BluegrassBulletin.com

McConnell's Great Commission

When Mitch McConnell becomes the next majority leader of the United States Senate he will have achieved a life long dream.  Not only will he deserve the job, but he should enjoy the credit for having created the majority that will elect him.

Mitch McConnell is a master of the political process.  It was he who made the 2014 mid-term elections a referendum on Barack Obama which ended up being the force beneath the ground swell of discontented voters who swept republicans into office in greater numbers than anytime since the reign of FDR converted so many to the democratic party where they have remained ever since.

Not only did Mitch substantially outperform the polls which nearly all predicted that a win in Kentucky, by either candidate, would be within the margin of error.  Not only did he exhibit great poise and leadership in his acceptance speech in contrast to what even liberal pundits are saying about how ungracious his opponent was in defeat.  But Mitch McConnell helped orchestrate the national conversation we all have been having for the last few years which conversation became the sentiment which was then mobilized into the movement that has now demanded that someone turn the direction we are heading around.  And as reward for all of those things Mitch McConnell won not only his race, but an incredible, historic obligation.

It is he who told America that there is a better way forward than the path our current president and his troops in the Senate and the House have been marching us down.  It is he, McConnell, who has promised to repeal Obamacare "root and branch".  It is he who has promised to get the Congress working again, to bring matters to a vote, to pass a budget and to improve the prosperity of our country.  These are huge tasks, and they are now his burden.

I once had the chance to meet Karl Rove when I was a candidate for office and asked his advice.  He actually grabbed me by my necktie, pulled me close and gave me his wise insight.  He looked me right in the eye and said, "remember, if you win this, you asked for it."  McConnell has really asked for it.

Not only will he have the burden of a victor on his shoulders as well as the burden of defining his own legacy on his mind, but the architect of the republican party in Kentucky will have the fate of the republican party of America in his hands.

It was McConnell who motivated and moved the electorate by his carefully planned campaign talking points which were repeated with great discipline by the candidates that he, the NRSC, and other influential republicans all working together helped to put into place by winning primaries for those candidates who they deemed could eventually and did win November.

To accomplish this these so-called mainstream republicans had to go out and defeat the kind of fringe candidates that had been buoyed through primaries by the seething discontent of many republicans who had left the fold, formed splinter groups and ran as much against the GOP as they said they would against the democrats.  That hadn't worked out so well and so the adults in the room had to bring order back to the process.  They did, and they won.

But that doesn't mean McConnell will get the unanimous support of every one of his republican members.  Grandstanders like Ted Cruz and presidential hopefuls like Rand Paul will certainly take shots at their own party and its leaders in order to get the kind of attention they crave and to appeal to those fragile parts of their own coalitions they perceive to be necessary to their own political survival.

And Mitch will have to weather the criticism of many others elected under the GOP banner who came to Congress just to be troublemakers and who will not be able to control their rhetoric because it has become indistiguishable from their identity.

But perhaps the greater battle Mitch has won is the obligation to direct the battle to save the republican party.  While Rand Paul goes about trying to build a new kind of GOP in much the same patchwork quilt manner that the democrats have done for years, Mitch can look out over the groundswell of support given to his candidates and see that a much more congruent mindset joins the republicans and democrats and independents alike who joined their votes to give the GOP the victory they achieved.

While many would be right to say that the outcome was a repudiation of Barack Obama and his agenda, it was also at the same time, and by virtue of that repudiation, a collective agreement that if the republicans say they really can turn the country around, now is their chance to put up, or shut up.

As crass as it is when LBJ pushed so hard to create his "great society" he admitted that he had a political motivation behind him when he stated "

“I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years” as he confided with two like-minded governors on Air Force One regarding his underlying intentions for the “Great Society” programs. liveleak.com

What is really at stake for McConnell is nothing less than the future of and the relevance of the republican party.  Unless he and his fellow republicans deliver what the voters want, he may end us casting the GOP into the dark abyss for a century or more to come.

And those who know this is what is at stake and who want him to fail in that quest will bring incredible forces and resources to the battlefield in order to prevent him from succeeding.

