The tea party is is made up of puppets being run by an elite group to serve their needs and not the needs of the people
By: SayNoToTea, 7:25 PM GMT on November 29, 2011
A nice short and sweet article that somes up the tea party quite nicely. If you stop and think about it though, it's actually very scary.
Judge Tea Party by their candidates
Posted on November 29, 2011 by atlmalcontent
At various points the Tea Party has vaulted Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Herman Cain into front-runner status. Not a very good batting average.
There’s a price to be paid when you confuse talk show hosts as leaders. Each of the aforementioned candidates were buoyed and “legitimized” by talk radio and each, to varying degrees, represent the superficial, antagonistic zealotry that has consumed much of the conservative movement.
That influence also led more sober, experienced candidates like Mitch Daniels and John Thune to sit out this election. They were too reasonable for the Tea Party and they knew it. Look no further than Jon Huntsman who, despite being regarded as the GOP’s best hope at beating Obama, trails the Neanderthal wing in all the polls.
By: SayNoToTea, 8:26 PM GMT on November 26, 2011
So it appears that Admin pepper sprayed my blog. I'm not sure why except that there must be a tea party member in their bunch and they got their panties in such a twisted knot. It's laughable how I and my blog are held to much higher standards than others.
It would be sad to see the Republican Party lose someone such as Frum, but as the tea party pushed America and the Republican Party to the brink of disaster, more and more responsible Republicans will be forced to abandon the party they so long have supported.
When Did the GOP Lose Touch With Reality?
.By David Frum Published Nov 20, 2011 ShareThis .
It’s a very strange experience to have your friends think you’ve gone crazy. Some will tell you so. Others will indulgently humor you. Still others will avoid you. More than a few will demand that the authorities do something to get you off the streets. During one unpleasant moment after I was fired from the think tank where I’d worked for the previous seven years, I tried to reassure my wife with an old cliché: “The great thing about an experience like this is that you learn who your friends really are.” She answered, “I was happier when I didn’t know.”
It’s possible that my friends are right. I don’t think so—but then, crazy people never do. So let me put the case to you.
I’ve been a Republican all my adult life. I have worked on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, at Forbes magazine, at the Manhattan and American Enterprise Institutes, as a speechwriter in the George W. Bush administration. I believe in free markets, low taxes, reasonable regulation, and limited government. I voted for John McCain in 2008, and I have strongly criticized the major policy decisions of the Obama administration. But as I contemplate my party and my movement in 2011, I see things I simply cannot support.
America desperately needs a responsible and compassionate alternative to the Obama administration’s path of bigger government at higher cost. And yet: This past summer, the GOP nearly forced America to the verge of default just to score a point in a budget debate. In the throes of the worst economic crisis since the Depression, Republican politicians demand massive budget cuts and shrug off the concerns of the unemployed. In the face of evidence of dwindling upward mobility and long-stagnating middle-class wages, my party’s economic ideas sometimes seem to have shrunk to just one: more tax cuts for the very highest earners. When I entered Republican politics, during an earlier period of malaise, in the late seventies and early eighties, the movement got most of the big questions—crime, inflation, the Cold War—right. This time, the party is getting the big questions disastrously wrong.
It was not so long ago that Texas governor Bush denounced attempts to cut the earned-income tax credit as “balancing the budget on the backs of the poor.” By 2011, Republican commentators were noisily complaining that the poorer half of society are “lucky duckies” because the EITC offsets their federal tax obligations—or because the recession had left them with such meager incomes that they had no tax to pay in the first place. In 2000, candidate Bush routinely invoked “churches, synagogues, and mosques.” By 2010, prominent Republicans were denouncing the construction of a mosque in lower Manhattan as an outrageous insult. In 2003, President Bush and a Republican majority in Congress enacted a new prescription-drug program in Medicare. By 2011, all but four Republicans in the House and five in the Senate were voting to withdraw the Medicare guarantee from everybody under age 55. Today, the Fed’s pushing down interest rates in hopes of igniting economic growth is close to treason, according to Governor Rick Perry, coyly seconded by TheWall Street Journal. In 2000, the same policy qualified Alan Greenspan as the “greatest central banker in the history of the world,” according to Perry’s mentor, Senator Phil Gramm. Today, health reform that combines regulation of private insurance, individual mandates, and subsidies for those who need them is considered unconstitutional and an open invitation to “death panels.” A dozen years ago, a very similar reform was the Senate Republican alternative to Hillarycare. Today, stimulative fiscal policy that includes tax cuts for almost every American is “socialism.” In 2001, stimulative fiscal policy that included tax cuts for rather fewer Americans was an economic-recovery program.
