Letter to the Editor: TEA Party movement falling prey to lack of organization, power hungry leadership and political prostitution

BY: Roy Hollingsworth

With the taste of victory experienced by the TEA Party in the last elections came a false sense of power for some. As a loose confederation of like-minded individuals mad about government spending and overreach, the group found it easy to affect the political conversation. I was one of that number. But the details of policy are proving to be a little messier. The same group that railed at the audacity of then Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s flaunting of House rules to push her big government agenda have no problem demanding that Republican’s now do the same.

The current argument between House leadership and TEA Party activist’s swirls around that stalwart of publicity, Michelle Bachmann; the geographically challenged representative from Minnesota. Mrs. Bachmann has packaged herself as the TEA Party leader in the House by doing little more than grandstanding for political points. She, along with Representative Steve King, wants to add language to the current Continuing Resolution (CR) that will strip funding for Obama care from the federal budget.

Here’s the rub: The CR temporary spending bill is an appropriation bill, not an authorization bill. And you cannot take away "authorized" money on an appropriations bill without playing Pelosi style loose and goosey with the rules. If the TEA Party is about principle, then we should stick to that principle. If it’s now about winning at all costs, then some of our self-described patriots have shown themselves to be dupes at Bachmann’s self-constructed alter. I want no part of that.

Furthermore, many of the King/Bachmann supporters say they are willing to force a government shutdown over the whole affair. The shutdown would effectively slow government spending, but it wouldn’t cut government spending. And the House leadership is on track to do that across a large swath of federal agencies by passing CR’s, allowing for comprehensive reductions back to 2008 funding levels. This tactic not only follows the House rules, it puts our federal government back on a path to sustainable spending. We need not cut off our nose to spite our face. These problems didn’t happen overnight, and they won’t be solved in a week.

This lack of forward thinking by the TEA party “leadership” illustrates how the movement is coming apart at the seams. One of the latest state-wide leadership meetings attracted only a handful of people. Many Mississippians still identify with the basic TEA Party message of less spending and less government. But, I have spoken with a number of TEA Party members who believe that overzealous behavior and a lack of education with respect to process is exacting a price. The “cry wolf syndrome” without first studying all aspects and angles of an issue is pushing away many previously active members of the group. The members I have spoken with say current leadership seems to have allowed the new found power to go their head, as they begin to make decisions without consulting rank and file members.

TEA Party leaders continue to tout the organizations numbers for obvious reasons. But, the latest episodes show the gloss is wearing thin. The “mad as hell” antics are getting tired. It is time for the TEA Party to get serious about educating itself if it hopes to remain a force in politics. Launching an arm of the group that focuses on development of policy, procedure, and how to disseminate that information to members would be a good start. Until the TEA Party rank and file can have calm, considerate and informed discussions with public officials, we are ripe for the picking for state and national opportunists and personalities, and we will continue to fall prey to political prostitution.

TEA Party wants it all and they want it now despite not being sure how to get it.

Bring on the Big Stuff, Republicans


Not even the craftiest incrementalism is going to cut it with tea party types. They're still mad as hell and now griping as much about GOP leaders as they did last year about Obama.

Where's the big stuff -- such as switching Medicare to a voucher system for private insurance and raising the retirement age for Social Security? Oh there it is, lurking backstage in the planning for next year's budget.

What about blasting entire agencies, like EPA, out of the water? Or defunding NPR? This is the sort of stuff that warms the cups of your tea parties.

High Noon in April

Republican chiefs on Capitol Hill get to crunch time in about a month, when the Treasury Department loses its borrowing authority if the debt ceiling is not raised. So far, GOP leaders have claimed they would not back more borrowing unless "meaningful" cuts are made.

An undefined standard like that allows plenty of running room to trim fat and call it meaningful -- except with tea party folks, who will accept nothing less than cutting bone.

Time is running out for Republicans who privately call themselves the party's "adults." They are facing a very public split with the kids.

Suzi Parker: Will Sarah Palin run as an Independent candidate?

Sarah Palin talks a lot about the Tea Party.

Palin, unlike any failed vice presidential candidate before her, has taken an opportunity and spun it into a gold mine. But to remain relevant in a crowded 2012 field of attention-seeking veteran politicians, Palin may have to make an unconventional move.

Although third-party candidates seldom win in America's two-party system, they can certainly rain on political parades. At the same time, they can help down-ballot candidates by getting voters to the polls who might otherwise stay at home.

Palin certainly has many of the qualities of a third-party candidate – charismatic and passionate, with a status as an outsider intent on storming the barricades of the establishment.

Read More

Mississippi Delegation in U.S. House landing plum committee assignments

Most of the 22 House Republican freshmen-to-be selected to sit on much-coveted, A-list committees won their races with Tea Party backing.

The House Republican Steering Committee last week added the incoming members to the rosters of four powerful committees: Appropriations, Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce and Financial Services.

Speaker-to-be John Boehner (R-Ohio) and his fellow GOP leaders and representatives on the House Steering Committee ensured that members of the largest GOP freshmen class in 70 years were given spots on influential panels.

Nearly half of the new GOP spots on the House Appropriations Committee were given to incoming members.

The Steering Committee tapped four Tea Party-backed representatives-elect to serve on the powerful spending panel.

GOP Rep.-elect Alan Nunnelee (Miss.) was one of nearly a dozen candidates officially endorsed by former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. GOP Reps.-elect Steve Womack (Ark.) and Kevin Yoder (Kan.) were both endorsed by Freedom Works – the interest group closely tied to the Tea Party movement. Rep. Tom Graves (R-Ga.), elected in a special election in June 2010 and who won in the fall's regular election, will also serve on the spending panel and is an outspoken proponent for fiscal restraint.