Gridlock is not dead, it will be like the undead, nearly impossible to kill, raging out of control, incorrigible on all levels, defiant to a fault, relentless and vicious.  For McConnell to save the nation and the GOP he will face a battle on a scale not unlike a world war.  And I do not use that comparison lightly. 

 

As in all prior wars where the American people rallied in support it was in defense of liberty, human rights, freedom and western prosperity that was threatened by socialist movements, dictators and those that opposed our way of life.  That's just how the voters on Tuesday see the world today and McConnell has been elevated to be our supreme commander in that war.

 

He and the republicans must succeed and success will not be measured in small accomplishments.  The mindset of McConnell's generation does not resonate today.  The notion of working hard, saving a little, and watching progress come to your own life a little at a time isn't shared by many any more.

 

America today is filled with the "me generation", people convinced that they are the center of the universe, who refuse to accept that they can't have everything they want just for the asking, who through an ignorance taught to them for generations deeply believe that anything they want is a "right".

 

If McConnell believes that he can re-train America to accept incremental progress after six years of perceived decline he may lose his grip on the tiller before the ship of state crashes.  He must make big moves, bold moves and each and every one must succeed.

 

He should sponsor legislation immediately to create jobs in America while at the same time reducing corporate taxation, ending our dependence on foreign manufacturing as a national security measure and get America working again.  How?

 

Pass legislation giving not just a tax deduction, but a dollar for dollar tax credit for wages paid in America to companies that bring manufacturing jobs back from overseas.  Tie this commitment to a three year term of guaranteed American employment. 

 

Sure, our treasury would suffer the loss of corporate taxes, but the taxes on the incomes of workers would help to offset that.  In addition, those wages being paid to American workers will be spent in America boosting the economy, resulting in a better standard of living for every one.  As money circulates in America it too produces revenues to offset the corporate tax credits.

 

As manufacturing in America increases investment in buildings, equipment, housing and all sectors will improve.

 

On a political level this appeals to the corporate players, the out of work Americans, the housing, banking, manufacturing, tooling and other interests who are clamoring for bold initiatives.  It could end up, after more careful analysis than some lowly blogger in Kentucky has given it, as nearly revenue neutral, but because it is founded on such a strong nationalistic and patriotic core it could marginalize opposition.

 

How about being even bigger and bolder and legislate away the IRS?  Replace it with a fairer system eliminating the abusive power so many Americans perceive that this one private army of the government wields?

 

Big, bold moves include putting a bill to allow the Keystone XL pipeline on the president's desk but only AFTER other bold moves.  The people know when special interests jump line and get ahead of their own and this has been the criticism of the GOP for a long, long time.  Don't let that happen Senator.

 

Big bold moves include a total repeal of Obamacare being passed at the same time as a balanced budget.

 

These are the kinds of things people expect to see out of McConnell's party,  now in power.  And I predict they will accept nothing less.

 

Yes Mitch deserves great credit for what he has accomplished.  But in exchange he has also now received a great commission.  There is much riding on what he does.

 

And so Senator, as one who has backed you in all your races, let me at this moment while you are enjoying the after glow of your victory, remind you that you are standing on the threshold of an historic era.  And as you go forward let me repeat for you what Karl Rove once said to me, "remember, you asked for it."

Hank Aaron vs. The Black Sphere

Former baseball player Hank Aaron has accused Republicans of being like the KKK.

Speaking to USA Today Tuesday on the 40th anniversary of his then record-breaking 715th home run, the 80-year-old Aaron said that Republicans are hindering Obama’s job performance.

“Sure, this country has a black president, but when you look at a black president, President Obama is left with his foot stuck in the mud from all of the Republicans with the way he’s treated,” Aaron told USA Today Sports.

Aaron continued: “The bigger difference is that back then they had hoods. Now they have neckties and starched shirts.” [CBS]

Maybe he took one too many hardballs to the head.

