January 19, 2010

Are Tea Party Leaders Replacing Grass With Astroturf?

Posted by publius772000 under Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |
[2] Comments 

In February, the national Tea Party “Convention” will be held in Nashville, TN to “bring together local Tea Party leaders from many groups and share ideas in preparation for the 2010 primary and general elections as well as other work in 2010.”  The cost?  $549 + the soul of the movement.

by Michael Naragon

In February of 2009, almost a full year before this year’s Convention will be held, I stood with 250 other brave souls on the steps of the Capital Building in Atlanta, GA.  Brave, because it was pouring a cold rain over all of us, drenching we happy few to the proverbial bones.  My children, aged 4, 3, and 1 at the time, were there as well, somewhat drier and warmer than my wife and I, thanks to the tarp we were given by a kind woman and the blankets we had packed for them.

At that meeting, few spoke.  The keynote address was delivered by local radio personality Eric Von Haessler, who encouraged the crowd to send a simple message to Washington: “Enough is enough!”  I was interviewed by 11Alive, the local NBC affiliate, probably because they wanted to show how cruel we were for bringing our children into the elements to protest the fledgling Obama administration.  I calmly explained that it wasn’t Obama alone.  It was the Washington Establishment that we were protesting.  The lack of representation.  Their willingness to sell off our children’s future for short-term political gain.

In April, we returned to Atlanta for the Tax Day Tea Party.  By this time, some national figures, such as Sean Hannity, had figured out that the movement wasn’t going away, and it involved many in their consumer base.  Hannity’s presence made the April protest an amazing success, inflating the numbers from our band of 250 in February to 15,000.

Subsequent Tea Parties continued to bring out the patriots.  We had to drive to the Cobb County Fairgrounds in July because a local Simon Mall had nixed the Atlanta Tea Party scheduled for that date.  At that protest, our three boys joined the National Rifle Association.  In September, we drove to Roswell, GA, to show our support and listen to radio host Herman Cain while thousands upon thousands descended upon Washington, D.C.

At no point did anyone ask my wife or I to come to these meetings.  We weren’t paid, cajoled, pushed, or prodded.  Contrary to the speculations of Keith Olbermann and others in the National Statist Media, the movement was entirely a grass-roots affair.  I watched with everyone else in America as Rick Santelli called for the first Tea Party, threatening to dump securities into Lake Michigan.  It was the first in a series of reverberations against the liberal agenda that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and their Politburo were beginning to jam down our collective throats.

A lot has changed since that first rainy February in Atlanta.  Now, the Tea Party “organizers” have apparently grown up.  This February, I suppose in some sort of tribute to those of us who have been there since the beginning, the leadership of this grass roots movement will meet in Nashville, TN, to discuss national strategy.  Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann will be there to speak as well.  It could have been one of the greatest events in the history of the Tea Party movement thus far.  Unfortunately, it will, like Caesar’s ride into Rome, signal the end of the spirit of freedom and patriotism that created the phenomenon, and potentially begin a new elitist hierarchy that will become the carbon copy of the political party system we loathe.

Why was there the need for a Tea Party in the first place?  If the Republican Party was effective, a popular movement would have been unnecessary.  They would have voiced their opposition and been our mouthpiece in Washington.  Why were they not effective?  Because the heart of the Republican Party is strikingly similar to that of the Democrat: elitist, wealthy, and unresponsive to conservative America.  As proof, I offer up the 2008 presidential campaign.  The Republican choice?  John McCain.  Old, Establishment, Moderate (translation: liberal).  The elite loved him.  David Brooks loved him.  The people?  Not so much.  Even those conservatives, including myself, that voted for him did so while holding their noses and attempting to convince themselves that at least Sarah Palin would be his VP.

The Tea Party protests were a way–the only way–for the conservative movement to get its point across.  In February, at the first event, politicians weren’t allowed to speak.  Politicians from either party.  Period.  Slowly, as the months progressed and the wiser Republicans smelled opportunity, the organizers began to allow more and more politicians to speak at rallies, clouding the events with political rhetoric when all we wanted was to throw all the bums out.

