Posts Tagged ‘party’


7. February 2011

The USA PATRIOT Act is up for reauthorization in the House tomorrow. Unfortunately, there are only forty minutes of scheduled debate and no opportunities for amendments. Please write your Representative and tell them not to vote for it under these conditions. The PATRIOT Act abridges your rights in the name of national security. A power so unlimited in the hands of the government deserves to be well-regulated and well-debated.

If you would like to write your Representative, I have a form letter below that you may feel free to use, or you may compose your own email.

Representative __________,
I implore you, do not vote for a suspension calendar with the USA PATRIOT Act on it. Though terrorism can be a threat, there are more effective ways to fight it than allowing for a suspension of Americans’ constitutional rights and allowing roving wiretaps, secret searches and other breaches of personal privacy and security.

You certainly have the security of the nation at heart, of that I have no doubt, but I beg you to recognize that by supporting an Act of dubious constitutionality and the restriction of law-abiding Americans’ rights, you might be inadvertently bringing about the end goal of the terrorists: the destruction of the American society which you and I both value so greatly.

Thank you for your time,

If you would like to write your Representative but are unsure who that is, you may quickly find that information here.


The Answer to the Question CNN Can’t Stop Asking.

30. March 2010

“Is the Tea Party movement hurting the GOP?” read the headline under Larry King’s bright red suspenders last night on CNN. Though the sound was turned off, I could imagine what was being said. The screen space not being occupied by Larry King’s head showed alternating pictures of Sarah Palin and people holding signs. Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time they’ve discussed this very same topic on CNN. In fact, this has been discussed every single time any tea party of any relative size has been organized. The answer seems to simply escape those souls at CNN, bless their hearts.

The answer is simple. In terms of short-term election results, we may. We may do what Bob Barr did to McCain in 2008 and what Ralph Nader did to Gore in 2000. In the long run, this is good for the GOP and its rather large tent. As RNC-backed candidates start to find their numbers slipping against true conservatives, the Republican Party will surely catch on that Americans are tired of the McCain candidates. If the message gets through the GOP’s skull, they’ll push on in a more conservative direction, which is what the Tea Party wants.

It’s not as if we have anything against those suffixed by an “(R)”. If they start putting out candidates that fight for what we want, we’ll have no trouble backing them. It’s the candidates who don’t embody conservative ideals who run as Republicans in strong Republican districts that we dislike.

This intense fascination with the tea parties that CNN exhibits is interesting. Though they try to marginalize the protestors, they can’t help but put them in the headlines every couple of days. They misconstrue the goals of the tea parties and seem to intentionally mislead their viewers. This is an example of bad journalism, and ought to be stopped. Of course, it won’t be. The Democrats, the unofficial party of the Cable News Network, are very happy with an misinformed voting base. And though liberals like to say that Fox is biased, at least its news programs get their facts right as much as possible.

So here you go, CNN. I’m going to allow you to put this debate to rest. I’m going to answer the question you haven’t seemed to be able to put to bed with all of your pundits and news anchors of stunning intelligence. The Tea Party movement may be hurting the GOP in the immediate future, but the conservatives of which it is comprised are going to try remake the GOP in their own image. A conservative image, and one which the GOP seems to have lost in recent times.


24. March 2010

The Senate healthcare bill passed. Yesterday, President Obama signed it into law. Mark Levin and the AGs of several states are suing for various reasons (though the two are not filing jointly.)

Other than that, I have nothing to say. Anything I say now is probably something that one of the various internet/print/television pundits has already said many times over. The bill is bad. It’s unconstitutional, and none of the Democrats who voted for the bill care about that. In the immor(t)al words of Alcee Hastings, “There ain’t no rules here, we’re trying to accomplish something…all this talk about rules…when the deal goes down, we make ’em up as we go along.”

Hopefully the bill gets struck down by the Supreme Court. Though, I’m afraid that it will be too late, if the ruling does ever come. Government entitlements, once enacted, are almost impossible to repeal.

I would like to thank the 34 Democrats that voted no, for whichever reason, be it reelection campaigns or a real opposition to the bill. It was real’ nice of y’all.

