Fellow Patriots,
There are three major stories today that represent significant victories for advocates of small government, especially those within the tea party movement. The first is probably the most obvious… the fact that Scott Brown landed a knock out blow in defeating far left candidate Martha Coakley in the MA special election. The second is news that Nancy Pelosi is now suggesting she doesn’t have the votes needed to pass government control of the healthcare industry. Last but not least is news that the Supreme Court struck down legislation that prevented Corporations from practicing free speech through campaign dollars.
I’d like to briefly discuss the three, and then ask for your thoughts and opinions on each.
1) The Supreme Court Decision on Campaign Dollars and Corporations
If you missed it today, the Supreme Court made a highly controversial ruling that is certain to spark debate across all sides of the political spectrum. The ruling says the following:
The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.
By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.
It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.
Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority apparently agreed.
This news, in my opinion, is going to cause a split within the movement. Not one of competition, but one of ideology. To put it simply, this ruling will paint a clear divide between small government advocates and those who are OK with federal government intervention when it comes to this sort of free speech activity.
I say this because my inbox has been lit up all day with emails from all sides of the debate. Some claim it presents a significant danger because of corrupt unions and special interest, progressive corporations, other cheer that it finally gets the federal government out of the way of free speech in the election realm.
Personally, I believe this ruling is long over due, and I believe anyone who advocates against it cannot claim to also advocate for smaller federal government.
Either you want the federal government to be involved in this sort of thing or you don’t. We as liberty minded activists need to stop “picking and choosing” where we wish for the fed to intervene. Our argument should be against virtually every intrusion with the exception of the following:
-Protection of borders (Defense)
-Regulation of inter-state commerce (Keep it “regular”)
The federal government has failed at both. But in my view, this is all the fed needs to be concerned with. Nothing more. Not the regulation of pot plants, not the regulation of speed limits, not education, not national ID cards… not any of it.
These are things the STATES should control. Not the federal government.
Again, you’re either for less federal government or you aren’t.
With regards to free speech in political funding… we might not like that unions can put private dollars into the process. But in a free America, they have every right to do so. The federal government should never, EVER have the authority to come in and tell a private company or individual what it/he/she can and can’t spend money on.
Period.
2) Did we kill government run healthcare?
A few weeks ago we announced that if Scott Brown won in MA, we believed it would be the death of federal government mandated healthcare. It looks like we were right.
Though reeling from a seismic political loss, House Democrats rejected the quickest fix to their health care dilemma Thursday and signaled that any agreement on President Barack Obama’s signature issue will come slowly, if at all.
Democrats weighed a handful of difficult options as they continued to absorb Republican Scott Brown’s election to the Massachusetts Senate seat long held by Edward M. Kennedy. Several said Obama must forcefully help them find a way to avoid the humiliation of enacting no bill, and they urged him to do so quickly, to put the painful process behind them.
House leaders said they could not pass a Senate-approved bill, standing by itself, because of objections from liberals and moderates alike. Such a move could have settled the matter, because it would not have required further Senate action. Brown’s stunning victory restored the GOP’s power to block bills with Senate filibusters.
This by no means should be viewed as a reason to stop fighting the bill, but it certainly suggests we’re slowly starting to get a competitive edge in the battle to keep government out of our lives.
In fact, I would argue that this is the time to step up our efforts and push back even harder. In this particular case, we certainly want to kick them while they’re down to ensure they can’t get back up.
3) Scott Brown and what his wins means for us
A lot of you have lashed out at us for helping Scott Brown win in MA. This is understandable as Scott Brown might not be the most libertarian Senator of the bunch, but a lot of you seem to miss the larger point and strategy in doing so.
First of all, we needed a candidate who had a chance. The movement never would have been able to unify behind a candidate that didn’t have a viable chance with enough time to pull off a win.
Kennedy, the independent candidate for the race, never had a chance. He never came anywhere close to having a chance. I know, many of you will say “we could have given him a chance if we wanted to,” but that doesn’t fly with me. We “could have” won many races in the past, but we didn’t. We “could” have won with Doug Hoffman in NY23, but we lost.
