Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't fiscal responsibility a mainstay position of those Tea Party backed candidates that ran for office in 2010? Moreover, weren't those same Tea Party backed candidates who won in 2010 supposed to go to Washington and put a stop to "business as usual"? If I am not mistaken I recall these very candidates, who now comprise the incoming freshman class of the 112th Congress, as saying: "It's going to be a new day in Washington." Well as the old saying goes:" There's many a slip between the cup and the lip". That certainly seems to be the case when we examine the growing disparity between what these Tea Party backed candidates said on the hustings and their present behavior in Washington as they prepare to take office. It seems to me that it didn't take too much of a transition from heartland to capitol before these very reformers found their way to that ever enticing ingredient of politics: Money!
According to Dan Eggen of the Washington Post: "After winning election with an anti-Washington battle cry, Francisco Canseco and other incoming Republican freshmen have rapidly embraced the capital's culture of big-money fundraisers, according to new campaign-finance reports and other records... Dozens of freshmen lawmakers have held receptions at Capitol Hill bistros and corporate townhouses in recent weeks, taking money from K Street lobbyists and other powerbrokers within days of their victories. Newly elected House members have raised at least $2 million since the election, according to preliminary Federal Election Commission records filed last week, and many more contributions have yet to be tallied." Moreover, Nancy Watzman of the Sunlight Foundation observed: "It's particularly interesting when so many of this year's freshmen were running against Washington. But as soon as they get elected, they come to Washington and put out their hand." Take for instance Robert Hurt who defeated Tom Perriello and ran a campaign opposed to "union and special interest money". Since coming to set up shop in Washington, Congressman Hurt has already accepted $600,000.00 according to the Federal Election Commission.
Then there is that old chestnut, earmarks. Didn't the Tea Party backed candidates make such a big stink about earmarks while they were campaigning? Weren't they all in favor of making the moratorium on earmarks permanent? Well as it turns out, not really. You see, thanks to some research by Citizens Against Government Waste, fifty-two members of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus amassed $1,049,783,150 spread between 764 earmarks. Thus so much for cutting federal spending being a cornerstone of Tea Party principles.
According to Doug Mainwaring of the National Capitol Tea Party Patriots and a critic of the national media's coverage of the movement, the Tea Party Movement can be distilled into the following principles:" fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free markets. This threefold purpose is the only solid foundation for grasping the Tea Party movement." Thus based on what we are now observing among the incoming congressional class there is much cause for concern as to whether or not these principles will be adhered to once the newly elected become ensconced within the Beltway. After all, just how much fiscal responsibility can one have if he or she is already onto the payola being doled out on K Street. Likewise, just how "free" will the markets be when all manner of interests come calling on Capitol Hill looking for payback for the debts that they helped retire? Thus at this early date it seems to me that the stated goal of "taking the country back" may just have resulted in some new players getting a piece of the action while at the same time the cherished principles of the Tea Party Movement are becoming the first casualties of the 112th Congress. So much for the Tea Party Movement as an engine of political change in the age of Obama.
Well, if this isn't stupidity on stilts what is? Tea Party Nation President Judson Phillips has gone so far as to suggest that it could be a good idea if the right to vote in America were once again restricted to the owners of property. To wit: "The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote," Phillips said. "It wasn't you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today," he continued. "But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you're a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you're not a property owner, you know, I'm sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners."
Okay I see the logic here. If you don't own property then you have little or no interest in safe streets, efficient and honest government, the quality of education, national defense, workplace and product safety, clean air and water, ad infinitum. Mr. Phillips points out that the founding fathers put in place "restrictions" that "you obviously would not think about today." Well that is certainly true but is this man so naïve as to think that the founding fathers in their infinite wisdom and their knowledge of world history expected that the country would never change and that the Constitution would not be subject to interpretation and amendment at some future date? Surely they knew enough about history to have understood the rise of world civilization, its ebb in Europe during the Dark Ages and its rebirth, renaissance and expansion thereafter. Does Mr. Phillips think for a moment that the nation's founders perhaps felt that they had arrived at the end of history in 1787 and that the world would remain static thereafter? Thus this astute Tea Party political operative thinks it could be a good idea to disrupt the unbroken link of democratic development in English-speaking societies that extends all the way back to field of Runnymeade and the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 and which has continued to expand freedom to ever larger groups of people. Or is this a veiled plea to alter voting rights so as to preclude the political enfranchisement of millions of illegal immigrants now living here that may or may not become citizens in the next decade?
With the abovementioned commentary in mind, what then would be the political rights and obligations of the roughly one third of American households that rent rather than own their homes and apartments. Would they become second-class citizens? In a national emergency would they be exempt from military service or subject to a lesser commitment due to not having the same level of investment in American society? Would it be ethical to ask the guy who rents his home to fight and die for America even though he could not vote for its Commander in Chief? Would they be entitled to lower levels of Medicare coverage and reduced payouts from Social Security? What about the big property owning families in New York, Chicago and other major American metropolitan areas, would they be entitled to more votes as they own far more property than the single family home owner in the hinterland? What about all of those who live in mobile homes where they own the trailer but not the land beneath it, would they even have a vote?