Republicans pledged that they would make significant cuts in spending over the next two years. The GOP Conference for the 112th Congress voted to ban earmark spending last month.

Just under half of the new GOP spots on the Energy and Commerce Committee will go to incoming lawmakers.

Reps.-elect Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), Morgan Griffith (R-Va.), Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), David McKinley (R-W.Va.), Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) and Charlie Bass (R-N.H.) were chosen to sit on the panel that will face a heavy workload in the next Congress as incoming Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) attempts to revamp the new healthcare law and conduct oversight of the EPA.

Bass served in the House from 1995-2007. He won back the seat he held in November.

GOP lawmakers Brian Bilbray (Calif.), Bill Cassidy (La.), Brett Guthrie (Ky.), Gregg Harper (Miss.), Conference Vice-Chairwoman Cathy McMorris-Rodgers (Wash.), Pete Olson (Texas) and GOP Leadership Chairman Greg Walden (Ore.) were also added to the Energy panel.

The House Financial Services Committee, led by incoming Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), will get the largest portion of the incoming freshmen.

Ten of the twelve new GOP spots on the committee went to incoming freshmen. GOP Reps-elect Quico Canseco (Texas), Bob Dold (Ill.), Sean Duffy (Wis.), Michael Grimm (N.Y.), Nan Hayworth (N.Y.), Bill Huizenga (Mich.), Robert Hurt (Va.), Steve Stivers (Ohio), Steve Pearce (N.M.) and Michael Fitzpatrick (Pa.) were selected to sit on the panel with jurisdiction over federal monetary policy and the banking system. Pearce and Fitzpatrick served in the House in prior years.

The GOP Steering Committee will meet this week to decide the committee assignments for the rest of the House panels. They have yet to determine the ratio of Republicans to Democrats on the committees.

Read More

Bachmann Says NO to More Work

But, find a camera and she'll be there!

According to Politico, Ms. Bachmann was asked to be an appropriator next session and said thanks, but no thanks.


Ms. Bachmann presently sits on only ONE committee … the House Financial Services Committee … where she is a backbencher. Heck, even “rookie” legislators have more asssignments … Consider that Gregg Harper (R-MS) has just started his career in Congress this term and is assigned to four committees (Committee on the Budget, Committee on the Judiciary, Committee on House Administration, and Committee on Standards of Official Conduct). Or fellow freshman Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), who is assigned to the Judiciary; Natural Resources; Oversight & Government Reform Committees.

Ms. Bachmann is lazy. The Appropriations Committee is a demanding assignment … requiring long hours that can involve skillful diplomacy. It is a lot easier to let someone else do the work …

For all the TaxEnoughAlready folks who sent their hard-earned dollars to support Ms. Bachmann’s re-election should be asking for their monies back.

MNPoliticalRoundtable

Tea Party Fuels Born-Again Earmark Opponents

Tuesday's Republican vote on imposing an earmark moratorium was a direct response to the rising influence of Tea Party conservatives in the Senate. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), the de facto leader of the Tea Party Senate caucus, said "the significance of this policy victory cannot be overstated" in an e-mail to supporters.


But a close look at Tuesday's voice vote to impose a non-binding moratorium on earmarks not only showcases the Tea Party's clout in the Senate this year, but its significant influence in GOP primary politics in 2012 and beyond.

Several Republican senators who are up for re-election in 2012 and who have previously sought millions in earmarks reversed course on Tuesday to vote for the measure -- a move for some that was undoubtedly intended to shore up their right flank in 2012. And even newly elected moderate Republican senators, like Illinois' Mark Kirk and New Hampshire's Kelly Ayotte, backed the measure, an indication that the politics of opposing earmarks is now viewed in the GOP as a clear political winner.

"Part of a politician's DNA is to talk out of both sides of their mouths," said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, an organization that opposes earmarks. "So it's not surprising that they have put their fingers into the political wind and sensed it has changed directions on earmarks."

Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker (R) is another surprising supporter of the moratorium. A veteran appropriator, Wicker requested $384 million worth of earmarks in 2010, in a state that's relied on federal funds for its military bases and shipyards, among other projects. But he's up for re-election in 2012, and his support of the moratorium is probably with a primary challenger in mind.


HL

House GOP walking fine line with Tea Party in effort to keep Bachmann and her ‘antics’ out of leadership

House Republicans Thursday reacted strongly against Rep. Michele Bachmann’s decision to run for a top leadership post in the new majority, looking to nip in the bud any chance that she might attract support from the substantially large group of incoming freshman lawmakers.
The trick for Republicans is to keep Bachmann – the Minnesota Republican viewed by many in leadership as an unserious and unhelpful spokesman for the party – away from an elevated platform that many in the party feel would hinder or harm the GOP, without being viewed as not listening to the Tea Party movement, which supplied much of the energy that gave them a 61-seat pickup and control of the House.

Bachmann is loved by many in the conservative grassroots for her outspoken support for a wide range of conservative positions, no matter how politically incorrect. She has developed a national profile after only two terms in Congress by appearing regularly on TV. But she has attracted significant negative attention as well for comments deemed extreme or careless.

She is running against Rep. Jeb Hensarling, a Texas Republican, for the chairmanship of the House Republican Conference, which functions as a communications and logistics hub for the party.

Top House Republicans from Eric Cantor to Paul Ryan are firmly behind Hensarling, arguing that he is a solid conservative who will provide the very “constitutional conservatism” that Bachmann says she represents.

But Hensarling is far less well known beyond Washington and his home district of the southeast Dallas suburbs, so there is potential for average grassroots conservatives who know of Bachmann but not Hensarling to interpret the party’s support for the latter as a slight of the Tea Party.

And Bachmann could, in fact, gain traction, if a significant number of incoming freshman Republicans side with her. But Republicans made the case, strenuously, that that won’t happen.