We need to be thinking strategically, not just emotionally. As I told the New York Times over the weekend…
“For us, this is not so much about Scott Brown as it is about the idea that if we really collaborate as a mass movement, we can take any seat in the country.”
If we would have tried to support Kennedy in MA, we would have lost. Government healthcare would still be alive, and we would have a much more difficult fight ahead of us in 2010 because we would still need to prove to ourselves what we can accomplish through unity.
But think about it, we defeated the machine in MA. We defeated the liberal pick for Senator. We defeated the winning vote for government healthcare.
That was the goal for us in the MA special election. It wasn’t to get a libertarian elected; Rather, it was to put up a significant roadblock in the progressive plan to push our country further into socialism.
This week our movement was able to stop a super majority, virtually kill government takeover of healthcare, and the supreme court ruled against government blockades of political free speech.
In my opinion, this is Historic.
For Liberty,
-Eric Odom
CORIANN says:
January 27, 2010 at 12:00 pm
But as a political ‘Party’, officially organized under local, state and national statutes? We would have Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and, what, Teas?
——————-
If people want to be Republicans or Democrats, that’s their business.
But whatever we call ourselves, we need a platform/set of questions.
We’re way too low profile right now, and it’s way too easy to ignore us.
A platform is quick, free advertising. Maybe someone in the media will actually write about it.
As I talk with people around me, the term ‘tea party’ seems to have different uses. The original boston tea party, of course was an organized demonstration against King George for his abuses of power and taxation in the colonies, and any similar push-back is aptly termed a ‘tea party’.
As a movement, today, the concept has been drawing concerned and frustrated right-thinkers together, pushing back against run-away leftist government, first vocally, and more recently politically with votes and pressure on incumbents. Yay!
But as a political ‘Party’, officially organized under local, state and national statutes? We would have Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and, what, Teas?
I’d suggest that organizing an official, so-called ‘Tea Party’ is both pointless and counterproductive, but the ‘movement’ should, by its nature, attract attention and empower members of any legitimate ‘party’, or none, to think, act and vote increasingly like constitutional conservatives and either clean up their own party or switch to strenthen a better one.
Luv ya, Coriann
The Tea Party Platform
I move that we create a temporary platform here at taxdayteaparty.com
We debate, create and vote on a platform. And each of us commits to sending it to our representative, and asking what they think about it.
I suggest this partly because I think the Tea Party is arrogant. Even if we have good ideas, how far will they get without representatives?
Attack on the Young
This is probably too touchy to make part of any platform.
But our nation’s young people - our future - are getting crushed by Social “security.”
The stock market builds wealth. Why aren’t we giving young people - or even the unborn - stock for their retirement?
Do young people know that Social “security”/Medicare eats up 15.3% of their paycheck? 7.65% is visible on their paycheck. Their employer is forced, by law, to match that.
While enjoying the historic and encouraging recent events, have we lost sight of how easy it might be for foreign governments to take over part of America?
It occurs to me that When a company or person goes bankrupt, their owned assets are subject to forfeiture.
Therefore, when the U.S. defaults on payments to our creditors, what’s to keep them from siezing BLM land? American missles and troops? And what do we do when our new neighbors decide to cut off traffic and access?
It’s amazing how much American soil is owned by foreign governments already. There goes the neighborhood! And all because we have to acquire and consume so much more than we can afford!
Bill Grimes-Wyatt says:
January 25, 2010 at 9:48 pm
We must pick positive positions that are easy to defend.
————-
Yup. I would hope that everyone’s goal is to get the American people more representation.
Possible ways to do this are:
1. Do you support taxpayer approval of spending? If not, why not?
2. Do you support instant runoff voting?
3. Do you support public seed money for new candidates?
4. Do you support a 32 hour work week, to spread the work?
5. Do you support a Constitutional Convention, to move up midterm elections?
6. Do you support the immediate seating of Scott Brown?
These issues aren’t going away. Although Brown’s election took a lot of pressure off.
Some selected quotes from a former enemy, he knew where we were headed though we didn’t!
“We can’t expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism,
but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism,
until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism.”
Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build bridges even when there are no rivers.
The press is our chief ideological weapon.
When you are skinning your customers, you should leave some skin on to heal, so that you can skin them again.