I could go on with the hypothetical questions but I am sure you can plainly see just how absurd Mr. Phillips is in promoting this idea and how out of place in time is his theory on political suffrage. So not to be too glib, but is this supposed to be one of intended policy products of the great Tea Party effort to "take our country back"? Do members of the Tea Party Movement actually think they will expand their appeal within the body politic with leaders who advocate the political disenfranchisement of one third or more of America's households? I know there are many within the Tea Party Movement who believe that the 2010 election was "only the beginning" and that the best is yet to come. I for one think 2010 may more likely represent the high water mark of the Tea Party Movement and that comments like those of Judson Phillips will only work to undermine the appeal of the "Movement". Ideas such as these can only contribute to the idea that the Tea Party Movement is little more than a passing fad at best or that it is a collection of bizarre and disaffected political personalities at worst.
Steven J. Gulitti
12/6/10
Source: Tea party leader: Restricting vote to property owners 'makes a lot of sense'
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/201...
For the better part of post 2008 election period, we have been deluged with an almost non-stop rant about the failures of "progressive" ideas in America. Some have been so bold, or naive if you will, to suggest that the rise of the Tea Party Movement and the 2010 election have spelled the beginning of the end for "Progressives" and all that they stand for. According to this premise Americans now want to do away with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Insurance, Disability and Workers Compensation, the 40 hour Week, Workplace and Product Safety, Weekends and Holidays Off From Work, Environmental Safety, Financial Reform, ad infinitum. The "people" now want to return to a world where you work 12 hours a day, six days a week for straight time wages, no overtime, no retirement plans and no employer provided healthcare. Moreover, you will be happy to do so and even happier to forgo all of the workplace health and safety standards that you have enjoyed for the past half century or more. The "people" will now look forward to consumer products that are less safe, water and air that is more likely to harm one's health and rivers and seashores that are far less inviting on a hot summer afternoon due to the higher levels of pollution. Oh and least I forget, the "people" will spend half of their day off so they can go to church and thank God for the end of "progressive" ideas in America and a return to the unrestrained "free market system" that brought you economic inequality and the Great Depression.
Of course, to some extent, I am being sarcastic in the above. But don't fool yourselves, there are those among us who have completely misread this historic election and are well along the way to furthering their self delusion in the process. What you have just witnessed is the biggest hustle job in American political history. The Tea Partiers are already being shunted off to the side as Boehner and his minions divvy up the committee chairmanships among seasoned and veteran politicos. And let's not forget all of the outside cash that flowed into the G.O.P. during the 2010 midterms, those donors will be up on Capitol Hill shortly looking for their payback. And this just out: "Michele Bachmann's Leadership Bid Gets Cool Reaction" -"Self-proclaimed tea party leader Michele Bachmann's bid for a top Republican post in the House received a cool reaction Thursday from Speaker-to-be John Boehner, an early test of how GOP leaders will treat the antiestablishment movement's winners in Tuesday's elections."(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/04/michele-bachmanns-leaders_n_779290.html)
Thus, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Welcome to two more years of political gridlock, and it's brought to you by the folks who want to "take their country back."
Republicans have not even popped the corks of their celebratory champagne bottles yet and already there is a anti-Tea Party coup in the works the goal of which is to torpedo the presidential aspirations of Sarah Palin before her campaign even gets underway. A damming article from Politico which broke just yesterday revealed a concerted if uncoordinated effort taking shape among Republican leaders to see that Palin does not secure the 2012 Republican nomination for president. Quoting Politico:"Interviews with advisers to the main 2012 presidential contenders and with other veteran Republican operatives make clear they see themselves on a common, if uncoordinated, mission of halting the momentum and credibility Palin gained with conservative activists by plunging so aggressively into this year's midterm campaigns...There is rising expectation among GOP elites that Palin will probably run for president in 2012 and could win the Republican nomination, a prospect many of them regard as a disaster in waiting..."There is a determined, focused establishment effort ... to find a candidate we can coalesce around who can beat Sarah Palin," said one prominent and longtime Washington Republican. "We believe she could get the nomination, but Barack Obama would crush her." Thus it would appear that the trains are already on the track for what will be the first train wreck between the G.O.P. esthablishment and the Tea Party Movement.You can add to this developing drama the existing controversy between Ms. Palin and Tea Party star Joe Miller, the current Alaska Senatorial contender whom Palin backed against Lisa Murkowski only to have Miller short change Palin when it came time to endorse her presidential aspirations. This G.O.P. esthablishment - Tea Party friction has been below the surface since the movement gained traction during the 2009 health care reform debates. Appearing on Fox News with Greta Van Sustern in the summer of 2009, Rush Limbaugh was nothing if not emphatic in his denunciation of the Republican leadership and the veiled contempt that they have for the Tea Party Movement generally and Sarah Palin in particular. Tensions only grew more intense as the Tea Party Movement knocked off several Republican veterans and hand picked contenders during primary season. Thereafter the movement went on to put a number of Republicans not currently running for re-election on notice that they too were in the movement's cross hairs.