The Ku Klux Klan‘s first incarnation was in 1866. On September 28, 1868, a mob of Democrats massacred nearly 300 African-Americans. The Klan was involved in a wave of 1,300 murders of Republican voters in 1868. The group was an offshoot of the Democrat Party. [Gateway Pundit]

In a column back in February writing for his website "The Black Sphere" Kevin Jackson came up with this cool idea.

In celebration of 150 years since the Republicans freed the slaves from slave-loving (pardon the double-entendre) Democrats, my team has come up with a snarky way for you to get back at them. We are projecting what famous black people would be doing had Republicans not fought and died for their freedom. In short, my team does what the Republicans won’t do for themselves, and that is SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT.

Trey Grayson Leaves Harvard Post

Former Republican Secretary of State Trey Grayson has announced that he is leaving his post at the Harvard Institute of Politics.  Some are speculating that he will return to Kentucky and seek elected office again.

Considering that Rand Paul faces legal difficulties in his desire to run for both Presidency of the United States and his Kentucky US Senate seat at the same time, Grayson may be eyeing an opportunity that he was denied in 2010.

However, as popular as Grayson was among many Kentucky establishment republicans four years ago, his stature as a viable republican candidate has not been helped by his activities or the changes to the political landscape since he left Kentucky.

Grayson, along with former Clinton administration official Robert Reich, were named as co-chairs of a PAC dedicated to electing only democrats. [Washington Post]

In addition, the forces of the TEA party which gained strength in the Commonwealth largely on the shoulders of Rand Paul have gotten far more organized in Grayson's former home county of Boone.

Rand Is Getting Some Very Bad Advice

Rand Paul got a standing ovation at Berkley University in California, one of the most liberal universities in the nation when he railed against government surveillance.  According to one report “That Paul decided to take his libertarian-leaning message to one of the most liberal campuses in the country is no mistake. He is actively making an effort to appear before crowds that have not been supportive of Republicans to demonstrate his ability to appeal to a broader electorate.” [Daily Caller]

Appealing to a ‘broader electorate’ is certainly a good November strategy, but I’m not sure the republican base that Rand needs to convince in the primary season are going to be impressed by some of the moves he has been making lately.

Rand has been widely quoted as saying

"I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues," Paul told vocativ.com. "The Republican Party is not going to give up on having quite a few people who do believe in traditional marriage. But the Republican Party also has to find a place for young people and others who don’t want to be festooned by those issues." [Washington Post]

I get it.  He sees a future where young people don’t want to be “festooned” by prohibitions against abortion for example.  But that sounds dangerously close to what Barack Obama said when he told an audience he wouldn’t want his daughter to be “punished with a baby.”

And Rand says that young people need to be embraced by the Republican party if it wants to win and that means accepting their moral standards on a variety of issues or face losing to the liberals who those same youth find more appealing.  In other words, to win as republicans we need to think and behave like liberals.

I get the whole notion of running a big campaign across a broad spectrum of American cultural differences and how the desire to be liked by everybody can be intoxicating.  And when you find a way to get that kind of adoration it is easy for those around you to convince you that you have found a populist appeal that will transcend the mendacity of politics, set you apart as a true visionary and lift you upon the shoulders of your countrymen into the White House.  And they may be right.  But you would be presiding over an Idiocracy.

Leaders lead.  Conservative leaders only qualify if they have a firm conservative core.  I doubt many of the kids a Berkely will be voting in republican primaries.  And I doubt that the social conservatives are the crippled elephants headed to the grave yard that the mainstream media would like to think we are.

If you think the TEA party folks get riled up when their principles are not met, think for a minute what those of us who place a very high value on life are capable of when compromise on that front is being urged by those who would have us choose them as leaders.

No, as much as I like and respect Rand, somebody is giving him some very bad advice.  Caving on social issues and courting liberals in California are not steps on the path to a republican nomination.  He needs to go into those places more like Reagan went to Germany, not the way Lord Chamberlain did.

Interesting Read: Four Faces Of The Republican Party

Henry Olsen offers a rather insightful view of the Republican Party in his piece for the "The National Interest".  In it he identifies four factions of the GOP, the moderate or liberal voters; somewhat conservative voters; very conservative, evangelical voters; and very conservative, secular voters.