“Bachmann will have a tough time convincing anyone that Hensarling isn’t conservative enough,” a House Republican aide told The Daily Caller. “She’ll have an even tougher time convincing the conference that she wouldn’t take our whole team down in flames with her antics.”

Another House Republican staffer aligned with the most conservative elements of the party called Hensarling “literally unbeatable.”

“A Bachmann win would be possible were she running against a no-name do-nothing member,” the Republican said. “But Jeb Hensarling has been one of the most active members of the Conference in recent years–as [Republican Study Committee] chairman, as [National Republican Congressional Committee] fundraiser, as financial services and budget guru, and as media maven.”

Bachmann aides did not respond to requests for comment.

DC

Noonan: Tea Party to the Rescue How the GOP was saved from Bush and the establishment

By PEGGY NOONAN

Two central facts give shape to the historic 2010 election. The first is not understood by Republicans, and the second not admitted by Democrats.

The first: the tea party is not a "threat" to the Republican Party, the tea party saved the Republican Party. In a broad sense, the tea party rescued it from being the fat, unhappy, querulous creature it had become, a party that didn't remember anymore why it existed, or what its historical purpose was. The tea party, with its energy and earnestness, restored the GOP to itself.

In a practical sense, the tea party saved the Republican Party in this cycle by not going third-party. It could have. The broadly based, locally autonomous movement seems to have made a rolling decision, group by group, to take part in Republican primaries and back Republican hopefuls. (According to the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, four million more Republicans voted in primaries this year than Democrats, the GOP's highest such turnout since 1970. I wonder who those people were?)

Because of this, because they did not go third-party, Nov. 2 is not going to be a disaster for the Republicans, but a triumph.

The tea party did something the Republican establishment was incapable of doing: It got the party out from under George W. Bush. The tea party rejected his administration's spending, overreach and immigration proposals, among other items, and has become only too willing to say so.

And they not only freed the Washington establishment, they woke it up. That establishment, composed largely of 50- to 75-year-olds who came to Washington during the Reagan era in a great rush of idealism, in many cases stayed on, as they say, not to do good but to do well. They populated a conservative infrastructure that barely existed when Reagan was coming up: the think tanks and PR groups, the media outlets and governmental organizations. They did not do what conservatives are supposed to do, which is finish their patriotic work and go home, taking the knowledge and sophistication derived from Washington and applying it to local problems.

The GOP establishment stayed, and one way or another lived off government, breathed in its ways and came to know—learned all too well!—the limits of what is possible and passable. Part of the social and cultural reality behind the tea party-GOP establishment split has been the sheer fact that tea partiers live in non-D.C. America. The establishment came from America, but hasn't lived there in a long time.

I know and respect some of the establishmentarians, but after dinner, on the third glass of wine, when they get misty-eyed about Reagan and the old days, they are not, I think, weeping for him and what he did but for themselves and who they were. Back when they were new and believed in something.

Finally, the tea party stiffened the GOP's spine by forcing it to recognize what it had not actually noticed, that we are a nation in crisis. The tea party famously has no party chiefs and no conventions but it does have a theme—stop the spending, stop the sloth, incompetence and unneeded regulation—and has lent it to the GOP.

We may be witnessing a new political dynamism. The tea party's rise reflects anything but fatalism, and maybe even a new high-spiritedness. After all, they're only two years old and they just saved a political party and woke up an elephant.

The second fact of 2010 is understood by Republicans but not admitted by Democrats. It is that this is a fully nationalized election, and at its center it is about one thing: Barack Obama.

It is not, broadly, about the strengths or weaknesses of various local candidates, about constituent services or seniority, although these elements will be at play in some outcomes, Barney Frank's race likely being one. But it is significant that this year Mr. Frank is in the race of his life, and this week on TV he did not portray the finger-drumming smugness and impatience with your foolishness he usually displays on talk shows. He looked pale and mildly concussed, like someone who just found out that liberals die, too.

This election is about one man, Barack Obama, who fairly or not represents the following: the status quo, Washington, leftism, Nancy Pelosi, Fannie and Freddie, and deficits in trillions, not billions.

Everyone who votes is going to be pretty much voting yay or nay on all of that. And nothing can change that story line now.

Read More: WSJ

Rasmussen Poll: Tea Party Participation Up As Election Nears

Twenty-nine percent (29%) of Likely U.S. Voters now say they are Tea Party members or have close friends or family members who are part of the movement.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 17% describe themselves as members of the Tea Party, up four points from late August. Twelve percent (12%) more say they are not members themselves but have friends or family who are involved in the small government, anti-tax movement.

Just after Democrats in Congress passed the national health care bill in late March, 24% of voters said they were Tea Party members, with 10% more saying they had close friends or family members who were participants.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on October 6-7, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports.

Rasmussen Reports

Hedgecock: Democrats Want to Destroy Fiorina and Angle

by Roger Hedgecock

This much we know.

Carly Fiorina overcame a competitive field to decisively win the California Republican Senate primary election, earning the right to compete against incumbent Democrat Sen. Barbara Boxer in the November election.

Sharron Angle came from way behind to win decisively in the Nevada Republican primary election, earning the right to compete against incumbent Democrat Sen. Harry Reid in November.

What is not yet publicly known is the scorched-earth negative campaigns already beginning against both of these Republican women.

Hints in recent weeks have made it clear that the Democrats will not only campaign to retain these Senate seats, they will launch an immediate, relentless personal assault designed to destroy both women's reputations personally and politically.

What the liberal elites cannot stand about both women goes far beyond disagreement over their political views.