I can’t shrug off this flight from reality and responsibility as somebody else’s problem. I belonged to this movement; I helped to make the mess. People may very well say: Hey, wait a minute, didn’t you work in the George W. Bush administration that disappointed so many people in so many ways? What qualifies you to dispense advice to anybody else?
Fair question. I am haunted by the Bush experience, although it seems almost presumptuous for someone who played such a minor role to feel so much unease. The people who made the big decisions certainly seem to sleep well enough. Yet there is also the chance for something positive to come out of it all. True, some of my colleagues emerged from those years eager to revenge themselves and escalate political conflict: “They send one of ours to the hospital, we send two of theirs to the morgue.” I came out thinking, I want no more part of this cycle of revenge. For the past half-dozen years, I have been arguing that we conservatives need to follow a different course. And it is this argument that has led so many of my friends to demand, sometimes bemusedly, sometimes angrily, “What the hell happened to you?” I could fire the same question back: “Never mind me—what happened to you?”
Updated: 8:28 PM GMT on November 26, 2011
By: SayNoToTea, 5:21 PM GMT on November 10, 2011
In the long run American's always get it right. I would prefer that the pendulum not swing too far left and hope that the centrist wins as what we saw in Arizona are a sign for the 2012 elections.
The ring wing's election shellacking
Tuesday's results underscored the power of unions and populist politics, the danger to conservatives of social-issue extremism, and the fact that 2010 was no mandate for right-wing policies.
Article by: E.J. DIONNE , Washington Post Writers Group
Updated: November 9, 2011 - 2:18 PM
This week's elections around the country were brought to you by the word "overreach," specifically conservative overreach. Given an opportunity in 2010 to build a long-term majority, Republicans instead pursued extreme and partisan measures.
On Tuesday, they reaped angry voter rebellions.
The most important was in Ohio, where voters overwhelmingly defeated Gov. John Kasich's bill to strip public employee unions of essential bargaining rights. A year ago, who would have predicted that standing up for the interests of government workers would galvanize and mobilize voters on this scale?
Anti-labor conservatives have brought class politics back to life, a major threat to a GOP that has long depended on the ballots of white working-class voters and offered them nothing in return.
In Maine, voters exercised what that state calls a "people's veto" to undo a Republican-passed law that would have ended same-day voter registration, which served Maine well for almost four decades.
What's often lost is that the conservative Republicans elected in 2010 aren't simply pushing right-wing policies.
Where they can, they are also using majorities won in a single election to manipulate future elections -- by making it harder for young and minority voters to cast ballots, and by trying to break the political power of unions. The votes in Maine and Ohio were a rebuke to this strategy.
In Mississippi, perhaps the most conservative state in the union, voters beat back a referendum to declare a fertilized human egg a person by a margin of roughly 3-to-2. Here was overreach by the right-to-life movement, which tried to get voters to endorse a measure that could have outlawed popular forms of birth control and in vitro fertilization.
The war against overreach extended to the immigration issue, too. In Arizona, Russell Pearce became, as The Arizona Republic noted, the first sitting state Senate president in the nation as well as the first Arizona legislator ever to lose a recall election.
Pearce, who spearheaded viciously anti-immigrant legislation, was defeated by Jerry Lewis, a conservative with a mild demeanor. Lewis correctly saw his as a victory for restoring "a civil tone to politics." This was a case of old-fashioned conservatism beating the tea party variety.
And in Iowa, Democrats held their state Senate majority by winning a special election that had been engineered by Republican Gov. Terry Branstad. Occupy Wall Street, notice that elections matter: A Republican victory over Democrat Liz Mathis would have opened the way for Branstad to push through a cut in corporate income taxes.
Mathis' defeat could also have allowed conservatives to amend the Iowa Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Mathis prevailed with 56 percent despite robocalls from an obscure group instructing voters to ask Mathis which gay sex acts she endorsed.
(It should be said, as The Des Moines Register reported, that better-known organizations opposed to gay marriage denounced the calls.)
The one potential bright spot for Republicans was not as bright as it was supposed to be. In Virginia, both sides had expected the GOP to take over the state Senate.