In an interview with the National Journal, Senate Republican Leader, Mitch McConnell said: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president," Is McConnell's rhetoric aimed at placating the Tea Party or does he actually believe that in the depths of the Great Recession, this is the single most important goal for a victorious Republican Party? What happened to the never-ending Republican cry: "Where are the jobs?" What became of all of the talk of reducing the size of government, of tax policy and talk about how to "grow the economy."? Now on the brink of victory the Republican elites have shown their hand and it consists first and foremost of political priorities aimed at winning the 2012 presidential election and making sure that Sarah Palin isn't around to screw things up. What happened to the G.O.P's big effort to "listen to the American people" this past summer? Thus we see just how important the dire state of the economy is to the elites who fashion Republican political strategy. Have McConnell and his lieutenants already misread the election's outcome, taking it to mean that they have a mandate in spite of the fact that they are polling at lower favorability ratings then the Democrats that are about to be turned out of office? Have they misread a vote of protest for an endorsement of the Republican Party line which it can't possibly be given the G.O.P.s historically low standing among voters? That said, how long would it be before the voters come down with that old sinking feeling of buyer's remorse? Surely if the immediate follow on to the midterm elections is the out break of an intra-party civil war within the G.O.P. what else could a weary and disgruntled electorate feel but buyer's remorse, dismay and disgust. The election's outcome will certainly cause the Democrats to circle the wagons and try to regroup for 2012. But it already seems like the G.O.P. and the Tea Party are in the process of circling the rifles into a circular firing squad and that can't be good at a time like this when the country is desperately in need of solutions to deep seated problems of long standing. The final question from all of this is: Has the Republican Party gotten more than it bargained for in its marriage of convenience with the Tea Party and is it too late to unwind the relationship before it tears the G.O.P. to shreds in an intraparty conflict that could end the Republican Party as we presently know it?
In the event of a Republican takeover of one or both houses of Congress on November 2nd, it won't be long before the Tea Party Movement and the G.O.P. will be involved in one or more train wrecks, some of which could be pretty dramatic. These train wrecks will arise from fundamental differences in philosophy and will occur over a period of time that could begin sooner rather than later. Upending Republican establishmentarians during primaries was relatively easy; winning general elections where competitive ideas are at issue could be a bit harder. Governing will be much harder still, particularly when you take into account the differences between Tea Party rhetoric and American political reality.
The first obstacle newly elected members of the movement will face is the institutional nature of Congress. Tea Party freshmen in both the House and Senate will be at the bottom of Congressional seniority lists and thus not immediately in line for leadership roles as committee chairpersons. Thus they will be in the position of having to sell their policy proposals to the existing leadership. That leadership may be more amenable to the ideas of the newcomers given the fact that several veteran Republican lawmakers are no longer around thanks to the Tea Party. Conversely the G.O.P. leaders may let Congress work the way it always has thereby attenuating the influence of the Tea Party. In the Senate in particular the likely Republican winners are veteran politicians who will come to the office with considerable experience. According to political observer David Herszenhorn: "Insurgent challengers may be grabbing all the headlines in midterm elections this year, but most of the Republicans who are best positioned to snap up Senate seats currently held by Democrats are veteran politicians - and most of them have already served in Congress. Based on their experience, the 2010 class of Senate Republican freshman could well prove to be relatively pragmatic and wise to the ways of legislative deal making - almost certainly more so than the Tea Party-backed firebrands like Sharron Angle in Nevada and Rand Paul in Kentucky, who have built their campaigns around ideological demands and an end to business as usual." In all of the discussions surrounding this election, few have pointed out the difference between those candidates who come out of, or are closely aligned with the Tea Party Movement and those who have received the movement's support solely because of their Republican affiliation. This second group will not necessarily move in lock step with the hard-core ideologues of the Tea Party seeing as they are not beholden to the movement in any meaningful way. Therein lay the seeds of intra-party conflict and controversy.
The next challenge facing newly elected members of the Tea Party Movement will be the reconciliation of their penchant for spending cuts and ending earmarks versus what can be achieved in the realm of the possible. These desires will butt up against the fact that cutting government spending during a severe economic downturn could only make things worse and many Republicans favor an ending of the G.O.P.'s moratorium on the use of earmarks. There's a reason that the G.O.P's leadership has been mum on the political talk show circuit when it comes to detailing the particulars of spending cuts and the reason is that they don't have a viable plan. Even as late in the game as this morning, Haley Barbour, appearing on "Meet the Press" was unable or unwilling to fill in the blanks when asked how a Republican controlled Congress will reduce the size of government. Tom Brokaw, appearing on this same show pointed out that many Republican candidates have made rash promises on the campaign trail that can't be kept or will be nearly impossible to keep given the current political situation. Again we see the future of conflict as already being baked into the cake, so to speak.
I read "A Pledge to America" and it is full of general statements regarding spending cuts, but for the scope of its discussion, it lays out few policy specifics. The "Pledge" is equal parts indictment, rallying cry and Act of Contrition, but what it isn't is a blueprint for reducing government. I can't help but wonder why the G.O.P. trotted out the "Pledge" when they have Congressman Paul Ryan's (R-WI) "A Roadmap For America's Future" which is a well reasoned analysis full of specific proposed cuts. Again to Herszenhorn: "while polls show that the Republicans' message is succeeding politically, Republican candidates and party leaders are offering few specifics about how they would tackle the nation's $13.7 trillion debt, and budget analysts said the party was glossing over the difficulty of carrying out its ideas, especially when sharp spending cuts could impede an already weak economic recovery...(both) parties share blame for the current fiscal situation, but federal budget statistics show that Republican policies over the last decade, and the cost of the two wars, added far more to the deficit than initiatives approved by the Democratic Congress since 2006...Calculations by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and other independent fiscal experts show that the $1.1 trillion cost over the next 10 years of the Medicare prescription drug program, which the Republican-controlled Congress adopted in 2003, by itself would add more to the deficit than the combined costs of the bailout, the stimulus and the health care law." Moreover, most Republicans are calling for the permanent extension of all Bush-era tax cuts and that would add $700 billion more to the deficit over the next 10 years.