Nikita Khrushchev
Open question to all Democrats in the country:
Having been stung by Brown, what is your plan?
Are you going to let the trillion plus deficits roll?
We must pick positive positions that are easy to defend. We can not stop earmarks by railing against them. We might be able to stop them (or at least reduce them by making them fair. A FAIR EARMARK BILL could state that all states get a equal per capitia (of citizens) share. When any state has less then their fair share of earmarks, they will receive the difference in a cash grant. It could be the form of an unrestricted grant to the various state treasurers payable within 30 days of passage or it could be restricted to Community Colleges, for example. If all states are treated fairly, then the permanent pols have no reason to trade votes. We can support other bills that will reduce the corruption in congress.
The socialists (big government boys) have been winning the war of public relations because they have defined the terms we all use. They say health care reform when the issue is health care CONTROL. they don’s want change, they want control. Steny Hoyer has been in congress for 28 years and he is with the CHANGERS. We need to change him. It must be pointed out that the maryland 5th district has to have a change of bosses. We should pick out every possible misuse of power and use of government control.
Thom S. says:
January 25, 2010 at 3:03 pm
But I do find you to be very offensive.
————
Because I expect criticism to be followed by a better idea? Interesting…
NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS SHOULD BE THE APPEAL OF THE ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX. IT HURTS THE MIDDLE CLASS.
I think a lot of folks on here are making a big mistake in ignoring the Supreme Court ruling and focusing on Massachusetts. That decision alters the political playing field in numerous crucial ways.
1. It gives significant favor to Republicans.
2. However, as social conservatives have been at best a distraction from the corporate agenda, it promises to remove social conservatives from the Republican party.
3. Because it was conservative justices who made the decision, it makes conservatives look very corrupt and untrustworthy.
4. It will require that all of our voices be more mediated than ever through wealthy corporations, unions, or non-profits.
5. It will politicize the corporation to an unheard of extent, and this may weaken economic growth. And if it is true that churches can now contribute to their hearts content as well, it will politicize religion on both the left and right in what may be a corrosive manner.
6. It will bring the most political of executives to power.
In short, democracy has been turned on its head.
@spiking said:
“So, until you have a better idea, how do I say this, please go away.”
Last I checked Spiking this was not your blog or website, so if you could please restrain your pugnacious contempt for those who have no interest in jumping on your bandwagon.
While I think most in the Tea Party agree with fiscal conservatism, that does not mean that they want to undermine our Republic in favor of the proven chaos of pure Democracy.
You are simply rude and disrespectful, although I will not tell you to leave, that is up to the list moderator and blog owner, not me.
But I do find you to be very offensive.
Congrats all involved with the events of last week…a good week it was!
We’re up next in Illinois, help us keep the momentum going.
Enjoy this video PTBR produced: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBWECzIbBUQ
The Supreme Court ruling is going to drown all of our voices out in a sea of corporate “speech.” Given that it is possible and ordinary for a majority of shareholders and employees to oppose the contributions given by senior executives, there is nothing democratic about this ruling.
If the amount of funding given to political campaigns doesn’t strongly influence the outcome of elections, then the vast majority of candidates and campaign managers have no idea what they are doing. Money clearly plays a strong role in determining who is elected. Now those with the most money will make this decision of who is elected. Again, there is nothing democratic about this.
Whatever you might or might not feel about short term prospects for your favored party, in the end this will be a disaster for anything but the corporate agenda.
The Marketing Campaign
TV commercial. A housewife sits at her computer. “Congress wants to waste more of my money. To degrade my future. This time, I’m saying no.”
I’m not pretending that the Tea Party is in a position to buy TV time.
I am saying that housewife is worth fighting for.
i have heard that adam kokesh us running to congress in your state, and that he is claiming to have tea party support.
this is an outrage.
kokesh is a member of the Iraq Veterans Against War - an offshoot of john kerry’s Vietnam Veterans Against War. during his time with the IVAW kokesh participated in assaults against recruiting stations in the washington dc area, he joined forces with code pink in their anti-american activities, and he actively protested against our troops in the streets of DC, NYC and other cities in the northeast.
i can only hope that the NM tea party will NOT ENDORSE the anti-america kokesh. he is a sheep in wolves clothing. he is an infiltrator into the republican party
Thom S. says:
January 24, 2010 at 2:22 pm
@Sharpe “taxpayer approval of spending is not a plank of the Tea Party Movement,
—————
That’s debatable. Is the Tea Party committed to solutions that work?