Now, the organizers of these events which I believed to be grass-roots are meeting in an exclusive convention in Nashville.  According to one of the websites touting the event:

The fee for this 3 day event is $549 plus a $9.95 processing fee.  This includes the Sarah Palin dinner and the full program, including other meals as listed in the Schedule of Events.  More details will follow soon.  This is not a free public appearance by Sarah Palin.  It is a private dinner event, with no news media invited.

To a layman like myself, it sounds eerily similar to a fundraiser for wealthy political donors.  The announcement goes on:

This will not be a media event or protest rally. The focus is on preparations for 2010 Tea Party actions.  We will bring together local Tea Party organizers and supporters from across the country to share ideas.  There will also be sponsorship and exhibit opportunities for support of this event and the Tea Party movement. This should help local organizers to meet potentially useful contacts elsewhere.

I didn’t add the bold, by the way.  They apparently want it very clear that no average people need show up to this shindig.  I can see how it may have thrown a wrench into the works to have the patriots who made this movement happen–those who braved rain, traffic, lost wages, and other expenses to meet together and show our dissatisfaction–show up and embarrass the organizers.  I can understand why potential conservative leaders would have private dinners with said organizers rather than those of us who promoted and peopled the events that now sponsor their appearance.

Don’t get me wrong.  I don’t mean this to sound like sour grapes.  What I’m afraid of is that this wonderful expression of righteous anger, this throwback to the Revolution, is being co-opted.  I don’t support the Republican Party because of its elitist leadership and insensitivity or unconcern for conservative voters.  Should the Tea Party movement continue this sort of elitist tone, should they become more concerned with achieving political power and less concerned with the ideology that will take them there, perhaps the Grand New Party will follow the G.O.P. into the tar pit of insincerity.

Just a thought.

 

December 27, 2009

Merry Christmas to the Food Stamp, er, SNAP recipients

Posted by publius772000 under Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , |
[25] Comments 

On a late Christmas Eve run to the local grocery, I realized how much Christmas cheer I’ve really been spreading!

by Michael Naragon

Due to my new addiction to the children’s Christmas gift, a Nintendo Wii, I’ll make this relatively brief.

On Christmas Eve, I, my three small children, and my wife, who works the graveyard shift at a truck stop to supplement our meager income, visited our local Kroger store to pick up a loaf of frozen garlic bread to go with dinner.  I refrain from writing much about myself in this blog, as it seems somewhat egotistic to assume anyone would want to read about my personal life.  However, on this particular night, we ended up checking out behind a group of ladies.  Their hair was newly done, obviously at a salon.  Each of them had had their fingernails professionally manicured.  They wore expensive leather jackets.  They were buying steak, chips, soda, and a cart overflowing with other items, all name brand.  No Kroger or Great Value brand for them.

Their total?  $170.  They paid for $11 of it in cash.  The other $159?  The leader of the group whipped out her trusty EBT/SNAP card and scanned it through.

Now I know that there are those of you who couldn’t care less about such anecdotes.  Live and let live, you say.  But it bothered me.  Each of these women wore clothing that was worth more than anything I or my wife own.  Each of them had been pampered lately.  It’s been years since my wife was able to afford a professional haircut, much less a trip to a salon.  She’s never had her nails done.  Yet these women, despite all this, paid for the vast majority of their “essentials”–including steak which I’m also unable to afford except on amazingly rare occasions, such as birthdays that end in a zero–with money supplied by taxes taken out of the paychecks of me, my wife, and people like us.

I’m not whining.  I’m not looking for sympathy.  I just want the freedom to make my way through the world and provide what my family needs.  If I want to give to the less fortunate, then I’ll give.  But I’m at a complete loss as to why the government, in its omniscience, seeks to take from my income and give to those like this group of women that obviously had money for other things because I’m paying for their groceries.