Evaluating how each faction approached various presidential contests over the years Olsen concludes that the year before the election is crucial. "In this “preseason,” candidates compete to become favored by one of the four factions. Sometimes no one is competing with a candidate for that favor, which frequently happens on the moderate or liberal side. Other times, though, there is intense competition and the preseason maneuvering determines if someone survives until the actual early contests."

Olsen says that the factions are not equal in number.

The most important of these groups is the one most journalists don’t understand and ignore: the somewhat conservative voters. This group is the most numerous nationally and in most states, comprising 35–40 percent of the national GOP electorate. While the numbers of moderates, very conservative and evangelical voters vary significantly by state, somewhat conservative voters are found in similar proportions in every state. They are not very vocal, but they form the bedrock base of the Republican Party.

They also have a significant distinction: they always back the winner.

The moderate or liberal bloc is surprisingly strong in presidential years, comprising the second-largest voting bloc with approximately 25–30 percent of all GOP voters nationwide. They are especially strong in early voting states such as New Hampshire (where they have comprised between 45 and 49 percent of the GOP electorate between 1996 and 2012), Florida and Michigan. They are, however, surprisingly numerous even in the Deep South, the most conservative portion of the country. Moderates or liberals have comprised between 31 and 39 percent of the South Carolina electorate since 1996, outnumbering or roughly equaling very conservative voters in each of those years.

Moderate and liberal voters prefer someone who is both more secular and less fiscally conservative than their somewhat conservative cousins.  In 2012, they began firmly in Ron Paul’s or Jon Huntsman’s camp. Paul and Huntsman combined got 43 percent of their vote in Iowa and 50 percent in New Hampshire. Once it became clear that their candidates could not win, however, the moderate or liberal faction swung firmly toward Romney in his fights with Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.

The third-largest group is the moderates’ bête noire: the very conservative evangelicals. This group is small compared to the others, comprising around one-fifth of all GOP voters. They gain significant strength, however, from three unique factors.[T]hey are geographically concentrated in Southern and border states, where they can comprise a quarter or more of a state’s electorate.

This group prefers candidates who are very open about their religious beliefs, place a high priority on social issues such as gay marriage and abortion, and see the United States in decline because of its movement away from the faith and moral codes of its past. Their favored candidates tend to be economically more open to government intervention.

The final and smallest GOP tribe is the one that DC elites are most familiar with: the very conservative, secular voters. This group comprises a tiny 5–10 percent nationwide and thus never sees its choice emerge from the initial races to contend in later stages.

The 2016 field is still developing, but it’s already possible to discern which candidates are focusing on which factions.

Virtually everyone else in the race is competing for the favor of the smallest, least influential group: the secular conservatives. All focus on some sort of fiscal issue as their primary focus, and most also try to adopt an anti-Washington tone. Some have secondary messages designed to appeal to other factions, much as George W. Bush did in 2000. Senator Rand Paul’s focus on civil liberties and limiting overseas military actions would hold some appeal for GOP moderates and liberals, as would Senator Marco Rubio’s occasional forays into antipoverty efforts. Rubio’s backing of immigration reform is of interest to somewhat conservative donors, and his authoring of federal antiabortion legislation creates some support among the socially conservative wing. But Paul’s, Rubio’s and Texas senator Ted Cruz’s hope must be that the secular, very conservative wing is in fact much larger in 2016 than it has been in the past.

It is a very interesting analysis which should do well to put Olsen on the payroll of any serious contender looking to find a way to survive the heat of a presidential marathon.

Obama Fires Direct Attack On Liberty

This my friends is a direct attack on Liberty.

From Forbes:

"President Obama’s Kansas speech is a remarkable document. In calling for more government controls, more taxation, more collectivism, he has two paragraphs that give the show away. Take a look at them.

there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes–especially for the wealthy–our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.

Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ’50s and ’60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.

Even you, dear reader, are probably wondering how on earth anyone could challenge things like Social Security, government schools, and the FDA. But that’s not the point. The point is: these statist, anti-capitalist programs exist and have existed for about a century. The point is: Obama is pretending that the Progressive Era, the New Deal, and the Great Society were repealed, so that he can blame the financial crisis on capitalism. He’s pretending that George Bush was George Washington."