Anyone in the country can come in here and criticize the idea. How many are?
Now, believe me, I understand the need to work with SPECIFIC candidates on SPECIFIC elections.
And I can walk away from the Tea Party movement at any time. I don’t need this.
However, REAL CHANGE is possible, and I believe that I can help with that.
So, until you have a better idea, how do I say this, please go away.
@Sharpe “taxpayer approval of spending is not a plank of the Tea Party Movement, Spiking is the only one I have heard advocating for it. I think most agree that it is good we are a Republic not a pure Democracy. It is Spiking’s effort to try to turn every blog post into a discussion of this, even if it has nothing to do with the blog post.
Good Post Eric.
Thanks for all the comments everybody!!!!!!!
I read all of them, but don’t have time to respond to each individually.
Taxpayer approval of spending sounds a bit controversial.
Sharpe, how do recommend that citizens get better representation?
Eric Odom,
These reason a corporation should not be viewed as a person is that Angelo Mazillo(Countrywide Mortgage CEO) did not contact me or take into account my opinion when he made donation decisions on behalf of Countrywide. What Countrywide “the person” chose to do with their corporate money was certainly not representative of the thousands of people that worked for Countrywide Mortgage. It was very representative of the way A.M. wanted to run his mortgage company. Giving a few people at the top of the ladder the ability to marshal the funds of mega corporations would allow the Enrons/Countrywides etc to buy votes that allowed their methods to propogate.
I’m with you on #2 but there is no way you can count the Supreme Court decision as a win. Our Constitution does not say ” We the corporations and Unions”. A corporation should have no voice. I have worked for several corporations that wanted things that were beneficial for the corporation that I did not believe were beneficial to me personally or my country as a whole. I resent the heck out of the fact that the corporation that I work for can take money out of the general fund and use it for the issues that the top brass value. The support from a corporation may not even be reletive to corporate business. It may just be the personal relationship or personal preferences of the CEO that gets to make the call. So now that guy at the top has the ability to leverage a whole corporation to get his voice heard.
In the end it comes down to this… A CORPORATION is not a “people”.
Is anybody protesting in Massachusetts? Does anyone want to give me a whole bunch of money, so I can quit my job and go protest?
I have only recently joined the Tea Party movement, as I have found that I am in total agreement with most of its ideas. The one key plank that I disagree with is direct control over Tax money. In the past this has led to deficits for education, police, fire and EMS while the money gets funneled towards “flashier” public concerns because the majority of the populace is not educated enough to realize exactly what the government is responsible for funding. As a firefighter, this concerns me. In Maine, during the 2009 referendum there was a proposal for a Tabor system. I voted against it and will continue to do so until the citizenry realizes that the money they send to their government is for it to do its job in protecting the populace, instead of coddling and maintaining a virtual welfare state
I just sent emails ripping the flesh off my two Virginia Senators.
There should be no votes until Senator Brown is seated.
Oligarchy strikes again?
One of the comments in the link I just gave talked about Brown’s seating.
It claimed that he won’t be seated until 23 days after his election.
I heard Tsongas was the last Massachusetts Senator special elected. And he was seated the next day.
When it suited their power, Republicans were going to challenge this.
Will they now oligarch up and allow the debt to be skyrocketed?
The oligarchy is poised to strike:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/77673-obama-calls-on-congress-to-create-its-own-fiscal-commission
You can bet that the oligarchy will skyrocket our debt, and ignore the people.
1. Do you support taxpayer approval of spending? If not, why not?
2. Do you support instant runoff voting?
3. Do you support public seed money for new candidates?
4. Do you support a 32 hour work week, to spread the work?
5. Do you support a Constitutional Convention, to move up midterm elections?
There is much confusion about the Supreme Court’s Decision this week. But, maybe this will help to clarify it. A corporation is full of people - you the worker. Maybe this company knows that cap and trade would seriously hurt the company, and that this would translate into the need to lay off some of it’s employees. Shouldn’t they have the right to put out a commercial that says so? Of course they should.