Both women were endorsed by Sarah Palin. Palin's endorsement in these races and others (notably Nikki Haley) made a positive difference. By contrast, Obama's endorsement didn't help Arlen Specter, or John Corzine, Creigh Deeds or Martha Coakley and only Bill Clinton saved Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas.

Why does Palin and everything she says and does provoke such a torrent of bile and abuse from the left? It’s because she is a successful, powerful woman who is definitely not a liberal feminist, and because she is an authentic American women of her time.

Palin is a success in her career, while she is also a mother facing the kind of difficulties in her family that sound all too real to many American families. She lives the daily juggling act that liberal feminists only write about.

Worse yet for the liberal elites in government, academia, and the media, she is politically powerful because she is authentic.

I witnessed Palin's appeal firsthand at the Tea Party Express rally in Harry Reid's hometown of Searchlight, Nev. On a cold, wind-swept day in the high desert before a crowd of nearly 30,000, Sarah Palin was introduced to a standing ovation.

But then something extraordinary happened. Women in the audience rushed the stage, many holding up Palin's book and all chanting "Sarah, Sarah." When was Nancy Pelosi last (or ever) greeted this way?

The gap between arrogant ruling liberal elites and "We the People," which fueled the Tea Party movement in the first place, has never been more apparent than when comparing the Botox phony feminist with a real accomplished American woman.

So get ready Carly and Sharron. The tornado of bitter, mean, false labels and charges is just beginning.

In Fiorina's case, Boxer has already previewed the witch's brew. According to Senator (don't call me ma'am) Boxer, Fiorina, as CEO of Hewlett-Packard, deliberately outsourced American jobs overseas, violated environmental standards and gouged her employees and the consuming public in a greedy drive to amass an obscene fortune while she, Barbara Boxer, by contrast has devoted her life to public service and the public good. Translation: Carly has actually created thousands of private sector jobs.

As for Sharron Angle, if you listen to Reid's paid shills in Nevada, she's a right-wing nut who would dismantle all the successful, necessary agencies of government and is backed by gun-toting militias full of Timothy McVeigh wannabes.

Apparently, Angle has the temerity to question the effectiveness of the federal Department of Education, and other monuments to wasteful, failed (and unconstitutional) liberal programs. And Americans who understand the importance of the 2nd Amendment do support her. Reid will soon find out that those supporters include the majority of Nevadans.

But beyond being prepared for the liberal smear machine, both Fiorina and Angle have a golden opportunity to unleash a secret weapon—the truth.

The truth is the U.S. cannot borrow its way to prosperity, our indebtedness to China is not an asset, and government "stimulus" is not creating good jobs. In short, Obama's campaign of HOPE has produced anxiety and despair and the CHANGE is widely seen as destroying jobs.

Hard times caused by failing Obama policies championed by Boxer and Reid cannot be forever masked by extending unemployment benefits.

Beyond telling the truth (You know, folks, the Emperor has no clothes), these candidates—and all who would win in November—need to tell us what needs to be done. What would they propose as an alternate to the failing policies now in place?

What real reforms would actually make the American healthcare system work better at a lower cost to more people? Could putting more power in the hands of patients be the beginning of a better plan than Obamacare, which starts by putting all power and choice in the hands of the government?

What is the proper role of government regulation now that the most regulated parts of the economy (banks, insurance and oil companies, for example) have experienced the most failure while the least regulated parts of the economy (Apple, for example) are the only good news we have.

Now that we know that the open border policy pursued by George Bush is also the policy of President Obama—and with equally disastrous results—what would these two candidates, if elected to the U.S. Senate, offer as an alternative? Our national security as well as the nation’s sovereignty hangs in the balance on this issue.

In foreign policy, now that bowing to foreign despots and apologizing for America has not brought greater security but rather emboldened America's enemies to new levels of atrocity, is “Peace Through Strength” an idea whose time has come again ?

Nikki Haley has shown that personal attacks can be turned to an advantage, and I wish Carly and Sharron the same success in the coming mud-slinging season,

More importantly these women have the opportunity to re-state the vision that inspired generations of Americans: Liberty guarded by a limited government, low taxes, an opportunity society anchored in personal responsibility, a free-market economy spreading the wealth to all who choose to earn it.

With this vision, the candidates win and the country wins too.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Hedgecock is a nationally-syndicated radio talk host. Visit http://www.rogerhedgecock.com/ . The Roger Hedgecock Show is syndicated on the Radio America network.

AP: Tea party group announces $1 million donation

A tea party group announced a $1 million donation from an anonymous donor Tuesday, a shot of cash to be spent before the election by a movement that has relied on grassroots outreach to fiscally conservative voters.

The nonprofit Tea Party Patriots said it had received the donation from a single contributor who wants it divided up and given to local coordinators by Oct. 4. The group's spokesman told reporters that recipients of the money must spend it by Nov. 2, but they are barred from using it for ads or fliers that mention a specific candidate.

Organizers said the donor wished to remain anonymous.

The Tea Party Patriots is one of several groups that have capitalized on a wave of voter anger and their message of fiscal prudence and smaller government. Candidates backed by tea party groups defeated Republican Party backed candidates in a number of Senate primary races.

Read the entire article: AP

A Tea Party Manifesto

The movement is not seeking a junior partnership with the Republican Party. It is aiming for a hostile takeover

By DICK ARMEY AND MATT KIBBE

On Feb. 9, 2009, Mary Rakovich, a recently laid-off automotive engineer, set out for a convention center in Fort Myers, Fla. with protest signs, a cooler of water and the courage of her convictions. She felt compelled to act, having grown increasingly alarmed at the explosion of earmarks, bailouts and government spending in the waning years of the Bush administration. President Barack Obama, joined by then-Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, was in town promoting his plan to spend a trillion dollars in borrowed money to "stimulate" the economy.

