GOP or the "Tea"OP?

I've heard many generic politicos and conservative pundits jabber about who will the Tea Party goers support in November 2010 and 2012? Their opinions are quite vast and confusing. Some have even openly considered the Tea Party as a new 3rd party in American Politics. Coming from a person who spoke at a Tea Party and voted for John McCain, the answer to me is pretty obvious.

While not all Tea Party supporters call themselves conservative, many hold the beliefs of limited government and less taxes in high esteem. There are libertarians, and virulent pro-life supporters. While an individual's main issue may differ from another's, it's plainly obvious that they all fit in some way with one plank or another of President Reagan's "3 legged stool".

So it amuses me that main line Republicans can't seem to recognize that this movement is tailor made for Republicans to garner support from. It's shocking that many Tea Partiers shrug off the GOP and waste a vote on a 3rd party or even withholding their vote altogether.

The GOP doesn't need to blatantly pander to the Tea Party. That's patronizing. Just offer an agenda that Tea Partiers can endorse. Heaven knows they basically want the same general thing, and we know the Democrats aren't going to offer us anything better.

We operate in a two party system. The Tea Party's beliefs are in line with the classic values of the Republican Party. So a GOP that's half-way competent should be able to put together a classic GOP platform for Tea Partiers to endorse (the question of GOP competence however, is an open one).

So, to my Tea Party brethren and my Republican friends... get along.

"Let's Take our Country Back"

I got the master copy of this song performed by Lucas Hoge. It was written by Tom Paden and Eddie Kilgallon. I want help spread the word on this song. Visit www.letstakeourcountryback.net to hear and buy the song. I certainly hope that this song becomes the theme for a Conservative victory on November 2010 and 2012.

The Miracle in Massachusetts

Massachusetts has done the unthinkable, sent a Republican to the United States Senate for the first time since the 1970's.

Senator-Elect Scott Brown (R-MA) <--- [love doing that now] won by a solid margin.

The ramifications to this are extraordinary. The Democrats no longer have 60 votes to pass healthcare reform. They are down to the House passing the Senate's version, which is a long shot, or Reconciliation with only 50 votes needed. But this option was there since August. The Democrats no that's against the rules to do.

To be clear tonight... Obamacare has just flatlined.

Why the "Jobless Recovery"?

The answer doesn't require a couple master's degrees from Harvard or Yale. Heaven knows you can't listen to Turbo-Tax cheat Tim Geithner.

Just look back at the bailouts, stimulus-es, and free cash handouts over the past two years. In fall 2008 the Federal Government bailed out Wall Street. Around the new year '09 the feds bailed out big auto companies GM and Chrysler. In February 2009 money was handed out to irresponsible state governments and thrown to so called "shovel-ready" government infrastructure jobs. To top it off, another car stimulus over the summer with "Cash for Clunkers".

Meanwhile, President Obama and the Democrat leaders in Congress have been pushing major systematic transformations in healthcare, energy, and executive pay.

What economic picture does this paint? A very unstable one. Major institutions are being changed which will inevitably require more tax revenue, bankruptcy laws have been ignored, and there has been zero help for small business in America. These small businesses are the true backbone of the economy and engine of economic growth. They create three out of every four jobs. So why does it surprise anyone that in an environment where everyone is being bailed out except the small business, that small businesses aren't expanding or blossoming? Why the surprise when, in an environment where an already unstable economy is being transformed and rules of the road being rewritten, that small businesses don't take risks? Why dip your toe into the water when there's a hurricane coming? Why build a city in the middle of an earthquake? The one thing that's not being projected in Washington is a calm, stable future.

The simple way to get jobs created is to keep the rules the same. Stable economies produce jobs. If we need to give a stimulus, just allow businesses to have more of their money in order to improve, expand, and most importantly hire new workers.

For individuals and families who are hurting, another simple solution. Give them more of their money to keep, save, or most importantly spend to fuel other businesses that, at the same time, are receiving their "bailout".

This jolt to the system will begin to slowly turn the wheel of our job machine.

Wall Street got their bailout. Big Business got their stimulus. It's time small business got their shot in the arm. It's time American families get the tax relief they deserve, as well. Only then can a true recovery bloom, with the jobs to take us further into the 21st century.

The Elitism of David Brooks

While it is not my custom to attack lowly Op-Ed writers or to attack members of my side of the political isle, I feel I must finally retort the assertions of the New York Time's token right-winger, David Brooks.

Mr. Brooks has long irked many in the conservative movement for being, well, not a conservative on pretty much any major policy discussion. His inclination is always to attack the right and say how it's damaging the GOP or America in general. He always pushes moderation when conservatives push core values. I would call Mr. Brooks a sell out, but that would imply he was ever a serious "conservative" thinker in the first place. To be blunt, Mr. Brooks is as he called Sarah Palin, a joke.