Obama and the Democrats are against this because they know that it allows that freedom of speech against his anti-business, anti-growth policies. Don’t be fooled. He wants George Sorros (who is one very rich progressive individual) to have more power than your place of employment does.
Spiking, exactly correct. Excellent find on the video!!! Thanks for sharing it.
We must keep up the fight. Any Tea Parties in Nebraska this year???
Here is the video that shows we get oligarchy or republic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTYp9YJZqTI
In 2010, we have oligarchy. A few men and women in DC decide how all the money gets spent, with no constraints.
Ultimately, of course, this has consequences. The dollar becomes devalued, which obliterates the poor.
conservativegirl says:
January 22, 2010 at 1:11 pm
It’s time to get some leadership in the Tea Party Movement.
—————–
Ultimately, liberalism is not fair to those being taxed.
Essentially, in 2010, Americans are taxed without representation.
The movement will go one of two ways - the Republican way or direct citizen vote on spending.
The problem with the Republican way is that it will lose.
It’s a sad day when billionaire captains of industry are allowed to purchase total control of this nation’s federal, state and local governments via unrestricted campaign donations. Who then become the masters and who become the servants? How can it be good to have our politicians in servitude to the overwhelmingly wealthy captains of industry? These individuals have stolen trillions of taxpayer dollars in bailouts with the non-partisan blessing of our senators and congressmen. This is our current situation. We have a choice of corporate servant ‘A’ the Republican or corporate servant ‘B’ the Democrat or we can write in a candidate who has no chance of being elected. To affect any meaningful change in our government we first must find a way to stop the massive and open corrupton of our elected officials. If Thomas Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and the other founders of this great American experiment in self-rule were alive to see this both their sorrow and their anger would be overwhelming as should ours.
David Kerns says:
January 22, 2010 at 3:38 pm
My Wife and I are registered democrats. But, we are fed up with much of what they are doing. The health care bill(why does it have to be passed at this time with economy going down hill) Medicare cuts, tax on health ins, there should be no tax dollars for abortions., etc.
Should focus on the economy and tax cuts so that there would be more business startups. These have jobs to hire and they can and do grow which means more jobs.
————–
There are different approaches to take to the Tea Party.
I think we’re still jockeying around, and feeling around.
Personally, I think all government spending is good, as long as it’s what the people want.
That’s something that the liberalist liberal and conservatist conservative could agree with. Although I’m sure there’s some of them who just don’t care what their fellow citizens want.
That’s why I think taxpayer approval of spending is the best vehicle for change. It could be put into place tomorrow, if the politicians were on the side of the people.
As Massachusetts shows, Americans have seen the red flags of reckless governing. I do think we need a little more time to jockey around, though. Don’t want to be reckless, ourselves. Debate will sort things out.
Ronald says:
January 22, 2010 at 11:11 am
I feel the Democratic Party left me and other middle class, blue collar, americans behind
————–
The tragedy of liberalism. Although who can really say what liberalism is?
Does liberalism stand for freedom? Or something more sinister?
None of us wants to be at the mercy of our employers. The more government takes from us, the more we are at the mercy of our employers.
But safety nets are good, too. How many Americans want to do away with unemployment benefits?
Do we have the manpower to make 32 hour weeks, retiring at 60 the norm?
My Wife and I are registered democrats. But, we are fed up with much of what they are doing. The health care bill(why does it have to be passed at this time with economy going down hill) Medicare cuts, tax on health ins, there should be no tax dollars for abortions., etc.
Should focus on the economy and tax cuts so that there would be more business startups. These have jobs to hire and they can and do grow which means more jobs.
Shirley says:
January 22, 2010 at 8:44 am
My friends that are with me on one issue, may not be with me on another, but we respect each other and move on to the best option available.
————-
That’s my general focus, as well. If government spending is good for the country, let government spend.
If it is bad, stop it.
Career politicians will go with the status quo flow, even if it harms the country. They’re just in it for themselves.