Mary didn't know it, but she was on the front lines of a grass-roots revolution that was brewing across the nation. More than 3,000 miles away, Keli Carender, a young Seattle school teacher and a member of a local comedy improv troupe, was feeling equally frustrated. She started to organize like-minded citizens. "Our nation's fiscal path is just not sustainable," she said. "You can't continue to spend money you don't have indefinitely."

Today the ranks of this citizen rebellion can be counted in the millions. The rebellion's name derives from the glorious rant of CNBC commentator Rick Santelli, who in February 2009 called for a new "tea party" from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. By doing so he reminded all of us that America was founded on the revolutionary principle of citizen participation, citizen activism and the primacy of the individual over the government. That's the tea party ethos.

The tea party movement has blossomed into a powerful social phenomenon because it is leaderless—not directed by any one mind, political party or parochial agenda.

The criteria for membership are straightforward: Stay true to principle even when it proves inconvenient, be assertive but respectful, add value and don't taking credit for other people's work. Our community is built on the Trader Principle: We associate by mutual consent, to further shared goals of restoring fiscal responsibility and constitutionally limited government. These were the principles that enabled the Sept. 12, 2009 taxpayer march on Washington to be one of the largest political protests in the history of our nation's capital.

The many branches of the tea party movement have created a virtual marketplace for new ideas, effective innovations and creative tactics. Best practices come from the ground up, around kitchen tables, from Facebook friends, at weekly book clubs, or on Twitter feeds. This is beautiful chaos—or, as the Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek put it, "spontaneous order."

Decentralization, not top-down hierarchy, is the best way to maximize the contributions of people and their personal knowledge. Let the leaders be the activists who have the best knowledge of local personalities and issues. In the real world, this is common sense. In Washington, D.C., this is considered radical.

The big-government crowd is drawn to the compulsory nature of centralized authority. They can't imagine an undirected social order. Someone needs to be in charge—someone who knows better. Big government is audacious and conceited.

By definition, government is the means by which citizens are forced to do that which they would not do voluntarily. Like pay high taxes. Or redistribute tax dollars to bail out the broken, bloated pension systems of state government employees. Or purchase, by federal mandate, a government-defined health-insurance plan that is unaffordable, unnecessary or unwanted.

For the left, and for today's Democratic Party, every solution to every perceived problem involves more government—top-down dictates from bureaucrats presumed to know better what you need. Tea partiers reject this nanny state philosophy of redistribution and control because it is bankrupting our country.

While the tea party is not a formal political party, local networks across the nation have moved beyond protests and turned to more practical matters of political accountability. Already, particularly in Republican primaries, fed-up Americans are turning out at the polls to vote out the big spenders. They are supporting candidates who have signed the Contract From America, a statement of policy principles generated online by hundreds of thousands of grass-roots activists.

Published in April, the Contract amounts to a tea party "seal of approval." It demands fiscal policies that limit government, restrain spending, promote market reforms in health care—and oppose ObamaCare, tax hikes and cap-and-trade restrictions that will kill job creation and stunt economic growth. Candidates who have signed the Contract—including Marco Rubio in Florida, Mike Lee in Utah and Tim Scott in South Carolina—have defeated Republican big spenders in primary elections all across the nation.

These young legislative entrepreneurs will shift the balance in the next Congress, bringing with them a more serious, adult commitment to responsible, restrained government.

But let us be clear about one thing: The tea party movement is not seeking a junior partnership with the Republican Party, but a hostile takeover of it.

The American values of individual freedom, fiscal responsibility and limited government bind the ranks of our movement. That makes the tea party better than a political party. It is a growing community that can sustain itself after November, ensuring a better means of holding a new generation of elected officials accountable.

Mr. Armey, a former House Republican majority leader, is chairman of Freedomworks. Mr. Kibbe is president and CEO of Freedomworks. They are the authors of "Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto," out today from HarperCollins.

WSJ

They're finally stepping out into the open.

I have written before of the effort to bring "open access to all" on the internet. These attempts are nothing more than a not so cleverly disguised effort to clamp down on the free exchange available on the web today.

The idea has been to demonize "Big, Bad, Greedy Evil Corporate America" through statements like this one:

"At a time of corporate dominated media, a free and open Internet is democracy’s last chance to preserve our First Amendment rights without which all others are threatened. Activists call it Net Neutrality. Media scholar Robert McChesney says without it “the Internet would start to look like cable TV (with a) handful of massive companies (controlling) content” enough to have veto power over what’s allowed and what it costs. Progressive web sites and writers would be marginalized or suppressed, and content systematically filtered or banned."

The problem with that is you are replacing a free-market system with a government regulated system. We all know how that works, or should we say, doesn't work. Thankfully, Obama's FCC was stymied in their first attempts by a federal appeals court.

It would appear that the campaign has reached a point that the guerilla's are now deciding to fight face to face.

FCC asked to monitor "hate speech," "misinformation" online

Over thirty organizations want the Federal Communications Commission to open up a probe on "hate speech" and "misinformation" in media. "Hate has developed as a profit-model for syndicated radio and cable television programs masquerading as 'news'," they wrote to the FCC earlier this month.
As for the Internet, it "gives the illusion that news sources have increased, but in fact there are fewer journalists employed now than before," they charge. "Moreover, on the Internet, speakers can hide in the cloak of anonymity, emboldened to say things that they may not say in the public eye."

The groups who want this new proceeding include Free Press, the Media Access Project, Common Cause, the Prometheus Radio Project, and the League of United Latin American Citizens. Their statement, filed in the Commission's Future of Media proceeding, comes in support of a petition to the agency submitted over a year ago by the National Hispanic Media Coalition.

ARS Technica


I guess if you lack the intelligence to argue a point, you can always attempt to shut down those you disagree with. But, wouldn't it be more productive to learn the new medium, and use it effectively to communicate your own point of view, that is, provided you are the type that doesn't have to be told what to think.