So Merry Christmas, welfare recipients!  Happy New Year, Food Stamp users!  I and my fellow hard-working Americans have sweat a lot of hours to keep you well fed and happy, to keep your hair looking good and your nails nicely painted, to offset your costs so you can make the payments for your cell phone and satellite/cable bills, to allow you the financial freedom you enjoy.  And in return for all the goodness you receive from me through the all-knowing, all-compassionate Government, be sure to vote Democrat in the next election, regardless of who’s running.  Sell your votes for handouts… that’s the American Way in 2010.

Thinking back to the leeches at Kroger, it kinda gives “Ho Ho Ho” a whole new meaning.

 

December 24, 2009

A Response to the G.O.P.: Get Back to the Basics Or Get Out

Posted by publius772000 under Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
[3] Comments 

The Republican Party, in an attempt to appear concerned with the opinions of their base, sent out a questionnaire about the Obama agenda.  I would like to offer up my annotated responses.

by Michael Naragon

The G.O.P. has taken a lot of criticism from conservatives over the past several years, first for their mismanagement and overspending as the majority party in Washington, and now for their ineptitude or reluctance to boldly fight the liberal-fascist-socialist takeover of the nation in their role as the voice of opposition.  The frustration with the Republican establishment has been augmented by poor choices of candidates on the local and national levels, with the push for John McCain and the unabashed backing of Dede Scozzafava in New York’s 23rd District.

The climate in the country is beginning to change, however, and it has nothing to do with the myth of man-made global warming.  The citizenry is beginning to demand more from its candidates, and more conservative voters are beginning to take a serious look at third parties for men and women who will truly represent their constituencies.

In light of this, I received a questionnaire from the Republican Party this week.  It was, of course, a fund raising letter disguised as real concern for what I think of the Obama agenda, not surprising considering that it’s been quite some time since the G.O.P. had any interest in the feelings of its conservative base or the Constitution.  However, to humor Mr. Steele–or, failing that, the mailroom clerk who removes the checks and throws out the questionnaire responses–here are my answers.  I decided not to go with the choices of Yes, No, or No Opinion that the G.O.P. provided.

QUESTION 1: Do you agree with Barack Obama’s budget plan that will lead to a $23.1 trillion national debt over the next ten years. A: Obviously not.  Nor did I approve of George Bush’s rampant spending, the bailouts he approved, or the glut of pork barrel spending by Republicans in the years before the Messiah.

QUESTION 2: Do you believe the federal government has gone too far in bailing out failing banks, insurance companies and the auto industry? A: See my response to Question 1.  Remember, this practice of emergency federal bailouts for companies “too big to fail” was begun under Bush, not Obama.

QUESTION 3: Do you support amnesty for illegal immigrants? A: Again… duh.  I believe that an amnesty law would be one of the last dominoes to fall before the country experiences a real revolution.  But why are you asking me this when many in your own party support an amnesty law, and George Bush was nearly given the opportunity to sign one into law.  The secretive attempt was averted only by the quick and passionate response of talk radio and conservatives across the country.  So maybe I’m not the one you should be asking this question.  Or did John McCain also get this questionnaire?

QUESTION 4: Should English be the official language of the United States? A: Yes, but I’m not sure how making this official would change much.  Businesses have apparently committed to becoming bilingual.

QUESTION 5: Are you in favor of granting retroactive Social Security eligibility to illegal immigrants who gain U.S. citizenship through an amnesty program? A: Wait, does this mean you’re willing to capitulate to those who want to shove through amnesty?  If we oppose amnesty, wouldn’t that by definition imply that I’m against this?  Or are you setting us up for the fact that you’ll accept amnesty, but, by crikey, you won’t allow those newly legalized aliens to receive retroactive Social Security benefits?  Get a spine and demand that the law of the land be followed and illegals be removed from the country.  Period.