Let's take his most recent column as an example. The very title, "Tea Party Teens", should offend anyone who has attended or sympathizes with the Tea Party platform. Not to be denied, Brooks writes yet another article bashing the Tea Party, but this time he reveals his true beef with them.

He begins oddly with an almost justification for anti-washington sentiment...

The United States opens this decade in a sour mood. First, Americans are anxious about the future. Sixty-one percent of Americans believe the country is in decline, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey. Only 27 percent feel confident that their children’s generation will be better off than they are.

Second, Americans have lost faith in their institutions. During the great moments of social reform, at least 60 percent of Americans trusted government to do the right thing most of the time. Now, only a quarter have that kind of trust.

The country is evenly divided about President Obama, but state governments are in disrepute and confidence in Congress is at withering lows. As Frank Newport of the Gallup organization noted in his year-end wrap-up, “Americans have less faith in their elected representatives than ever before.”

Third, the new administration has not galvanized a popular majority. In almost every sphere of public opinion, Americans are moving away from the administration, not toward it. The Ipsos/McClatchy organizations have been asking voters which party can do the best job of handling a range of 13 different issues. During the first year of the Obama administration, the Republicans gained ground on all 13.

My translation, the "hope-ium" has worn off. We are more divided than ever. President Obama is pursuing policies that will damage our nation. Okay, blah blah blah. We've heard this before. What gets quite odd and offensive is the next part...

The public is not only shifting from left to right. Every single idea associated with the educated class has grown more unpopular over the past year.

The educated class believes in global warming, so public skepticism about global warming is on the rise. The educated class supports abortion rights, so public opinion is shifting against them. The educated class supports gun control, so opposition to gun control is mounting.

The story is the same in foreign affairs. The educated class is internationalist, so isolationist sentiment is now at an all-time high, according to a Pew Research Center survey. The educated class believes in multilateral action, so the number of Americans who believe we should “go our own way” has risen sharply.

A year ago, the Obama supporters were the passionate ones. Now the tea party brigades have all the intensity.

This harkens back to the famous beginning of Laura Ingraham's book "Shut up and Sing". It began with, "They think you're stupid". That's exactly what Mr. Brooks is saying. The only reason President Obama's policies are being opposed is because of a knee-jerk reaction against "the smart people". That predisposes anyone who substantively opposes the policy as an "anti-intellectual" the essence of elitism. The oh so smart and intellectual David Brooks will expose the ignorance of the anti-intellectuals and their stupid, redneck ways. This sounds eerily like a college professor talking to one of his young, naive students. Brooks even calls his critics "Teens" in the title of his piece.

What's even more comical is Brooks' attempt at defining the movement- keyword "amateur"...

The tea party movement is a large, fractious confederation of Americans who are defined by what they are against. They are against the concentrated power of the educated class. They believe big government, big business, big media and the affluent professionals are merging to form self-serving oligarchy — with bloated government, unsustainable deficits, high taxes and intrusive regulation.

The tea party movement is mostly famous for its flamboyant fringe. But it is now more popular than either major party. According to the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 41 percent of Americans have a positive view of the tea party movement. Only 35 percent of Americans have a positive view of the Democrats and only 28 percent have a positive view of the Republican Party.

The movement is especially popular among independents. The Rasmussen organization asked independent voters whom they would support in a generic election between a Democrat, a Republican and a tea party candidate. The tea party candidate won, with 33 percent of independents. Undecided came in second with 30 percent. The Democrats came in third with 25 percent and the Republicans fourth with 12 percent.

Over the course of this year, the tea party movement will probably be transformed. Right now, it is an amateurish movement with mediocre leadership. But several bright and polished politicians, like Marco Rubio of Florida and Gary Johnson of New Mexico, are unofficially competing to become its de facto leader. If they succeed, their movement is likely to outgrow its crude beginnings and become a major force in American politics. After all, it represents arguments that are deeply rooted in American history.

I assume Mr. Brooks sees this movement as a threat to his "smart" friends. I also assume that Brooks subscribes to the "tyranny of the experts" in policy making. The small, smart, intellectual elite should make the policy for the large, stupid, misinformed populous. And he wonders why populist movements are sprouting in America? People don't like being told they're dumb, or childish. They don't take to well to people who would transform our system of government into something that's run by todays royalty, experts and intellectuals. This is, after all the classic liberal model, they can live your life better than you can, because you're the dumb, neanderthal who needs a master to keep you on the right track.

I have some news for David Brooks, this country is of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, and for the PEOPLE. Every person, no matter how smart or stupid, informed or misinformed, intellectual or proctor of common sense.

David Brooks is not evil, and he's not a naive teen as he paints his opponents, he's just wrong. Mr. Brooks is simply a misguided elitist who needs to get in touch with the American people again.