Hubris: A Danger to the Tea Party Movement

by Rob Natelson

The disastrous fallout from Rand Paul’s incautious MSNBC interview shortly after his triumph in the Kentucky Republican primary underlines a real danger for the Tea Party movement as we move toward the 2010 elections.

Any political pro could have told Paul not to give that interview. If it had not been a moment of heady triumph, Paul would have known that himself.

But triumph has a way of making people careless.

“Hubris” generally is thought of as wanton pride. For daily purposes, though, it better applies to situations when, fresh from victory, we become a little careless. “I’m on a roll,” the emotions tell us, “the normal rules don’t apply to me any more.”

Paul’s misstep is not the only example. Here in Montana, one of our county Tea Party groups was going from triumph to triumph. So they decided to sponsor a huge “Liberty Convention” — but in doing so, they disregarded some of the hard lessons Montana conservatives have learned over the years.

First, they assumed that people with full-time jobs and families to support would attend a two-day event. [Lesson broken: People with real-world lives can’t afford to spend much time at political rallies—especially not overnight. The big Tea Party crowds of the past year are an anomaly, and probably will not continue. Anyway, the highly competent main-street citizens who are the back-bone of the Tea Party movement are better employed on projects other than sitting in audiences and holding signs.]

Second, the organizers predicted to the press that 5000 attendees would gather in this sparsely populated state. [Lesson broken: Never give an optimistic attendance prediction to the press.]

Third, the organizers chose a huge venue in the most liberal city in the state on the most liberal university campus in the state. [Lessons broken: (1) It’s better to crowd into a smaller facility than make a larger one look empty, and (2) if you want to catch fish, fish where the fish are.]

Fourth: they featured several speakers from the far fringes of political life. [Lesson broken: feature speakers with wide appeal.]

Fifth: They apparently did not seek or follow guidance from those with political organizing experience. [Lesson broken: If you want political success, do what the our Founders did: include experienced politicians; you don’t have to let them take over.] [Disclosure: I was one of those excluded from planning or speaking at the event.]

The results were deeply embarrassing for the Tea Party movement. Instead of the 5000 predicted, only about 250 people showed up, a point emphasized again and again by the local press. Not surprisingly, moreover, newspaper reports featured some of the weirdest comments made there.

Tea Party activists must remember that they are now playing in the Big Leagues. The latter-day Tories who control the federal government and most of the national media will exploit any available opening to discredit and destroy the movement.

Avoid hubris. The task has just begun.

Rob Natelson is a long-time Professor of Law at the University of Montana and a leading constitutional scholar. He is co-author of a forthcoming book on the Necessary and Proper Clause to be published by Cambridge University Press. He is also the author of The Original Constitution: What it Actually Said and Meant, published by the Tenth Amendment Center. Professor Natelson will shortly be leaving academia to work full-time at the Independence Institute.

TEA Party Victories show organization has worked

TEA Party participants nationwide have taken a beating from late night comedians, Democrat name callers, and even the President. But, recent events in Utah, Florida and now, Kentucky, prove that the organization has worked. And, come November, that bodes well for some historic changes.

In Tea Party Victory, Rand Paul Takes Ky. Senate Primary

WASHINGTON – Rand Paul, one of the early leaders of the Tea Party movement, won the Republican nomination for Senate from Kentucky Tuesday night, delivering a powerful blow to the party’s establishment and offering the clearest evidence yet of the strength of the anti-government sentiment simmering at the grass-roots level.

Mr. Paul, the son of Representative Ron Paul of Texas, easily defeated Trey Grayson, the Secretary of State from Kentucky. Kentucky voters turned against Mr. Grayson even though he had the support of the state’s best-known political leader – Senator Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader.

The result appeared less a rebuke of Mr. McConnell – who by most indications remains popular in his home—than a message to the political establishment in Washington. Mr. Paul’s campaign was specifically directed against what he said were the abuses of Washington insiders in the form of excessive spending and government regulation, as he gave voice to the Tea Party movement

It remains to be seen how big a difference Tea Party support means in a general election; many Democrats, and some Republicans, believe that Mr. Paul’s views are enough out-of-the-mainstream to make him an easier target than Mr. Grayson against the Democratic nominee in the fall.

Still, it is the latest development suggesting the sway of the Tea Party movement in the Republican Party. It followed the defeat of an incumbent Republican senator, Robert Bennett of Utah, by conservative forces in that state. And it came after the recent decision by Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida to drop out of the Republican primary for Senate in the face of a surge by a Tea Party favorite, Marco Rubio.

The early verdict in Kentucky came on one of the most active political nights since the presidential election of 2008, one that was being watched nervously in Washington signs of just how strong the anti-incumbent winds are blowing across the country.

Read the entire story at The New York Times

Liberty is not Just About Economics

by Phil Russo

There is a very important and interesting conversation taking place amongst tea party groups right now. It can sometimes be uncomfortable and awkward but we, as tea partiers, are not afraid to tackle big issues, right? The conversation I’m referring to is about civil liberties, how important they are, and their relationship to the Constitution.

When I wrote a blog post about the Times Square bomber and how he should have been read his rights I expected to be blasted by my fellow tea partiers – but I wasn’t. Most people agreed that John McCain was wrong.

I have also heard others talking about the Obama decision to assassinate American citizens and how unconstitutional it is. And, there’s plenty of talk about denying people on the “terrorist watch list” their second amendment rights even though they have not been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime. The progress being made on the right with respect to civil liberties is very encouraging.

Many tea partiers ask me how they can reach out to younger people like myself and I have been telling them that younger people are with us on economics; it is when we get to civil liberties that they look at the GOP and they see big government, Big Brother, unconstitutional hypocrites.