Anniversary Of Stimulus Smells Like A Bust

From the Wall Street Journal:

Five years ago today, President Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law. The $830 billion spending blowout was sold by the White House as a way to keep unemployment from rising above 8%. But the stimulus would fail on its own terms. 2009 marked the first of four straight years when unemployment averaged more than 8%. And of course the unemployment rate would have been even worse in those years and still today if so many people had not quit the labor force, driving labor-participation rates to 1970s levels.

It might seem like old news since everybody knows the recovery act was a terrible failure, but what needs to be remembered is that the money actually went somewhere, it's just that it went to well connected cronies and into the pockets of the wealthy.

 

But what is perhaps worse than all of that is the reality that no one, and I mean no one seems to have a plan or an idea that will save us from catastrophe.  I have a plan, and a good one, but damned if anybody ever wants to listen to reason.

Right now we are an economy of consumers with most of our products being made overseas.  That means the money you spend on foreign made goods is going out of this country and not coming back.

Our economy is a "circulatory system".  When a manufacturer sells a product he pays his workers, distributes his profits to his shareholders and sets aside a certain amount to be spent on improvements or business expansion.  The workers then take their paychecks and spend them in our economy.  That in turn pools money into the local grocery store, the local car dealership or that money pays the local carpenter to add a deck onto the worker's house.  In turn the grocer has money to spend on new flooring, on advertising, on parking lot expansion.  The car dealer makes money which he in turn spends on a new house.  The carpenter buys lumber from the local lumber yard improving the bottom line of the lumber dealer and on and on and on the money in circulation in our nation passes through any number of hands and improves the life and the prosperity of us all.

But when the money made by a foreign manufacturer comes in, it gets spent in that country, not ours.  The workers may be subjected to near slave labor conditions in that country and thereby unable to improve their own economy, but regardless, the money leaves America and does not come back, except as a loan to us, a debt we are required to pay.

The solution to our economic problems may lie in a very simple policy change, one that doesn't increase taxes at first but will in the end increase revenues thus alleviating our dependence on borrowed money.

Not all foreign manufacturing is being done by foreign owned companies.  Many of the jobs which have gone "off shore" are jobs in foreign plants working under contract to supply goods to American importers.  And in some cases, the companies that used to make goods in America are now making them elsewhere.

If the Federal Government would give a tax credit to any company equal to 100% of the wages paid to workers for every job now being done overseas if that job was brought home to America, think what that would do.

First, the foreign companies are not paying taxes here anyway, so giving them a tax credit is a net zero impact on revenue.

Second, the tax credit could be phased in over a five year period and tied to the requirement that the jobs be maintained for five years in order to get the credit.

For every job brought into the USA a worker would get a paycheck that is now going to somebody in another country.  That paycheck would be taxed as always and thus the government would be receiving revenue from a source that currently does not exist.

In addition the earnings would be put into circulation in our country.  Those earnings would not only improve the prosperity of the workers, but as they spent that money in our own economy, they would lift all boats along the way.  And as things currently exist, as that money circulated and became income to more and more people as it traveled around in our economy, it would generate revenue at many stages along the way.

Over a short period of time a large number of people could return to work.  This would lessen the economic burden on the government at the same time as revenues were increasing from the growing prosperity.  Because manufacturers would be free from heavy corporate taxes this would provide an incentive for companies to find America a friendly environment in which to do business.  In addition, free from heavy taxes due to the tax credits, companies could keep prices competitive with foreign produced goods particularly adding to our nation's awareness of how despite our current racial tensions, we are still supporting slavery around the world.

With more and more jobs being created, with prices more competitive due to the favorable tax environment, with more revenue pouring in at the same time as entitlement costs are going down, an aggressive Congress might see enough light at the end of the tunnel to begin a serious plan to balance the budget.

Over time as the notion of tax cut incentives improving the overall economy caught on the opportunity for more people from other countries to come here and participate in our prosperity could add many more people to our consuming public all living here rather than in some other nation, spending money there.

