Monday, March 8, 2010

My TEA Party Day

My wife and I attended an anti-tax rally at the Commonwealth Capitol in Richmond.  The protest was put on by the Virginia chapter of Americans for Prosperity.
The event was attended by more than three hundred persons who met on the lawn outside the Capitol building and then we visited our various legislators’ offices and watched them in session debating our fate.  A lunch followed where the organizers continued to pump up the crowd to oppose those in government who would squander our treasure and future.   
While I am very supportive of the TEA Party movement and its ideals – I remain exceptionally concerned about them looking or acting as a third party.  I was approached by one of the organizers of the Richmond TEA Party and we had a short discussion.  He seemed to be recruiting and I told him that I was uneasy about the future of the movement.  He asked why and I told him that I would support the TEA Party until the day that they put a candidate in a general election against a Republican.  He interjected, “What about getting rid of the RINOs?”  I invoked the Coulter principle (There are some bad Republicans; there are no good Democrats) to which he conceded the point.  Further I added that 40 good Republicans and eleven RINOs would mean that there would be no Harry Reid, and a mixed majority of good Republicans and RINOs in the House would mean no more Nancy Pelosi.  I don’t like RINOs, but Democrats have to be defeated – to do that I can live with Olympia Snow and Lindsey Graham.  I told him that the TEA Party did it right in Texas (their candidate entered the Republican primary) but they did it wrong in New York (a third party candidate split the Republican vote and the Democrat won).  TEA Partiers are going to have to accept the results of primary voters – if not – they will guarantee Democrat victory.  My new TEA Party friend excused himself – I think the recruiting interview was over. 
Conservative Resistance – Day 489
Days to combine for victory - 239


  1. The concept of no good Democrats is very narrow minded. It would imply that a one party system would be preferred over a multi party system (or at least a two party system). A single party system would leave us worse off than what we have today. That would be worse than the Daley Machine in Chicago (which is where you know who came from) with parts of it still in power today.

    The idea that the Tea Party is doing nothing but spliting the votes would be true in the beginning (there has to be a beginning). If they get enough people in the system will then begin to make a difference.

    The Tea Party from Montross is not fielding a candidate. They support the Republican candidate because that candidate has the same vision they have. I do not buy into supporting a candidate even if they do not have the same views as your membership just because they are of a certain party.

    For the people of New York to sit out the elections because neither candidate will support their views is the same as not being part of the system at all (that is not what our founding fathers had in mind). This puts us back to a one party system that you seem to favor. I am in favor of supporting the candidate that shares my views. The Tea Party of New York did the right thing. The next time the loser of that race will take their concerns into account instead of pushing "the Government knows best - shut up and sit down" platform.

    What do I know, I am just a southern Liberal giving you the other side of the coin.

  2. Famick – it’s a poor tactic to redefine a contrary position into something it is not. I do not advocate “one-party rule” – indeed dictators are creatures of the left. The framers of the Constitution didn’t advocate parties at all and you won’t find language to support them in our founding documents. Parties evolved as people formed around various leaders and into ideological camps. Such luminaries as George Washington and John Adams detested the idea of parties and they attempted to tamp that fervor down.

    Indeed parties exist on both sides to perpetuate power in a system that was designed not to be overtly powerful. Party politics is antithetical to the Constitution as it was written.

    Unfortunately parties exist and in such an environment a movement that would split the Conservative vote means disaster for the country. Admittedly, without a two-party system we might turn into Italy with their government of the week chaos. However, if we have to have parties, I would like two parties composed of intelligent, responsible, and educated adults – rather than what we have. Conservatives tend to link themselves to the Republican Party because it is the most responsible group of adults available. It is not hard to establish a position against Democrats – read their platform – it is anti-American, anti-Constitution, anti-Life, anti-Business, and anti-Christian. Any hope of finding a good Democrat has been washed away by their hideous excess of the last 13 months.

    In a perfect world where there were no Democrats, two parties would shake themselves out in short order – Republicans and Conservatives. It isn’t even handed to defend evil when good is available.

    Everyone has the right to throw his or her vote away – Ralph Nader watermelons have been doing that for years and I recommend that they continue to do so. New York Republican Party hacks put forward a horrible candidate and she probably would have made a horrible Congresswoman – but the third party candidate ensured that they got a Democrat and generally that is always worse. The TEA Party can positively effect the policies and selections of the Republican Party or they can continue to be ignored, vilified, and ridiculed by the Democrats – as you point out – it is their choice.

  3. The only President elected without a party was George Washington.

    When the Republican Party split from the Democratic Party in 1854, the Democrats saw it as giving votes to the Whig Party. By 1869 the Republican Party had established itself and placed a president in office. The only parties that has placed a President in office since then are the Republicans and Domocrats.

    If the evolution of the Tea Party follows the same pattern (people not satisfied with either party), why would it be such a bad thing to have a Republican Party and a Tea Party (no Democratic Party)? As the elections in New Jersey and Mass. pointed out, the conservative Democrats are not voting with their party. The concerns of the Tea Party and most Republicans are not that far apart.

    Just as there are some Democrats in never never land, there are Republicans with their own world. There are some Republicans that are just as bad as Democrats and they should not have protection just because they are part of the Republican Party. They should change the way they do business on Capital Hill or be removed from office. If it takes a Tea Party movement to put a Democrat in office for a term then so be it. The next Republican that goes into that office will be a little more fiscal responsible, think a little more about the good of the people that put them there and not their own self serving interest, not beatup a fellow Republican because he took the Democrats at their word and wanted to make them live up to it, not want us to jail out children (in the present healthcare bills if you do not have healthcare it will be added to your income tax. There is a clause in the income tax code that can send you to jail for up to one year for willfully non compliance), they would not tax the average worker to give the money to companies that are reporting record profits, they would not put additional taxes on the elderly and not raise their social security income, the list goes on.

    That is the end of this topic. I will wait for your next topic.

    What do I know, I am just a southern Liberal giving you the other side of the coin.

  4. Isn't it called the Tea Bagging Movement?