One of the reasons Ron Paul’s following was so young was for this exact reason. Young people don’t want higher taxes or bigger government. They believe in free markets. What they also don’t want are things like a national ID card, even if the Republicans say it is needed to “fight terrorism.” In fact, many young people don’t want to give up their constitutional rights for any reason.

I am with Patrick Henry, “I know not what course others may choose but as for me, give me liberty or give me death”! A lot of folks my age, who would vote Republican on economic issues, look at the constitution and don’t see anything about gay marriage. They see no power granted to Congress to create a Federal Reserve Bank. They see no power in the Constitution giving congress the power to regulate marriage. Similarly, they see no power there giving Congress the power to prohibit pot smoking.

There is a thick libertarian streak in the under-30 crowd and especially in the under-20 crowd. If we tell them that freedom means the government staying out of the economy, they rightly think that the government should also stay out of their homes, personal lives, and bedrooms. They also think that the bill of rights should apply to every American citizen regardless of the charges against them. This should make sense even to my post-40 tea party friends.

If we allow the government to assassinate an American citizen overseas the next step will be assassinating American citizens on our own soil. If we allow the government to assassinate American citizens accused of “terrorism” the next step is allowing them to assassinate anyone accused of being a “threat to national security.”

Imagine if Obama had decided to assassinate the members of the “Christian” militia that was busted a few months back. They were “terrorists” – they were going to use a bomb to kill a police officer and then set off more bombs along the funeral route. That’s a tactic straight out of Bin Laden’s playbook. Should these men be held without charge in Gitmo and tried before a military tribunal?

I obviously don’t speak for all young people, but I do talk politics with a lot of them. There are neo-cons that are under 30, less of them under 20, and they think that if you have brown skin and the government (that they claim to distrust so much) deems you are a terrorist, it is ok to suspend your constitutional rights for “national security.”

I find this particularly ironic since these neo-cons claim to hate socialism and collectivism so much but then they preach about the “greater good” which is textbook socialism talk. Giving up our constitutional rights in the interest of security is no different from the commies that used to say “better Red than dead.”

So to answer the question – how do you reach the younger people in this country? The answer is simple – if we really want to reach them we should continue this conversation about civil liberties and we should not shy away from it because it makes us “uncomfortable.”

When I think of my favorite Founding Fathers like Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and Thomas Jefferson, I see those men more in Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Barry Goldwater, and Jim Demint than I do in George W Bush, John McCain, Eric Cantor and the others.

If we present young people with a consistent message of economic and personal liberty, and if we elect people who follow the constitution and repeal the tens of thousands of pages of laws that are unconstitutional, we will not have a problem turning young people to our side. That will happen naturally.

Phil Russo is a grassroots activist and co-host of the radio show, “Tea Party Patriots Live” which can be heard on Saturdays on 660 WORL in Orlando, FL. Visit his website at http://www.teapartypatriotslive.com/.

The Tenth Amendment Center

Must read analysis of the lefts view of the TEA Party Movement from Redstate.

When Newt Gingrich was in Jackson a few months ago he spoke at the Rankin County Republican Dinner to honor Congressman Gregg Harper. He very succinctly broke down the battle of Right Vs. Left when he said the left simply views the message of limited government with disdain. In a nutshell, Conservative's can't hope to compromise with someone who has a fundamentally polar opposite view.

One would expect Gingrich to try to get mileage out of the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress that he helped oversee along with then GOP Chairman Haley Barbour. But, he's right. No matter how hard one tries, attempts to explain away fundamental differences with lip service to compromise has never put us in a position to return to constitutionally limited government.

What will?

Starving the beast that is the federal government.

No matter how hard "lefty pencil necks" attempt to explain away the current movement, and no matter how often their minions parrot the talking points provided (Keith Olbermann, Ed Shulz, Chris Matthews, etc.), and hurl insults and racial accusations, the simple truth is this is going to happen come November. Conservatives have been given yet another chance to get it right, this time by the TEA Party activists. Considering the level of disconnect between words and deeds with the current administration and the Democrat leadership in Congress, this could be the last chance before the country moves beyond the point of no return.

The Tea Party Movement as a Libertarian Mob


a pencil necked lefty explains the Tea Party movement

There is an apocryphal story, truth be told it is more closely akin to a parable than a story, that tells much about the American character. As the story goes, an English nobleman is in America at some point in the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries, depending upon when you find the story, and he’s seeking directions or a room for the night or somesuch. He approaches an American farmer or rancher or backwoodsman and says, “My good man, where is your master.” The American solemnly stares and replies, “I reckon that sumbitch ain’t been born.”

Segments of the left are all a-Twitter, so to speak, today over an article in the New York Times Review of Books by someone named Mark Lilla titled Tea Party Jacobins. According to the left, this article explains the Tea Party movement and the electoral stomping the left anticipates taking this November. It has nothing to do with the Administration’s policies or its disdain for America rather:

A new strain of populism is metastasizing before our eyes, nourished by the same libertarian impulses that have unsettled American society for half a century now. Anarchistic like the Sixties, selfish like the Eighties, contradicting neither, it is estranged, aimless, and as juvenile as our new century. It appeals to petulant individuals convinced that they can do everything themselves if they are only left alone, and that others are conspiring to keep them from doing just that. This is the one threat that will bring Americans into the streets.

Welcome to the politics of the libertarian mob.

This is a very convenient position to take when you’re in Mr. Lilla’s position. The alternative is to admit that your entire world view is being repudiated by most of the country.

Read the entire post at Redstate

New Statewide Tea Party Association Formed

On Saturday, May 1, 2010, a new Constitution was ratified at the first ever state convention of The Mississippi Tea Party. This makes Mississippi one of very few states, if not the only state, to successfully form a statewide tea party association.