QUESTION 6: Are you in favor of the expanded welfare benefits and unlimited eligibility (no time, education, or work requirements) that Democrats in Congress are pushing to pass? A: Who would be in favor of this besides those who look to benefit from it?  Why aren’t you asking me if I’m in favor of abolishing welfare programs in their entirety?  Are we accepting the premise that welfare is here to stay?  What does this say about the chances of repealing health care in the future?

QUESTION 7: Do you believe that Barack Obama’s nominees for federal courts should be immediately and unquestionably approved for their lifetime appointments by the U.S. Senate? A: Constitutionally, the Senate is only to advise the President on his appointees, not nitpick over every belief and decision.  However, since the Democrats have politicized the debate, then I believe the Republicans should do likewise.  Unfortunately, if Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings are any indication, then all Obama will need to do in the future is pick a potential justice from some sort of minority group.  Republicans, possessing as much backbone as a chocolate eclair, will refuse to offend, and the candidate will pass easily.

QUESTION 8: Do you believe that the best way to increase the quality and effectiveness of public education in the U.S. is to rapidly expand federal funding while eliminating performance standards and accountability? A:  The Department of Education should be abolished.  State and local governments should be encouraged to adopt voucher programs that promote school choice.  Students should be allowed to fail or misbehave their way out of school.  Government schools should produce or close.  Oh wait, you were asking if the current system should be expanded.  In that case, no.

QUESTION 9: Do you support the creation of a national health insurance plan that would be administered by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.? A: No.  Nor do I support any sort of government involvement in the health care industry, short of reducing regulations and encouraging state and local governments to place limits on the fees of trial lawyers in medical malpractice suits.

QUESTION 10: Do you believe that the quality and availability of health care will increase if the federal government dictates pricing to doctors and hospitals? A: Again, government should stay out.  Period.  Do I need to say it in Spanish?!

QUESTION 11: Are you confident that new medicines and medical treatments will continue to be developed if the federal government controls prescription drug prices and sets profit margins for research and pharmaceutical companies? A: Obviously not.  Did you ask this of George Bush when he expanded prescription drug coverage under Medicare, further expanding the role of government health care and helping to lead us to the day when the Congress of the United States would simply take over the whole industry?

QUESTION 12: Are you in favor of creating a government-funded “Citizen Volunteer Corps” that would pay young people to do work done by churches and charities, earning Corps members the same pay and benefits given to military veterans? A: Again, the answer is no, but what have the Republicans done in the recent past to limit the reach of government entitlement programs of any sort?  The federal government already does many of the jobs that used to be performed much more efficiently by charities and churches.  Before we begin to worry about the Obama Youth (or, in German, the Obamajugend), let’s worry about the ideology behind such a program and cut it from the federal government like the malignant tumor that it has become.

QUESTION 13: Are you in favor of reinstituting the military draft, as Democrats in Congress have proposed? A: Why would we need a draft?  Has not our Fuhrer promised that we would be out of Iraq and Afghanistan within 18 months?

QUESTION 14: Do you believe that the federal government should allow the unionization of Department of Homeland Security employees who serve in positions critical to the safety and security of our nation? A: Rather than focus on this particular issue, can we expand this discussion to discuss why any government employees are unionized?  Were they working with unsafe machinery?  Were children being forced to labor for the government?  Were they, like Congress, being forced to work more than two or three hours in a single day?  What exactly are the unions protecting, other than the right to make more money and log more vacation time at the expense of the American taxpayer?

QUESTION 15: Do you support Democrats’ drive to eliminate workers’ right to a private ballot when considering unionization of their place of employment? A: No.  In fact, the right of workers to unionize should be left up to the states.  States that like the high wages and high prices that unions provide could be workers’ havens, while the states that want their economies to thrive could allow the individual businesses to decide for themselves.  Again, let’s get back to the ideology.  Republicans purport themselves to be the party of individual rights.  If that’s so, why would you even have to ask a question like this?