The "Pledge" has come in for scathing criticism on the right as well as the left. Janet Hook and Naftali Bendavid of the Wall Street Journal made the following observations: "The new policy manifesto released by House Republicans Thursday is laced with ideas and rhetoric designed to appeal to the surging tea-party movement. But it left some conservatives disappointed with its omissions and complaining that the plan had limited sweep... Yet the new agenda was silent on some of the most sought-after goals on the tea-party wish list, such as a balanced budget constitutional amendment and a ban on special-interest appropriations called earmarks." Many conservatives look to what is now happening in the United Kingdom as a model of inspiration for cut backs here. But that program involves a significant reduction in defense spending; something that would have to be included here as well as those outlays constitutes 58% of discretionary federal spending. With a large portion of federal spending being committed to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and paying off interest on Treasury Bonds, the amount of money subject to discretionary spending reduction is only one third of all outlays. There is a growing minority within the G.O.P. on Capitol Hill who are making the case that the projected debt is too big to handle through spending cuts alone. According to Saxby Chambliss (R-GA): "Everything has got to be on the table for discussion... "there are a lot of things people are going to have to be educated about, on the spending side as well as the revenue side. They're thinking we can come in and eliminate earmarks and everybody's going to be happy on the spending side. Gee, that just scratches the surface." Is Senator Chambliss tacitly acknowledging that tax cuts will have to expire or even that tax increases may be needed to deal with the deficit? The "Pledge" is notoriously silent on the subject of earmarks and seeing as they are a major source of spending, this is sure to give rise to a rift within the new Republican caucus on Capitol Hill. It doesn't take a soothsayer or a professional handicapper to see that the G.O.P. and the Tea Party Movement are on a collision course with regard to spending and the practical ability to reign in that spending given the current economic situation and the present composition of federal government outlays. Thus there is little reason to believe that the Republican rhetoric of the campaign trail will carryover to policies that actually achieve what that rhetoric has promised. Therein lies the root of yet another G.O.P. - Tea Party collision.
Newly elected Tea Party Movement lawmakers may find themselves running into some strong headwinds in the form of those special interests that have invested heavily in this election on behalf of conservative causes. While it is now likely that in the final analysis Democrats may end up spending more money than their opposition, there is an unprecedented amount of money flowing to the Republican side from outside sources as a result of the Citizens United ruling. According to OpenSecrets.org the 2010 midterms have seen a whooping 186.7 million dollars flowing into Republican coffers vice 88.6 million for the Democrats. Likewise an article on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and business donations shows the tide running against the Democrats among these groups at a rate of almost two to one. Ostensibly one would say what difference does it make where all this money is coming from if the Democrats are actually spending more? But within the confines of this argument, what matters is that this tidal wave of money spent by outside interests is being spent for a reason, to influence the election's outcome and thereafter to buy influence with the winners. Washington lobbyists are already courting the potential new Congressional chairmen and in the process could effectively be
outmaneuvering the Tea Party activists in the game of power and influence. Thus the many questions that beg to be asked: Won't all of this money muscle out the grassroots crowd and how will the Tea Party activists compete for attention with the lobbyists who are already prowling the halls of Congress and the bars and restaurants of downtown Washington? Is the movement about to get mugged on K Street? Are the rank and file Tea Party patriots in the process of "taking their country back" just to have it taken away in turn by the wealthy interests who have spent all of this money to influence the outcome of the 2010 elections? Surely this money was not spent because it was burning a hole in someone's pocket. Does anyone believe that these special interests were in the mood to do the activists a favor on November 2nd? Will the rank and file Tea Partier unwittingly deliver "his country" as a gift to a new class of plutocrats that will have no use for him except for his vote during the next election cycle and his attendance at rallies? Don't look now but we may be about to witness the greatest political hustle since the evangelicals came out in force for George W. Bush only to get nothing of substance in the bargain.
Finally, the Tea Party Movement will continue to run up against the fact that many of its essential beliefs are divorced from reality and therein lay the seeds of train wrecks to come. First and foremost is one of its core ideas, that Americans are over taxed. The fact is that taxes are as low as they have been in sixty years; lower than they were when Ronald Reagan was President. As Senator Chambliss implied above, increased taxes may be inevitable if people are serious about reducing the deficit. The Tea Party waxes nostalgic for the Reagan era, yet unemployment was higher when the "Gipper" went into his first midterm election than it is now and his approval rating was roughly the same as Obama's. The movement preaches fiscal restraint while refusing to consider reductions in defense spending where wasteful spending is well documented and widespread. This will lead to calls for a reduction in social programs during the worst economic downturn since the 1930s and that will only create resistance on the left and reluctance on the part of practical Republican officeholders on the right. The Tea Partiers clamor, "keep your hands off my Medicare" but underplay how to reign in the program's cost increases. They rail against TARP, blaming Obama for its inception all the while ignoring the fact that many of the very Republicans running for re-election are the ones who originally put the bailout in place. How will they address the fact that TARP's costs will be less than originally anticipated? Even conservative observer Ross Douthat admits that for all its shortcomings TARP was a necessary evil at the time of its inception. On the issue of repealing health care reform there is now no clear consensus to do so, according to the latest CBS poll, yet repeal is a major Tea Party goal.