On April 30 and May 1st, approximately 35 delegates representing tea party groups across the state met in Flowood, MS. to review, amend and ratify the draft Constitution that had been circulating for several months. The convention was held to transform The Mississippi Tea Party (MSTP) into a statewide association which could provide a single, unified voice for the participating grass roots organizations throughout the state. The MSTP will be a louder voice, both to the general public and elected officials, advocating a return to the three core principles that they believe made this country great: constitutionally limited government, free markets, and fiscal responsibility.

Nine tea party groups from across the state participated in this historic event. Only a few local tea party groups could not attend and it is hoped that they, as well as new groups that continue to form, will become a part of the new, statewide MSTP at some future date. The charter chapters include: 912Project Hattiesburg, Central Mississippi Tea Party, Leflore/Carroll Tea Party, Madison County Tea Party, Meridian Tea Party, Southwest Mississippi Tea Party, Starkville Tea Party, Vicksburg Tea Party and We the People Congress of Pearl River County.

The current board and officers of The Mississippi Tea Party will continue in place until the State Coalition reconvenes to elect a new board and officers by the end of May.

Despite attempts to brand TEA Partiers, the only thing that sticks is the truth.

The Boston Herald's Michael Graham covered the TEA Party in Boston yesterday and reports that the lefties are getting desperate. Even though Sarah Palin was the keynote speaker, it seems the classiness of the participants to stay focused on the reason for the event made them the real stars of the show.











Yolk’s on the lefties

By Michael Graham

Sarah Palin, star of the Boston Tea Party? Hardly.

And it wasn’t me or any of the other talk show types populating the stage on Boston Common, either.

No, it was the Tea Party crowd itself who stole the show. And not just with their numbers. They proved that the Tea Partiers are ready for prime time.

I’m not talking about the organization, though Holliston mom Christen Varley and her volunteers did an amazing job on a shoestring budget. Were there some technical glitches? Sure. But it didn’t throw the thousands of attendees off their game.

Nothing did. Not even flying eggs.

“I dodged the first one, but couldn’t get away from the second,” said Jack Lambert, a retired Navy vet from Natick. “It nailed me right on the chest.”

But Jack said no thanks when offered a paper towel. “I’m going to wear this badge with honor.”

How classy, how smart. For the rest of the day, the classlessness and anger of the Tea Party foes spoke for itself from his jacket.

Not that the handful of lefty nuts needed any help. Their ignorance was on full display in their vile signs, signs that had they not been about Palin, would have been denounced as sexist by these same Cambridge libs. But instead of inspiring anger among the Tea Partiers, the counter-protests inspired good humor and sincere interest. Attendees reported that attempting to debate with the protesters was a waste because they knew so little about Obamacare, the stimulus, the debt or any of the issues motivating the Tea Partiers.

So why were they there? Ironically, they appeared to be drawn by Palin’s celebrity. “They were the kind of people who think Palin really said she could see Russia from her house,” one caller told me.

Then again, given that The Boston Globe-Democrat made that same suggestion on its front page. . .

No matter. The Tea Partiers knew why they were there. Their signs were about government power, individual freedom and fiscal sanity. You’d have to be illiterate to leave Wednesday’s rally still asking the media’s favorite question: “Why are the Tea Partiers really angry?” Which means that unless you work for MSNBC, you should know what’s up.

My two favorite signs? I loved the Tea Partiers’ embrace of inept mockery in: “I can see November from my house.” (They can.)

The Boston Herald

Now it's the established Repubs who want to be like Ron Paul

Brad Jackson of the New Ledger responds as if the latest Rasmussen Poll showing Texas Congressman Ron Paul would give President Obama a run for his money in a general election is a surprise. A quick look at Paul's history both as a Congressman and a Presidential candidate show he was TEA Party when TEA Party wasn't cool.

Paul already had a band of unlikely allies in his run for the Presidency in 2008 that included Conservatice Republicans, disenchanted Democrats and Libertarians who just want to be left the hell alone. Those three groups are what now make up the core of the TEA Party movement.

Jackson's referral to Paul as looney doesn't seem to take into account that the "ole' bird" has led the fight for some pretty popular TEA Party type legislation in the Fed Audit Bill, or ideas of smaller government, less intrusion in our lives, better monetary policy, and bringing an end to world interventionism. He doesn't seem to take into account that it is the Republicans that have moved toward Paul's message, a message that has been far more consistent for not just years, but decades.

Ron Paul and Obama Neck and Neck in Rasmussen Poll

by Brad Jackson

No, this is not a joke. A new Rasmussen poll shows that in a race between Barack Obama and perennial GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul, that the nutty Texas Congressman would come within one point of the current President. According to Rasmussen, “42% of likely voters would vote for Obama and 41% would vote for Paul. This, despite the fact that Paul gets lower support from Republicans (66%) than Obama does from Democrats (79%).”

That’s right, Obama and RON PAUL would be practically tied. Now of course, Ron Paul will not be the GOP nominee, but this has to look bad if your in Camp Obama and surveying 2012. If you’re neck and neck with the local looney, God knows how you’ll fair against a serious contender.

Rasmussen also says that within the Political Class, the Paul/Obama matchup would be a blowout. While 58% of Mainstream voters favor Paul, 95% of the Political Class vote for Obama. However, it is that very "Political Class" that is on the outs with mainstream voters, and why Republicans are on the outside trying to fight their way into the TEA Party movement.

Mainstream voters numbers have grown, and they have grown weary of the pendulum. Memories of George W. Bush's spendthrift bailouts are still fresh. So, it is Republicans trying to convince the TEA Party movers and shakers that they are, well . . . more like Paul.