The plans for fixing our nation's bleak outlook isn't as hard as some might like you to think.  But it is very difficult when you have Barack Obama, Harry Reid and their democrat friends in power who are pulling us in the opposite direction, increasing the cost of government, increasing unemployment and incorrigible when it comes to talking about any form of tax cut or credit.

Is my idea workable?  Might it succeed?  Others can make that decision on their own.  But one thing is clear.

We are not going to get out of this rut until we remove Barack Obama, Harry Reid and the progressive liberal democrats from power and the start of that juggernaut begins this year.

God help us.

The Problem Isn't Republicans, It's The Hated View Of Republicans

EDITORIAL RANT

I was once asked by a news paper editor if I was a Republican, or a TEA partier.  I told him that I prefer to avoid labels because they are over-broad.  I am who I am, think what I want and try to have good reason for what I think always willing to be persuaded, if possible, where I am wrong.

As Emerson once said "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."  I would emphasize the word "foolish" in that quote as I do not believe that there is anything inherently wrong in being consistently wise.

I know many people who are registered to vote under different banners who think very much alike on many issues.  The Republicans certainly have no special claim to the "right to life" issue, the "right to bear arms" issue, the right to be free from intrusive government regulations issue or many other issues that are of real concern to people regardless of their party registration.

But listen to the haters and you would think that all Republicans are evil.  Such thinking is over broad, over inclusive and born of a little mind.

Dea Riley, former candidate for Lieutenant Governor with the late Gatewood Galbraith recently posted this to her Facebook page:

Come on Dea.  Do you really think that all persons in the Republican Party openly embrace exclusion, elitism and social categorization?  That we are all radical fascists seeking to impose a specific ideology/theology on everyone, embracing intrusion into individual rights?  That certainly doesn't define me, and neither does it define or describe many of the republicans I know. That is an insult.

But you are in good company.  MSNBC which has turned out to be the great hater of all things republican made up out of thin air a claim that "conservatives" hate bi-racial families. 

My God!  First of all there was no "conservative" backlash last year which the facts prove and which caused MSNBC to amend it's tweet to remove the word "conservative".  But that doesn't cure the problem.

The far left, the liberals in the democratic party and yes, even some of the TEA party liberals who are hiding out under the banner of "constitutional conservatives" hate republicans so much that they refuse to see that we are all individuals, with individual thoughts, feelings and beliefs.

As a republican I still believe in individual freedom, and that is because like our founders I believe that my life is a gift from God and that I am endowed by Him with inalienable rights.

As a republican I still believe that when a government fears the people there is hope for liberty, but when the people fear the government we have tyranny.

As a republican lawyer I defend the constitution every day, which on some days means that I defend the rights of people to do things, and say things with which I might personally disagree, but they have the right to do and say them.

And as a republican I have no compelling desire to see that we control people through a particular theology.  I am a Christian and my faith teaches me that I am to love my neighbor, introduce them to God when the chance arises, but recognize that they operate with free will and their choices are their own.  Do I want everybody to be a Baptist, or a Catholic, or a Methodist, or a Quaker or a Mormon or a Pentecostal?  Of course not.  As a Christian I would like everyone to know and accept Christ and I think the best way to do that is to live what I believe to the best of my ability and introduce them to each other.

But as an American, who believes that people should be free from government dictates as to whether and how they worship, I do oppose the goal of radical Islam to force the world to capitulate to their twisted worship of a pedophile prophet or be killed or enslaved.

And likewise I oppose any effort, by any person or group of persons to enslave people under any ideology, including the disgusting political game that addicts people to government hand outs, destroying their sense of self worth, de-incentivizing them to reach their full potential and thus enslaving them to the masters who they eventually think are the only ones who can provide for them.

The problem in this nation isn't republicans, it's the irrational, unsupportable, off the chart hatred OF republicans.  And THAT my friends is not an accident. 

Hating republicans is not the natural consequence of an honest study of history.  It is not the result of deductive reasoning.  Hating republicans is the cold and calculated strategy of those who wish to fundamentally transform America into the kind of nation our founders and thousands upon thousands of our best and brightest ever since have fought to prevent.