The continued Tea Party fixation with Obama as a Socialist, Fascist or both at the same time reveals a lack of understanding of what actually comprises these two somewhat similar yet fundamentally different schools of political thought. If it's not that, then what else could it be other than a deliberate attempt to misinform the public for partisan ends. It goes without saying that this is something that can only contribute to further gridlock. This fact stands in direct contrast to what the public wants. The latest polling by both Bloomberg and the New York Times / CBS News reveals an electorate that wants compromise not confrontation. Yet with the arrival of Tea Party backed lawmakers the stage is now set for a political environment more favorable to confrontation than to compromise. Attempts to fix the blame on President Obama for the current economic situation are likely to fail as well as "nearly 60 percent of Americans were optimistic about Mr. Obama's next two years in office and nearly 70 percent said the economic slump is temporary. Half said the economy was where they expected it would be at this point, and less than 10 percent blamed the current administration for the state of the economy, leaving the onus on former President George W. Bush and Wall Street." In the final analysis, the 2010 election is shaping up to be something of an anomaly. On the one hand you have widespread voter dissatisfaction with the status quo while at the same time the party likely to gain seats has a favorability rating below the party that will be turned out of office. Thus for the Republicans this victory will be a political windfall rather than an endorsement of the party and its platform. The G.O.P. will find itself in an inopportune marriage of convenience with the Tea Party Movement which in the long haul may turn out to the G.O.P.'s detriment as the public grows weary of the gridlock and political train wrecks that are sure to come. Rather than being on the cusp of a Republican revival or a "return to our core values" we are more likely on the verge of an environment of political chaos which is just what we don't need at this point in time and that chaos may well come back to haunt the Republican Party and hobble its chances in the 2012 election and beyond. Ladies and Gentlemen, fasten your seat belts.
Steven J. Gulitti
10/31/10
Sources:
The New Face of the G.O.P.? Grizzled Veterans, by David Herszenhorn; http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10...
Deficit Divisions Likely to Grow After Election by Jackie Clames; http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10...
Earmarks Cause GOP Rift By NEIL KING JR. ; http://online.wsj.com/article_...
It's ironic, but when I debate back and forth across today's political divide, the one thing that members of the Tea Party Movement consistently love to point out is that their candidates stand or fall on principles. Thus it is alleged that the movement's quasi-heroic candidates prefer to go down to defeat rather than compromise or deviate from those very deeply held, almost solemnly enumerated principles. Well for one Tea Party star in particular, Alaska's Joe Miller, the principle of honesty seems to be missing from his litany of deeply held, immutable beliefs. You see Miller, as per recently released records was: "disciplined for using three co-workers' computers for political purposes and initially lying about it when he worked as a part-time lawyer for the Fairbanks North Star Borough in 2008" And what was the purpose of this unauthorized use of other people's workstations? Nothing less than an attempt to influence an online opinion poll for the Alaska State Republican Party Chairmanship. Miller eventually admitted, "he was using the computers to vote with "different URLs" in an online poll about the state's Republican Party chairman, Randy Ruedrich, whom Mr. Miller wanted removed. Mr. Miller cleared Internet cache files from each of the computers. He also used his own computer to participate in the poll and then cleared his cache. After initially lying about the computer use, he eventually admitted to it in a letter to his supervisor, Rene Broker, the lead borough attorney." Joe Miller eventually resigned from his position at the Boro in the wake of disciplinary action, but only after denying the charges while having deleted years of e-mail that would have included public records.
While we're on the topic of Joe Miller, how about his hypocritical stance on the constitutionality of unemployment insurance. Miller believes that there are no enumerated powers within the Constitution that provide for this benefit. From his interview on Fox News:"Why are unemployment benefits unconstitutional?" asked Fox News' Chris Wallace? "The Constitution provides enumerated powers, answered Miller. I guess my challenge is to anybody that asks, show me the enumerated power. And then look at the 10th amendment that says if it's not done in the Constitution, it's a power that belongs to the state and the people...When pressed on what he would do for the poor if elected, Miller struggled to provide details." However, the controversy does not end there. If Miller has such an aversion to the social benefit that is unemployment insurance than why did he abide his wife's reciept of unemployment compensation after she lost her job for violating nepotism rules?
Another area of federal spending that Miller publicly opposes is farm subsidies. But privately he was more than happy to be a recipient of the very benefits that he is now opposes. How you say? Well as it turns out Miller had received an agricultural subsidy on farmland he once owned in Kansas. Yet, true to form as with the situation surrounding his unauthorized computer use, Miller tried to dance around the farm subsidy issue until he gave up and came clean on this as well. To wit: "Until Monday night, the campaign had also dodged questions as to whether Miller had received federal farm subsidies for land in Kansas, where he once lived. After Alaska Dispatch received Miller's farm subsidy records under the Freedom of Information Act and told the Miller campaign about them on Monday, Miller's staff confirmed he received federal payments for 140 acres of cropland he owned in Kansas between 1990 and 1998. Like the vast majority of farmers in that region, Joe received payment from the USDA in exchange for managing his crops according to government standards," said campaign spokesman Randy DeSoto in an e-mail Monday night."