I would also like to condemn Bart Stupak for selling out in the end. After all of the time he spent saying that he would not vote for the bill unless the wording was changed, he capitulated in the end for a useless document that did not achieve what he originally wanted. You’re a real stand-up guy, Bart. Way to stick to your principles in the face of adversity.

We’ll get through it somehow, though. The 2010 midterms are going to be a really fun thing to watch.

On Populism.

29. January 2010

Before the Tea Party movement began in early 2009, there was nary a mention of populism. These days, however, it seems as is “populism” is every third word out of politicians’ and pundits’ mouths. The silly thing is that the Tea Party-ers are not populists. They are individuals, with degrees of differing views on every issue. And individualism is, by necessity, precluded in populism. This is why populist crusades are generally of the left-leaning sentiment.

This attempt to paint the Tea Parties as somehow reminiscent of the late nineteenth century Populist Party is utterly silly. A little historical context might clear up reasons as to why. The Populist Party, founded in 1891, was for a silver standard, a graduated income tax and government control of monopolies. Its message resonated throughout the country, especially with those in the western United States, where the greenback–the federally established post-Civil War currency–was distrusted at best. As you can see from its general principles, this was a “progressive” movement, presenting the troubles of the little man to the government with expectations that they would solve said problems.

Since this time, the meaning of the word “populism” has become rather fuzzy. It undoubtedly stands for the interests of the people–whomever the people may be–but, as it has roots in the Populist Party, it generally represents the anti-private sector sentiments of the people. This is certainly not the general sentiment of the Tea Party movement, nor does it seem to be the general sentiment of the nation at the moment. I would venture to say that right now, public opinion–as much as one can know the “public opinion”–seems to be anti-government. The Tea Party is unquestionably anti-public sector.

In this day in age, though, when words have lost all true definition and meaning and require frequent clarification, one may be certain that this misnomer will continue to be used to inaccurately describe the sentiments of some of the nation. True, there are probably many in the country who hold genuinely populist views. Still, most of those being labeled as populists are not.

So why continue to refer to public opinion as populist? Because it gives weight to the view that the country is angry at the banks and other private-sector ventures. If it seems as if the citizens in this country are angry at the banks, it is undoubtedly easier for the government to continue down the path which many in this nation vehemently oppose. The government can brush off the Tea Party anger directed toward it as “populist”, while also discrediting the banks.

Because if you’re mad at the private-sector, you’re a populist. If you’re mad at the government, you’re just plain stupid.

Oh Democrats, You’re So Silly.

7. December 2009

Imagine that the…no. I’m not even going to bother with a metaphor. This is simple. There is $200 billion that the government says can be cut from the TARP budget. The Republicans and Tea Party-ers have rightly criticized the Democrats for the giant budget deficits they’ve run this year. Elections are coming up in ten months and explosive spending is obviously going to be a huge issue working against Democrats’ re-election.

With these facts in mind, what should the Democrats, who, according to Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), are not consulting the Republicans on the future of this mass of cash, do? Why, create a jobs program! Wrong. But that’s what they want to do.

Admittedly, $200 billion won’t make a huge dent in the national debt, or even the deficit, and putting the money toward that would be a mostly symbolic act. But in the superficial realm of politics, symbolic acts can be the “issues” on which independents are attracted.

In addition to its symbolic importance, it would essentially shut the Republicans’ and Tea Party-ers’ mouths. It’s hard to attack your opponent on a lack of fiscal responsibility when he just voted to devote $200 billion to paying down the debt/reducing the deficit.

Now, the reason given by the Democrats supporting their jobs plan is that people care more about having jobs than paying down the debt. Superficially, this makes sense. However, what this excuse fails to consider is that all indicators point to an end to the recession coming sooner rather than later. Unemployment–usually considered a lagging indicator–went from its peak of 10.2 percent down to 10 percent in the last month, the stock market has been rising steadily for months and there seem to be whispers in the back rooms of the Fed about raising the interest rates.

Even one with only elementary skills of analysis would consider a recovery imminent after having seen these facts. In ten months, when the recession is over and people have their jobs back and are standing in the polling booth, fiscal responsibility will be at the forefront of their minds, because you can be sure that the Republicans will have thoroughly canvassed that topic over the course of the campaign.