidation of GOP voters by Black Panthers and other groups in Philadelphia is despicable...but the left won't say a word about it.

- The exit polls that showed a Kerry blowout in '04 will show an Obama blowout in '08. Ignore them, and watch the ACTUAL RETURNS.

- If the networks call the election for Obama before the polls close in the Mountain Time Zone, then the networks have reached a new low in how far in the tank for Obama they are.

- If Obama wins, consider the positive, prosperous eras of both Ronald Reagan AND Bill Clinton to be over and done with...and an economic and social malaise, brought on by socialist policies, will set in by 2012.

- I think the fact that the leftist bloggers call white people voting for McCain "racist", but 95% of black people voting for Obama (many of which cite his race as the deciding factor) is "OK" with them. I also abhor the fact that my being a hispanic who supports McCain makes me a "race traitor" of some kind, in the eyes of a few bloggers.

We'll see how things go as the returns roll in, most Eastern Time Zone polls close in 24 minutes...

Why NOW???

First, the Sunday before the election, we get Obama stating he will bankrupt the coal industry and raise electricity prices, and today we finally get Sarah Palin cleared of any ethics violations or wrongdoing in the "Troopergate" non-scandal.

Of course, this could not have been released (or made public by the MSM) say, oh, a week ago?

Ok, I get that the clearing of Palin's name was only made official today...but can anyone tell me (beyond their own bias) why the San Francisco Chronicle would keep those Obama tapes from being released?

Even Hollywood Liberals Hate MSNBC

"MSNBC is 'the only network with more letters in it's name than actual viewers.'"

Article Here.

It's Amazing

Obama supporters do such things as...

- A 12-year-old girl is called a racist because she's white and was wearing a McCain/Palin shirt.

- A McCain supporter is physically attacked in New York City.

- Sandra "My Career Was in the Toilet for 15 Years" Bernhardt suggests Sarah Palin should be gang-banged by blacks in Harlem.
- The manager of the Seminole County GOP Headquarters has his home shot up after putting up McCain signs in his yard.
- Two men are arrested for setting fire to McCain signs.
- A McCain supporter is mugged, then beaten and has a "B" carved into her face when the assailant discovers a McCain bumper sticker on her car.

...and yet, Republicans are the ones labeled as a angry, hatemongering mob.

UPDATE

In a distrubing turn of events, the woman who was mugged and had the "B" carved into her face made it all up.

A Democrat Rips Media, Dems for Blaming GOP for Housing Crisis

Orson Scott Card lays the truth out there about how the Democrats should be receiving the lion's share of the blame for the current economic crisis, and how the media is pretty much ignoring that fact.

Mind you, Orson Scott Card is a Democrat.

"John Stossel's Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics" on 20/20

John Stossel just gets it.

I love this...we get an hour of primetime dedicated to libertarian principles and the idea of spontaneous order. If you want a great opposition to the whole interventionalist nature of the current government in Washington, you should be watching this. No punches pulled, and everything is explained in an easy way for the masses to digest.

The metaphors fit, the experts providing proof, it's an good explaination of how things aren't right the way they are, and what they SHOULD be instead.

Turn it on now...or find it on YouTube.

UPDATE

It's about time that we hear about the real reasons for the subprime mortgage crisis, the housing bubble pop, and the real impetus for our current economic troubles...in primetime.

An Honest, Non-Confrontational Question for Obama Supporters

And I'm not saying this in jest or to start a fight, I just want anyone supporting Obama to give me their response to this...and not some anti-McCain rant, either...just an honest response to the question at hand...

Your candidate for President has children singing for him a la Stalin or Chairman Mao, and is put forward by people as their Personal Jesus or as the Messiah himself, and he doesn't do anything to downplay this cult of personality that has begun to surround him. In fact, he seems to revel in it.

Does any of this bother you at all? Does it rub you the wrong way? Or...is this exactly what you're looking for?

Honestly, I just want to know if these are aspects of Obama that Democrats truly believe in and like...or if you're accepting these things as part of the package, and are simply thinking "well, he's not a Republican, that's all that matters to me."

Just wondering. Please reply below.

"The Campaign Spot" Points Out Irregularity in VA Polling Samples

While I know the Obamacrats are cheering the downfall of the economy as a set up for their opponent's victory, I guess I have to be the one to play "party pooper" and point out some rather significant statistics, courtesy of "The Campaign Spot" at National Review.

- In 2006, the party ID figures based on exit polls was 39 percent Republican, 36 percent Democrat, 26 percent Independent. This was the election, of course, where Jim Webb barely scraped by George Allen in a battle of who could run the more inefficient campaign.

- In 2004, where Bush beat Kerry, the exit polling showed that party ID was 39 percent Republican, 35 percent Democrat, 26 percent Independent.

Now, take a look at these 3 recent polls and their party ID sampling figures...

- PublicPolicyPolling - is 40 percent Democrat, 35 percent Republican, 25 percent Independent. Their poll has Obama up 51-43.

- SurveyUSA - is Democrats 39 percent, Republicans 30 percent, Independents 25 percent. They have Obama up 53-43.

- Suffolk - is Democrats 45 percent, Republicans 31 percent, Independents 24 percent. They have Obama up 51-39.

Honestly now, I don't think reasonably-minded Democrats can believe that the party ID in Virginia has swung THAT much in 2 years. So if Virginia goes for McCain in the national election, I don't want to hear Democrats claiming fraud...because those polling samples provide a fraudulent depiction of Virginia's real voter party identification.

P.S. - I'm baaaack :)