So, once again, what are the voters supposed to believe? They consistently hear Tea Party candidates preaching the virtues of fiscal rectitude, personal responsibility, smaller government, low taxes, ad infinitum while some of these same candidates are engaging in or have engaged in the very behaviours and activities that they so routinely oppose in their rhetoric. Miller is not the first member of the Tea Party Movement, nor is he likely the last, to be swept up in this type of controversy. The question that begs asking now is how many more of these revelations are going to surface after next Tuesday and then what are all of those who worked so hard for the movement supposed to do when they are stuck with having elected these political charlatans who where supposed to help them take their country back and make it a better place? We've already seen charges of hypocrisy levelled at Sharron Angle and Michele Bachmann related to their positions on government provided health care and their own families benefiting from these programs. That said, who should be surprised by the fact that Joe Miller is now revealed to be a serial hypocrite? The only remaining questions are who will be the next Tea Party personality found to be in the same quandary and just how many of these ticking time bombs presently exist within the movement?
Joe Miller's Wife Collected Unemployment Benefits; http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50...
Alaska's Joe Miller states opposition to federal minimum wagehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101004/el_yblog_upshot/alaskas-joe-miller-states-opposition-to-federal-minimum-wage
Senate candidate Joe Miller admits taking farm subsidies; http://alaskadispatch.com/disp...
As I have said several times, to date, as we get closer to November 2nd, the hurdles that the Tea Party Movement must surmount just keep getting higher and more arduous. Since my last post on the topic two reports have come to the fore that support what I have been saying for the past month.
First, the popular business periodical, "Business Week"; just came out with an article entitled:"Why Business Doesn't Trust the Tea Party"; To wit: "The Tea Party's small-government slogans may be appealing, but its policies could throw the U.S. economy into chaos". This article has detailed the extent of discomfort and dismay within the business community that has resulted from the rise of the Tea Party Movement within the American body politic. In general the business community's uneasiness with the Tea Party Movement can be summed up as follows: "It may sound like a corporate dream come true-as long as the corporation in question doesn't have international operations, rely on immigrant labor, see the value of national monetary policy, or find itself in need of a subsidy to boost exports or an emergency loan from the Fed to survive the worst recession in seven decades. Business leaders who favor education reform, immigration reform, or investment in infrastructure can likely say goodbye to those ideas for the short term as well; they won't be possible in the willfully gridlocked world of the coming 112th Congress." Focusing on South Carolina in particular, where a Tea Party backed candidate has a good chance of winning and it's Senator, Jim DeMint (R-SC) is a leading force in the movement, the local Chamber of Commerce had this to say:"For business leaders who prize pragmatism and stability, it was all too much... Chamber members, he says, tend to be more realistic and moderate in their thought processes. We prefer candidates who are not extreme. If you look at the Tea Party, I think most of them would say they hate Big Business." To amplify the concerns of the business community in this key conservative state, consider the following: "As the South Carolina Chamber realized, the Tea Party's seductive small-government principles are hitched to a train full of explosive cargo-from Alaska's U.S. Senate candidate, Joe Miller, who suggested Social Security is unconstitutional, to Delaware's U.S. Senate candidate, Christine O'Donnell, who has no relevant job experience...The Tea Party's brand of political nitroglycerin, in short, is too unstable for businesses that look to government for predictability, moderation, and the creation of a stable economic environment. A lot of the agenda is being driven by the extremes...This kind of extremism makes it much harder to plan from a business perspective."
Thus, from the perspective of the practical businessman or woman, the Tea Party Movement may espouse pro-business ideas in theory, but in practice, the movement may be as much an obstacle to economic expansion and rejuvenation as anything that might emanate from the left side of the political spectrum. That is to say, that in the minds of today's business professionals the ideas currently espoused by the Tea Party Movement are most likely to be of little use now. That said, these business professionals find little to rejoice over when they actually get down to the nuts and bolts of the Tea Party's ideology and how it relates to the practical aspects of running an economic enterprise. The bottom line for these business people is that the Tea Party Movement is a losing proposition, a bum deal no matter how you slice it. The leading luminaries of the Tea Party Movement either don't understand the business environment or if they do, they have jettisoned that knowledge for the sake of a political purity that has little practical application in the economic realities of today's America.
The next potential blockbuster, as reported on today's Meet the Press which will hit this coming week, is a report by the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights and the NAACP that again, raises questions about the degree to which the Tea Party Movement can be considered an engine of racial discord in the American body politic. This report, entitled: "Tea Party Nationalism", lays out the following conclusions: "The result of this study contravenes many of the Tea Parties' self-invented myths, particularly their sole concentration on budget deficits, taxes, and the power of the federal government. Instead, this report found Tea Party ranks to be permeated with concerns about race and national identity and other so-called social issues...Tea Party organization have given platforms to anti-Semites, racists and bigots, Further, hard-core white nationalists have been attracted to these protests, looking for potential recruits and hoping to push these (white) protestors toward a more self-conscious and ideological white supremacy." In fairness to the amorphous Tea Party Movement, many of it's subset organizations have been quick to distance themselves from any and all forms of blatant racism and bigotry, but the labels associated with these now discredited and antiquated forms of social behavior have regrettably continued to dog the movement.
Thus as we get closer to the mid-term elections of 2010, the more the questions surrounding the Tea Party movement come to the surface and they seem to be coming with increased velocity. The politically astute can only ask one question: "As the questions surrounding the viability of the Tea Party Movement continue to mount, to what extent can the average citizen feel comfortable throwing his lot in with this, as yet, undefined and controversial movement?" A corollary question also comes to the fore: "In an age of globalization and increased economic competition, are the interests of the American people best served by a movement that is characterized and identified with an such a poorly defined political ideology that contains such a large element of political amateurs in it's electoral slate?