Mr. Steele, I await your response.  I have the feeling that I may be waiting a long time…

 

December 23, 2009

On Avatars and Trebuchets: Miscellaneous Ramblings from Christmas Week

Posted by publius772000 under Miscellaneous | Tags: , , , |
Leave a Comment 

by Michael Naragon

Amid the hustle and bustle that is Christmas, I just wanted to make a couple of politics-neutral observations.

First, my wife and I celebrated our 8th wedding anniversary on Tuesday, so we hired a babysitter and, in an all-to0-rare move, went on a date.  Because we’re so rarely on our own, it took us some time to decide what to do with our freedom.  We opted on a nice dinner, a little shopping, and a movie.  Our second big question, then, was what to see.  Again, we rarely go to the movies, and we wanted to pick the best show possible, since it may be quite some time before we’re able to go again.

Despite some of the negative reviews I’d heard, especially among conservative friends, we chose James Cameron’s Avatar.  Apparently due to the 3D nature of the film, it cost us over $25 for the two of us to see it, which seemed a little steep at first.  After the first few minutes, however, I began to feel that the cost had been acceptable.

Many of those who had given the film poor reviews–and a few of the liberal news services that had reviewed it well–claimed that the film was a vehicle for disseminating the typical Hollywood philosophy, that it was somehow a condemnation of Bush/Cheney, Haliburton, and the war on terror.  As one who is as staunch a conservative as anyone and a student of history, allow me to add my two cents:  if this movie makes any political statement, it is a retelling of the American West and the treatment of the American Indian.  The language spoken by the native people in the movie is very similar to that spoken by tribes of the Native Americans.  The religion, as well, is obviously based on their beliefs–in one scene, after Jake Sully’s avatar shoots an animal in a hunt, he rushes up to it, thanks it for its life and service, then ends its misery with a well-aimed knife blow.  Very similar to the traditions of the woodland Indians of America.

I won’t discuss any more of the plot of the film here;  I believe you can make up your own minds about the nature of the story.  Suffice it to say that Avatar was the most visually amazing film I’ve ever seen, and the story was not flamingly liberal, in my opinion.  It is definitely worth a view–and this is coming from someone who sees movies on a once-a-year basis, if that.

Second point of order: the aforementioned rambunctious kids.  In a day and age where technology is pushed more and more on children and where they continue to become accustomed, almost jaded, to technology (Exhibit A: the group of teenagers behind us at Avatar who got up at the end claiming the movie “sucked” and was “boring.”), my wife and I try to keep our kids thinking hands-on.

Every year at school, I hold an annual siege weapon project for my world history class, in which groups of students must band together to build working catapults, trebuchets, and ballista.  No elastic or bungee cords are allowed, and all the machines have to throw a tennis ball.  We had many amazing devices show up for the project this year, but one group built a very simple and very effective trebuchet that I was allowed to keep to use as an example piece for future projects.  Of course, I took that trebuchet home, set it up in the backyard, and used it to explain history and science to my children, ages 5, 4, and 2.  I’m still not sure if the two-year old understood any of my discussion with them, but the four-year old, the future engineer, scoured that machine from top to bottom to understand fully how it worked.

Finally, as this will likely be my last post for this week, I want to wish you a Merry Christmas from all of us.  Rush Limbaugh discussed the meaning of Christmas on Tuesday’s show, and I pass on his exhortation–celebrate the holiday, give gifts to those you love, and use that practice to remember the reason for the joy… the gift of God’s Son to a once-hopeless Earth.

 

December 20, 2009

Ben Nelson, toupees, and Python

Posted by publius772000 under Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |
[3] Comments 

In (dis)honor of Ben Nelson’s collapse of integrity, I offer up a video that pokes fun at toupees.  As one reader put it, Nelson was destined to cave under pressure because men in toupees can’t be trusted.

by Michael Naragon

Apologies for the Spanish subtitles, but since amnesty appears to be the next law Congress will shove down our collective throats, we may be seeing a lot more espagnol soon.

 

December 19, 2009

Thanks to Nelson, the future of Nebraska football should be interesting.