The country is unquestionably in revolt. Not here, but in other places you read posts about violence. That’s why it’s important to remember that a Constitutional Convention can move up midterm elections. The country can get these crooks out peacefully, in about a week, if it wants to.
And it’s also why I talk about taxpayer approval of spending all the time. Who cares more about the people’s money? The people? Or the politicians?
So that’s why we’re here, debating. What’s the next step?
Did anyone read Michelle Malkin’s editorial today? She’s completely right. We have to stay on our guard - Sarah Palin is going out to support John McCain, McCain is out there doling out $$$ to RINO’s dressed in Republican garb. Scott Brown hopefully will stay true to himself and to the voters that voted him in. Once one gets to DC, however, it’s hard to get anything done without going with the flow. It’s time to get some leadership in the Tea Party Movement. Regarding the Supreme Court decision, it’s great to allow everyone to speak out, but George Soros and all of his pit crew are now able to funnel their vast $$$ to anything at any time. It’s going to be an interesting 2010, and all TeaParty Goers must stay vigilant.
We need to keep the preasure up. The prodressives (far left liberals) need to be pushed into a hole, and burried. If we don’t, they will come back with some other scheme to socialize this nation. THEY WILL NOT GIVE UP, SO WE MUST GET RID OF THEM, BUY VOTEING THEM ALL OUT OF OFFICE. This November will be a good start, we can take the Senate back, by electing conservitives this time in all 7 Democratic seats up for re-election. Wayne
This is my first time posting on any blog. I just wanted to say that it is refreshing to see that there are others out there that are trying to do something about out run-away government spending and big government in general.
I am a registered Democrat and have been all my life. I have always voted for the candidate that I beleived was best suited for the job regardless of party affiliation. I am a fiscal conservative and anti big government. I feel the Democratic Party left me and other middle class, blue collar, americans behind and migrated to the far left. Now it seems that both major parties are ignoring the will people with regard to spending. They ignore major issues like our failing economy, banking systems, and illegal immigration and instead focus on abortion, gay rights, gun control and health care. We spend billions fighting a war against terrorism abroad and can’t protect our
own borders. We worry about global warming instead of repairing our lost industrial base. We spend millions on relief for earthquakes and tsunamis abroad but can’t repair our own infrastructure. We build massive national debt and can’t solve our trade imbalance.
In reading the other comments on this site,I’m glad to see others feel as I do. I will get involved and do what I can to assist the Tea Party to find and elect likeminded candidates. Its time to restore Government “OF THE PEOPLE”.
Midas, Corporations are people. They are treated like a person, and are ran by people. They aren’t robots or computers.
And as people, they have a right to do with their money what they want.
You seem to advocate government regulation and intervention in that realm. How is that advocating for smaller government?
Brandonm2 says:
January 22, 2010 at 8:09 am
I don’t mean to throw stones; but why in the world would we want a 32 hour work week????? WHY would we want the government telling private employers that they can only run 4 days a week??? Do we want a government with that much daily control??? I know it would (in the short term) create some jobs (I have three part time jobs myself right now); but in the long run it would make the country less productive and much less efficient.
—————
If you don’t know me yet, you soon will. I’m not afraid of debate. And I’m not afraid to drop an idea to move on to a better one.
In the Internet Age, people want quick, if not instant, results.
A ton of people are suffering and out of work. A ton of people are working like slaves to pay for those people.
If we want to keep the status quo, that needs to be decided on by the American people. And discussed by the American people.
The brightest economist in the world isn’t going to fix our economy overnight. It could take a decade. Are Americans willing to work as personal assistants for other Americans? Or would we rather just pay them unemployment benefits?
On the SCOTUS decision I was initially ambivalent. I’m not a lawyer and have not read the decision. I tend to lean towards the side of free speech and no government intervention; your arguments are persuasive. But in the big picture, this should not be allowed to “split the movement”. That would be simply counter-productive. We have no power over this decision. Efforts should be directed towards where we can make a difference. Everything else is just whining. I would say, “understand it, read it, then let it go”. There are bigger fish to fry….getting more fiscally conservative members of Congress.