As November 2nd draws nearer, it seems that the stumbles and fumbles of key Tea Party candidates just keep on coming. This has given rise to ever more questions about the fitness and viability of some of the leading candidates for public office running beneath the Tea Party banner.
Not to lean too heavily on the much maligned Christine O'Donnell, but when a candidate for a seat in the U.S. Senate can't name one recent Supreme Court decision that she disagrees with, one can only roll one's eyes so many times before one has to dismiss this woman's candidacy altogether for the farce that it obviously is. Covering O'Donnell's debate with Chris Coons for Politico, David Catanese made the following observation:"She also failed to name a recent Supreme Court decision she agreed with -- a moment reminiscent of the infamous question that tripped up Sarah Palin during her interview with CBS anchor Katie Couric. O'Donnell paused for a few seconds before telling the questioners she would get back to them and "put it up on my website." Catanese went on to observe that: "Wednesday night's nationally televised Delaware Senate debate showcased Christine O'Donnell's great strength - as a feisty tea party upstart exuding personal charisma, as well as her primary weakness - as a flawed candidate carrying a heap of baggage who at times appeared out of her depths on substantive policy questions." So let me get this straight, Ms. O'Donnell wants to take a moment or two to "research" her favorite Supreme Court decisions and then she will "get back to us". Are we really supposed to take this candidate seriously or is this someone's idea of a spoof? Beyond that Ms. O'Donnell seems to be confused as to who is actually charged with judicial review under our system of checks and balances, saying: "when I go to Washington, D.C., the litmus test by which I cast my vote for every piece of legislation that comes across my desk will be whether or not it is constitutional." Funny, but isn't that the job of the Supreme Court?
Next is the apparent waffling or misinterpretation of Rand Paul's position on taxes. Three days ago, Paul stated to The American's for Fair Taxation: "The federal tax code is a disaster no one would come up with if we were starting from scratch. I support making taxes flatter and simpler. I would vote for the Fair Tax to get rid of the 16th Amendment, the IRS and a lot of the control the federal government exerts over us." Yet today, Paul's Campaign Manager, Jesse Benton, hit the airwaves saying said that this representation of the candidates tax views was:" the result of an "overzealous" anti-tax advocate who misstated Paul's position when he quoted the candidate." But according to the Louisville Courier-Journal: "Over the past few days, Paul has distanced himself from the Fair Tax despite mounting evidence that he has, indeed, voiced support for the plan." Okay so what are the voters supposed to believe? Rand Paul was for the Fair Tax before he was against it? If so why the flip-flop? Where does the candidate actually stand on this issue and what are the voters supposed to base their decision on, that he favors a national sales tax of 23%, the so called fair tax, or he does not?
Finally there is New York's Tea Party candidate for governor, Carl Paladino, who veteran conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer called the "most suicidal candidate" in the 2010 election cycle. In an article that appeared in today's Washington Post, "Your pre-election post-mortem" Krauthammer opined: "Carl Paladino is running in a deep-blue state with sky-high taxes, yawning deficits and rampant corruption. The last elected Democratic governor resigned in disgrace, and his successor is so tainted that he dare not run for another term. So, what does Kamikaze Carl proceed to do? Get in an angry shouting match with a reporter. Level some odd insinuation about his opponent's "prowess." Figuring he hasn't veered off-message enough, he then expounds on homosexuality -- and spends three days having to explain and reaffirm, before the inevitable apology. He's down by 19 points." Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, Paladino seems to have done just that with both barrels blazing.
So what is the rank and file Tea Partier to do? If you live in Delaware, Kentucky or New York how can you bring yourself to vote for candidates who either don't understand the process of judicial review, whether or not they actually support a national sales tax or what their actual message is? Isn't the Tea Party supposed to represent an alternative to business as usual? If this is what three of the major contenders under the Tea Party banner represent, in terms of policy and perspective, are we any better off with candidates of this caliber or will they likely guarantee more ineffective government due to their inexperience, lack of depth and inability to articulate what actually is their position on a given issue? These are serious questions that every voter must ask before they can vote for any of the above candidates with any degree of comfort or confidence.
Steven J. Gulitti
10/15/10
Sources:
O'Donnell Mangles The Constitution, Can't Name One Recent Court Decision She Disagrees With; http://www.wikio.com/video/chr...
Christine O'Donnell goes deep debating ChrisCoons;http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43579_Page2.html#ixzz12TywYIvH
I recently pointed out in two articles that I wrote, referenced below, that several Tea Party backed candidates are presently running into some strong headwinds as Election Day approaches. Some have tried to dismiss these facts as "progressive desperation". However, for one candidate in particular, Nevada's Sharron Angle, there seems to be some serious desperation within her own campaign. In fact that desperation became so evident that she tried to get a Tea Party fellow traveler to drop out of the race so she could "win." Well that just begs the question: If Angle is such a strong candidate and the Tea Party behind her is so much a force to be reckoned with, then why the need to desperately plead with Scott Ashjian to drop out of the race?
In a meeting held with Nevada Tea Party Chairman Sid James and other movement operatives, Angle tried to make a deal with Ashjian to drop out in order to give her a chance to win. The Party chairman showed a fair degree of desperation himself when he abandoned his support of Ashjian, insisting that Angle will lose unless he withdraws and that there was still time to get his name off the ballot. Angle herself went on to promise just about everything but the Moon, Sun and the Stars to get Ashjian to quit the race. Angle was quoted on tape as saying: "I believe you (Ashjian) can do some real harm, not to Harry Reid but to me...I'm not sure you can win and I'm not sure I can win if you're hurting my chance and that's the part that scares me." She went on to say:" Says the grass roots movement "gives me juice. That's really all I can offer to you (Ashjian) is whatever juice I have, you have as well..."