Posted by publius772000 under Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |
[5] Comments 

After securing a deal to ensure that 49 states pay for Nebraska’s Medicaid and Medigap, Senator Ben Nelson has changed his state’s image.

by Michael Naragon

It finally happened.  The Washington inevitable has come to pass.  What was extortion has now become bribery, according to a new Washington Post story.

At the end of the week, reports were surfacing that Sen. Nelson (D-NE) was holding out against the liberal takeover of health care despite alleged White House threats that an air base would be closed if he did not comply with the president’s wishes.  He became something of a folk hero for a few days, encouraging those who seek to maintain personal freedom in an era of rampant Marxism spilling out of D.C.

My, how things can change with time and billions of dollars.  What had amounted to extortion with the threatened closing of the air base has become blatant bribery, as Nelson secured taxpayer money for Nebraska to grease the wheels.  Outside Nebraska, the other 49 states of the Union will now be footing the entitlement bill for Nelson’s constituency in return for his support of the nebulous health care legislation.  We will now all pay for Nelson’s vote, in addition to the financial pain that will accompany the multi-trillion dollar socialist catastrophe that is the Reid-Pelosi-Obama health care bill.

“I know this is hard for some of my colleagues to accept and I appreciate their right to disagree,” Nelson said. “But I would not have voted for this bill without these provisions.”  Oh, that makes it better.  Either we all chip in to float Nebraska, or we don’t get the most intrusive piece of government filth we’ve seen since FDR.  Is this the definition of a catch-22?

In light of this new willingness by Nebraskans to take our cash, perhaps some changes should be made to reflect the Midwest’s own welfare state.  The formerly proud Cornhuskers should become the Nebraska Freeloaders, the pride of the Big 12.  Perhaps Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, and the other conference teams should be required to chip in a few free touchdowns for the ‘Loaders next year in the spirit of the times.  I’m not sure what they’d get in return, but receiving handouts seems to make Nebraska, or at least their lawmakers, happy.

Oh, and the new team would need a new mascot.  Might I suggest something like…

UPDATE – Sen. Nelson’s office can be contacted here: http://bennelson.senate.gov/email-issues.cfm

Nelson isn’t up for re-election until 2012, but there’s a glimmer of hope, Nebraska.  The Constitution doesn’t make any provision for popular recall of congressmen, but that isn’t stopping the people of Louisiana from making a go of it with their rebellious Republican, Anh Cao, who was made famous by being the lone House Republican to vote for the health care bill.  Legally, any popular recall would be challenged, but, as Louisiana’s Secretary of State put it, “Because we elected them, we can recall them.”  Food for thought, at the very least.

 

November 16, 2009

NYT Columnist David Brooks calls Sarah Palin a “joke”

Posted by publius772000 under Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |
[3] Comments 

McCain standard bearer and “conservative” columnist David Brooks launched his own salvo at actual conservative Sarah Palin on ABC’s This Week, joining other bitter RINOs who have attacked the former Alaska governor in recent days.

by Michael Naragon

If I may channel Chandler Bing for a moment: “Can he be any more elitist?”  Perhaps Brooks hasn’t seen the Amazon sales lists, the thousands attending her book signings, or, for that matter, the book sales list published by his own worthless rag.  Remember, folks, this is the same guy who talked about how great John McCain was as a candidate and the very same David Brooks who continues to claim that the GOP must become far more moderate if it wants to win the big elections.

Uhhh, Earth to Brooksy: Your moderate lost big.  The only reason he got the votes he did was because of his running mate.  What was her name again?  Oh, yeah.  Congrats on that one.  (Apologies to those who expect a higher standard from me… I just finished watching Zoolander, a film that appeals to the higher intellect about as well as David Brooks does.)

Brooks also does a good job of pulling up his skirt and showing himself to be a not-so-secret Obama supporter.  Nice work, Dave.  You can’t take her seriously, yet Obama was a serious candidate in 2008 and effective president in 2009?  Wait, who’s the joke again?