It is unfair to say that all democrats are far left liberals.  It is unfair to say that all republicans are cracker-assed racists.

We are all Americans.  We all have the right to want and pursue different paths to happiness.  But hatred of others is destructive.

You may assign to me a desire to run things by my theology, but only on this one point.  In my view, hatred has no place in America.  I would prefer that we love each other, and all people, as we love ourselves. 

If that was our guiding principle, I believe everything else would fall into place.

TEA Party Liberals To Face Battles On Multiple Fronts In 2014

Ron Paul lovers take credit for the TEA party movement based upon a 2007 money bomb event on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.  Those involved in the modern larger TEA party movement deny Paul's paternity and say that they began Feb. 19, 2009 when CNBC’s Rick Santelli gave what is now known as the “rant heard around the world".

But there can be no doubt that between 2007 and 2009 there was nothing like the modern day TEA party movement anywhere on the radar screens of current events.  Today however things are much different.

Those who got there feet wet in politics as a part of the new and larger TEA party for the most part got involved due to the crashing economy, anger over the government bailouts and in reaction to many of the worrisome ideas being advanced by Barack Obama.  Over time the Ron Paul folks, the Libertarians, the anarchists and smart democrats changed the dynamics of the TEA party to their own ends.

What was once considered to be a movement designed to move the GOP back to its fiscally conservative platform has morphed into a protest movement which seems more devoted to altruistic ideals than pragmatic solutions.  Fixing problems in a real world sense is far less appealing to the TEA party than crashing the system entirely by removing anybody with any experience under the banner that everybody except their candidates are corrupt.

Straying from their original goal of being more conservative republicans into being the party of disruption has caused them to face a number of new challenges in 2014.

The US Chamber of Commerce and the business community in general have joined forces and declared war on the TEA party.

Now it appears that the social conservatives are about to gear up in the battle for the heart and soul of the GOP.

It shouldn't be assumed that the second front in the battle for republican votes will be fought alone by the TEA party.  Granted it has become more of a de-facto Libertarian organization when it comes to social issues, but Social Conservatives led by groups like The American Principles Project, Gary Bauer’s American Values outfit, James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition, Americans United for Life, the Family Research Council and the National Organization for Marriage are now plotting to raise and spend mega-millions to move the GOP back on the track it took during the Bush years. [POLITICO]

How will this new dynamic affect TEA party efforts?  It may be too soon to tell, but the libertarian influences in the direction the movement has taken could prove problematic in the face of pressure from social conservatives.

For example, the idea that abortion should be a state's right to decide sounds a lot like the argument that abortion should be a woman's right to decide, a position which social conservatives will likely find unacceptable.

And neither is the Ron Paul position on prostitution and legalizing drugs likely to set well with the Family Values folks.

What might this battle on two fronts do to the TEA party movement?

On one hand the fiscal conservatives could take charge and return the movement to its original position making it a representative group for the "cut taxes, cut spending" republican ideology.

On the other hand, the Ron Paul libertarians might already have taken such control of the movement that it will have no choice but to act solely as a spoiler, unwittingly helping democrats and along the way losing members who don't want anymore democratic votes controlling the House and Senate agendas.

Or there could be a rising wave of libertarian thought in the nation that, through the TEA party, could change the direction of the country and cause tremendous social upheaval, much like the protests of the sixties did which of course were followed by years of liberal governments and devastating international blunders.

But one thing is clear.  The liberals in the TEA party movement will face a very big hurdle this year fighting their battles on multiple fronts in 2014.

Related articles

Has TEA Party Won The Battle Of Ideas In Washington?

Told Jah: TEA Party Leader Avowed Democrat

Social conservatives' big money plans

Has TEA Party Won The Battle Of Ideas In Washington?

POLITICO has a piece up on top of its website today that starts like this:

If this was a dud year in Washington, get ready for 2014 — the year to “go small.”

Lawmakers had already lost their appetite to “go big” this year, letting reforms of immigration, guns and the Tax Code slip away in the face of gridlock and dysfunction.