But at best, the Republicans will achieve a 20-20 tie, giving Republican Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling a decisive role. And their chance of even getting to 20 hangs on the recount of an 86-vote margin in one district.
The split means Virginia has not reverted to its earlier status as a Republican bastion. It remains a purple state.
Especially significant, Democratic consultant Mo Elleithee observed, were the party's successes in the Washington, D.C., suburbs and exurbs and in Hampton Roads, precisely the areas where President Obama needs to do well if he is to carry Virginia next year, as he did in 2008.
Democrats also comfortably held the New Jersey Legislature, suggesting the limits of Gov. Chris Christie's much-touted political magic.
One of the only referendum results the GOP could cheer was a strong vote in Ohio against the health insurance mandate. While health reform supporters argued that the ballot question was misleading, the result spoke to the truly terrible job Democrats have done in defending what they enacted.
They can't let the health care law remain a policy stepchild.
That useful warning aside, Tuesday's results underscored the power of unions and populist politics, the danger to conservatives of social-issue extremism, and the fact that 2010 was no mandate for right-wing policies.
They also mean that if Republicans don't back away from an agenda that makes middle-class, middle-of-the-road Americans deeply uncomfortable -- and in some cases angry -- they will lose the rather more important fight of 2012.
By: SayNoToTea, 4:26 PM GMT on November 03, 2011
Tea party Republicans have sought plenty of stimulus for their own districts
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor likes government spending just fine,
when it comes to projects for his own state.
One of the most irritating aspects of the Republican obsession with “wasteful spending” and claiming “the government can’t create jobs” is that they clearly don’t believe their own rhetoric themselves. It is purely a game, for them: something to tell audiences of gullible supporters who want to hear it. In actual practice, however, the rhetoric doesn’t matter a bit. They know they’re lying.
Newsweek put together a compilation of letters from tea party-friendly Republicans asking federal agencies for funds for their own districts. For example, Eric Cantor tried to get about $3 billion for a rail project in his state, while decrying rail projects in other states. Other letters are from Allen West, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, David Vitter and Ron Paul:
The stack of spending-request letters between these GOP members and federal agencies stands more than a foot tall, and disheartens some of the activists who sent Republicans to Washington in the last election.
Many of the letters seek to tap the stimulus, clean-energy loans, and innovation grants—programs the same Republicans have accused Obama and the Democrats of using to bloat government and jeopardize America’s future. And these fiscal conservatives often used in their private letters the same arguments they pan in public.
Many of the letters, of course, explicitly argue that the federal projects will create jobs in their districts. This would of course be the complete opposite of the vast majority of these dishonest hacks say in public, where they vow that government cannot possibly create employment for people. Of course it can. Other letters are attempts to get funds from some of the exact same stimulus and loan programs that Republicans whine so bitterly against, in speeches; there, too, the private letters recognize the obvious benefit of encouraging specific development efforts.
It’s all a game. It’s all dishonest, they’re all lying, and every one of them is perfectly fine seeking government help for their districts while freely acknowledging the government’s helpful role in stimulating employment, or infrastructure, or industry. That is what is so profoundly irritating: the complete insincerity of the public game. The public motivations may be for “small government” or the like, but the real motivations are simple greed. They want money to improve their districts, but they don’t want other Americans to get the same. They want to cut taxes, but they don’t really want to cut spending: Let’s face it, they have had, over the past decades, ample opportunities to “cut spending” only to instead balloon it. The only things they regularly demand cutting are aid to the poor, or the old, or the sick. But when it comes to government investment in the economy? Oh, they’re all for that. Every last one of them.
And that, in turn, makes the unwillingness to do anything coherent to help the current stagnant economy all the more infuriating. It’s not that these Republicans don’t know that the government can certainly help to lift the economy out of recession or near-recession: They know it, absolutely. They just don’t want to do it. They’d rather America twist in the wind, because they think that makes for better politics.
Eric Cantor may be willing to shut down all of government in order to leverage a few more tax breaks for rich people, or a few more benefit cuts to the unemployed, and he may rail against stimulus measures on a daily basis, but none of it has any ideological underpinning that makes any sense. Which, I presume, is why speeches by Cantor, Ryan and the rest are frequently so muddled and nonsensical. It’s difficult to argue for something when you don’t really believe it yourself, and when you know that the second you go back to your desk, you’re going to have to argue for the complete opposite.