 

November 15, 2009

The New World Order is put on hold until 2010

Posted by publius772000 under Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Apparently, forming a one-world government that ruled in the interest of climate change wasn’t quite pressing enough to push through this year.

by Michael Naragon

The New York Times reported on Sunday that the COP15 summit to be held from Dec. 7 until Dec. 18 would not offer a legally binding climate treaty for signature.  The treaty, which has become famous from its widespread denunciation by climate change skeptics like Lord Monckton, will be reconsidered in Bonn in 2010.

According to the Times:

U.S. President Barack Obama and other world leaders on Sunday supported delaying a legally binding climate pact until 2010 or even later, but European negotiators said the move did not imply weaker action.

Some argued that legal technicalities might otherwise distract the talks in Copenhagen and it was better to focus on the core issue of cutting climate-warming emissions.

“Given the time factor and the situation of individual countries we must, in the coming weeks, focus on what is possible and not let ourselves be distracted by what is not possible,” Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen told the leaders.

Score one, at least temporarily, for the good guys.

 

November 15, 2009

Contract With America II: Made To Be Broken

Posted by publius772000 under Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

In a push for 2010–and undoubtedly testing the waters for his own presidential possibilities–Newt Gingrich has said that he wants the Republicans to formulate a new Contract With America.  Is this what’s really needed?  And is Newt the one to lead it?

by Michael Naragon

Newt Gingrich.  His name became familiar in 1994, when Republicans took control of Congress following Bill and Hillary Clinton’s disastrous attempt to take over the health care industry.  In the year or so that followed, Republicans instituted welfare reform and balanced the budget for the first time since LBJ’s presidency.  Clinton, of course, was quick to take credit for the new fiscal conservatism in Washington, and he and the Congress were just as quick to spend the “surplus.”

Many of the Republicans who won in 1994, as Newt will readily proclaim to all who will listen, were moderates.  Therefore, moderate Republicans made him Speaker of the House.  Within a few years, those moderate Republicans had become carbon copies of their Democrat colleagues, spending money like the proverbial drunken sailors, far more concerned with their re-election campaigns than with doing the work of the people.

The same Newt Gingrich that rode the reaction against Clinton’s attempt to take over health care has sat on the sidelines while the Republicans in Congress have fallen away from nearly every tenet of the original Contract.  Now Newt is endorsing liberal Republicans like Dede Scozzafava, claiming to anyone that will listen that the GOP will always be a minority party unless it accepts candidates like Scozzafava, who dropped out of the NY-23 race and endorsed Democrat Bill Owens.

His overarching argument seemed to be eerily similar to the one made by Rep. Jim Marshall (D-GA) at a recent town hall meeting when a voter asked of his decision to support Nancy Pelosi as Speaker.  “She had the votes,” Marshall explained.  “If I didn’t vote for her, it would have been very difficult to bring home the kind of programs and funding [i.e., pork] Georgia needs.”

In an interview with Sean Hannity after the election, Newt defended his choice to endorse Scozzafava by explaining that he would never have become Speaker without the election of the so-called moderates.  He then proceeded to fall into the tired “big tent” diatribe that liberals love to parrot when they discuss the imminent downfall of Republicans.  Moreover, Gingrich has said that running conservative candidates against liberal Republicans in any of the 2010 races would be “destructive,” according to a Politico interview.

Now, this same Newt Gingrich is asking Republicans and Chairman Michael Steele to compile a new Contract, presumably focusing on fiscal responsibility and deficit spending.  If the GOP, which is still essentially run by liberals and moderates (see: Election 2008, John McCain), formulates such a contract, could someone please ask Newt to put in some sort of time element, so we can at least plan for the day when all the new Republicans in the House and Senate will begin acting like their Democrat counterparts and continue to spend us all into oblivion?

If the Republican Party supports power over principle, then what exactly is the advantage in voting for the GOP in 2010 or beyond?

 

Next Page »