Did we kill government run healthcare? I am not sure the verdict is in. I think all of us need to be on high alert as to the goings-on in Congress. Vulnerable Democrats are cowering, and that is a good thing, but backdoor deals can still be made. I see that Congress is stepping back, taking a breath. That in itself is comforting, but I never underestimate Pelosi-Power. She seems to me as a person who will not be denied. But I also see her star falling.
Scott Brown? On this I was not ambivalent at all. I am not a MA resident, but I contributed to his money bomb. Is he a libertarian? Heh, about as libertarian as you can get in MA. The bottom line was…here is a vote than can stop the healthcare boondoggle. Here is a chance to win one. To those ideological purists that admonished me, all I can say is: “You lost”. Will I agree with every vote Scott Brown makes? No. The importance of this election is that it woke people up to the potential of winning, and having someone in the Senate who at least understands our concerns. The situation in MA was a perfect storm, and scared the you-know-what out of many people in Congress. That is a good thing.
We have a similar situation in DE, though perhaps without Brown’s charisma. Mike Castle (R) is leaving the House and is running for Senate. The verdict is still out on whether son-of-Biden will run. The similarity to MA is that a Biden run may look to some as an entitlement seat, much as Coakley felt entitled to “Kennedy’s seat”. Castle is a moderate, popular, and is in good financial shape. Some of the more socially conservative people in DE bash him as a RINO and are supporting Christine O’Donnell. If she primaries Castle (which she will), she will lose. After that, those that supported her need to get directly behind Castle. Another somewhat-conservative R in the Senate? It gives us more leverage.
A note on Castle: he voted FOR Cap-N-Trade. His response to my letter to him was a bit disappointing. In three pages, he pretty much said, “Don’t worry, the Senate will water it down”. But I think in the current environment he might well rethink his position on that.
I think that a thing to remember is that we are all individuals. I am a fiscally-conservative, minimal-government person, yet I support gay marriage. My friends that are with me on one issue, may not be with me on another, but we respect each other and move on to the best option available. We are a center-right nation, not a right nation. The extreme social conservatives will lose.
The bottom line is to win the best we can. Bickering over insurmountable minutia will only serve to continue our existence as rats in a cage. Break out of the cage, understand the game, and leave your egos at the front door.
We can do this.
I don’t mean to throw stones; but why in the world would we want a 32 hour work week????? WHY would we want the government telling private employers that they can only run 4 days a week??? Do we want a government with that much daily control??? I know it would (in the short term) create some jobs (I have three part time jobs myself right now); but in the long run it would make the country less productive and much less efficient.
One other thought. I would like complete transparency with these forums.
No deleted posts. Users would flag inappropriate content to be hidden.
For a nominal fee, paid by credit card, users could view hidden comments.
Having been here almost a few weeks now, I’d like to make a few comments.
This is a wonderful group of people committed to bettering the country.
But consider the sheer size of what we are doing. Running a country without the needed tools - seats in Congress, the Senate, and the White House.
That’s why this movement is clunky and awkward.
I suggest that taxdayteaparty.com has gained control of the media. In fact, I suggest that we ARE the media. The rest of them are just corporate shills.
Again, I reiterate things that the pollsters aren’t polling and the media ain’t writing:
1. Do you support taxpayer approval of spending? If not, why not?
2. Do you support instant runoff voting?
3. Do you support public seed money for new candidates?
4. Do you support a 32 hour work week, to spread the work?
5. Do you support a Constitutional Convention, to move up midterm elections?
With Eric’s permission, I would like to set up open forums for these five issues. And any other issues that people care about.
I hear Air America filed bankruptcy today…
I am sorry I don’t buy the argument that corporations have a right to free speech. Mostly because Corporations can’t speak. Just like corporation don’t pay taxes.
Individuals pay taxes. Individuals speak and should be protected by the first amendment. Individuals that work inside corporations speak and should be protected by the first amendment.
A lot of you have lashed out at us for helping Scott Brown win in MA.
————–
That’s not very nice!!!!!!!
The overriding goal here is to get Americans more representation. And encourage new ideas and debate.
Brown is a colossal success!!!!!!!
Thanks for being on the front lines, Eric!!!!!