And now there’s a new problem. Lawmakers are reluctant to rely on the federal government to get anything done — a guilt-by-association consequence of Obamacare’s botched rollout. Republicans have called it an indictment of more than a website, but of Big Government itself.

While Democrats argue the problem is obstructionism — not ideology — the result will be the same: As Washington laments the end of a do-nothing year, lawmakers are fully prepared to do as little — or even less — in the new year.

“I think anything that has a significant expansion or role for the federal government is going to be problematic,” South Dakota Sen. John Thune, a top Republican message strategist, told POLITICO. “Because I just think there’s going to be such a cynicism and skepticism attached to any promises made with regard to the federal government’s role.”

Ron Paul, the Grand Poobah of the smaller is better ideology has been saying that the Republicans and Democrats are all the same, even saying on some occassions that they are all part of the same party.

Does this mean that his brand of governance which has usurped the TEA party movement has finally caught on?  The answer is no.

The reaction that POLITICO is predicting for 2014 is more a response to the ineffectiveness of the Obama administration and a growing uneasiness with what many used to dismiss, but now fear, are his nefarious plans for America.  In fact most of the anger and angst of the TEA party was born in reaction to Obama, has fed off of Obama's agenda and is still a reactionary movement rather than a pro-active one.

I saw this meme on Facebook sent out by a local TEA party group:

 

You have to ask yourself, what does this really say to people?  Is it some sort of rallying cry to keep the flames of discontent burning hotter than ever?

The phrase "More Constitution" means what exactly?  Lower taxes?  Taxes are undesirable no doubt, but they are certainly constitutional.  Does it mean more civil liberty?  We certainly have suffered in this area lately and numerous cases are working their way through the court system which ultimately decides, as the arbiter of these debates, what is and what is not constitutional.

How does this meme fit into the reality of political life?  What, no republican who wants more civil liberty and lower taxes can be trusted, and neither can any democrat?  Then who?  What other party is out there?  Aren't most of the TEA party candidates running as republicans?  And isn't it a fact that in places where they do, for the most part, they give democrats an added advantage of being able to run on their liberal agenda while republicans eat each other alive in primaries?

So just what does the observation of the POLITICO piece mean.  Has the TEA party won the battle of ideas in Washington?  Is there really some meaning to the concept of "More Constitution" that is controlling how elected officials act?

No, and no.

The fact is that even the proper role of government, as seen even by TEA party types, is considered dangerous territory.  Standing up in favor of building bridges and fixing roads, and repairing a half century or older infrastructure lights a match under the "big spender" accusers who have found a way, much like the protesters of the sixties did, to get attention in front of cameras and try to steer the policy of the nation.

Spend no money, collect no taxes, go to Washington, do nothing, dismantle the federal government, weaken our military, and withdraw into a kind of isolation that fools people into believing that the world will just leave us alone and allow us to prosper so long as we don't intervene in anybody else's business.

Foolhardy, reckless, ignorant thinking like this makes America vulnerable to the evil forces at work in the world.  If the worst happens it will be on the shoulders of those who failed to take charge in difficult times.  The blame will be squarely upon the heads of those who would give Israel over to the Palestinians, chemical weapons to Assad, control of Afghanistan to the drug cartels, who would remove border security and issue terms of engagement to our military that told them to stand up and take the first shot before firing back.

War is, as the saying goes, hell.  And hell is at our doorstep.  The last thing we need is a nation of bong hugging gamers driving the ship of state.

If the TEA party really wishes for an America that used to be, maybe they ought to be asking things like, where are the real men, the John Wayne's of our time, instead of asking that old time policy be implement by a bunch of impotent 'fraidy cats. 

Think about it.  America was strong, and stood up for itself in the days the Ron Paul folks wish they could return us to.  To get there might take a much tougher, rougher approach than the rally attending, flag-shirt wearing, malcontents and protesters can deliver on their own.

If a do nothing Congress is the result of a TEA party victory, then I think Merle might have asked the right question a long time ago: Are the good times really over for good?