So there you have it, in the case of Sharron Angle there is no need for "progressive desperation" as there seems to be more than enough of it within the Angle camp. Perhaps this is what was behind the recent major flip flop on Ms. Angle's previous positions on privatizing Social Security and her attitude that unemployment compensation was akin to welfare. Then again, with her race with Harry Reid being a statistical dead heat, there is reason enough for her to be so desperate in trying to get Scott Ashjian out of the race and likewise there is no cause for any desperation on the part of the progressive electorate. As of today, RealClear Politics' average of all polls shows a 0.2-point spread in favor of Harry Reid. I guess that's enough to make any politician desperate with November 2nd just over the horizon.
Tea Party darling, Sharron Angle has apparently decided that politics as usual suits her better than sticking to her previously held Tea Party Movement principles. In an development that has been reported on both the left and the right, Angle has abandoned her previous positions on privatizing both Social Security and the Veterans Administration. Likewise, her attitude that unemployment insurance is welfare has been abondoned for the latest spin du jour. Think I'm putting you on? Well here it is from the conservative organ NewsMax:" In a dramatic shift, Republican U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle said Saturday she wouldn't work to privatize Veterans Affairs, dismantle Social Security or dismiss unemployment benefits as welfare... Angle on Saturday denied she had called for the end of the VA...In another slight change Saturday, Angle said of unemployment: "We pay into it, so in some respects, it is an insurance policy that we bought into with our paychecks." She described it previously as a "system of entitlement."
At the same time, another prominent Nevada Republican has decided against Angle and thrown her support to Harry Reid. As reported in yesterday's New York Times: "Harry Reid can now boast a second Republican feather in his cap, of sorts. Less than 24-hours after earning the endorsement of Bill Raggio, a highly influential Republican and Nevada state senator, the Senate majority leader on Friday landed the support of Dema Guinn, the wife of the former governor who died unexpectedly this year."
All of this fits into what I have said in previous posts and that is, that as we get closer to November 2nd, the scrutiny put on the Tea Party Candidates will cause people to have serious second doubts about their positions and the viability of those candidates if they are actually elected. Secondly, that many of the movements leading contenders are nothing more than professional politicians in Tea Party clothing who have jumped on the wave of voter discontent so as to get themselves elected.
Steve Gulitti
10/10/10
Sources:
Nevada's Angle Recasts Position on Public Benefits; http://www.newsmax.com/InsideC...
A funny thing seems to be happening, as we get closer to November 2nd, the level of controversy surrounding the candidacy of several prominent Tea Party candidates seems to be either emerging or increasing. The list spans a who's who of some of the most prominent Tea Party candidates now running on the platform of bringing meaningful change to American politics.
First there's Rick Scott running for Governor in Florida. Scott has been a vociferous opponent of health care reform, having spent millions to oppose reform. However, his former company was the beneficiary of Medicare and Medicaid monies totally in the millions if not billions. In fact even the conservative magazine "The American Spectator" called Scott's company's actions into question: " His business record is also likely to draw fire. Scott was pushed out from Columbia/HCA in 1997 in the midst of a fraud investigation that led to a $1.7 billion settlement on charges that the company overbilled state and federal health care programs. While he was never charged with any wrongdoing himself, Scott was the head of the company - and thus the situation will garner more scrutiny now that he's a political candidate." Then there is an amplifying article that appeared a month later in the Florida paper; The Sun Sentinel, by Sally Kestin: "Rick Scott, who ran a company involved in the nation's largest Medicare fraud case, wants to be Florida's governor...Rick Scott was co-founder and CEO of Columbia/HCA in the 1990s, when the FBI launched a massive, multi-state investigation that led to the company pleading guilty to criminal charges of overbilling the government....Scott considers himself a health care pioneer who significantly cut costs and improved patient care. But his decision to enter the race and his explanation of what occurred at Columbia/HCA is rankling some of those familiar with the fraud scandal."
Next there is Rand Paul, who has called for restraint in health care spending so long as it does not go so far as to impact his own income. Paul's hypocrisy is so obvious that even the Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal could not bear to ignore this fact and reported on it in a mid-May article appearing in it's Washington Wire: "Tea Party favorite Rand Paul has rocketed to the lead ahead of Tuesday's Republican Senate primary here on a resolute pledge to balance the federal budget and slash the size of government. But on Thursday evening, the ophthalmologist from Bowling Green said there was one thing he would not cut: Medicare physician payments In fact, Paul - who says 50% of his patients are on Medicare - wants to end cuts to physician payments under a program now in place called the sustained growth rate, or SGR. "Physicians should be allowed to make a comfortable living," he told a gathering of neighbors in the back yard of Chris and Linda Wakild, just behind the 10th hole of a golf course." So there you have it, doctors are free to run on reforming federal spending so long as their income stream is held harmless. Well if that does not sound a bit hypocritical then what does?
Next on the hit parade of hypocrisy is New York's Gubernatorial candidate, Carl Paladino whom Greg Smith of the New York Daily News says has grown rich thanks to government handouts and favors. According to Smith's research: "In a last-minute bid to keep that lucrative government subsidy, records show he overstated the worth of the company that got the break by including properties he'd already sold off. The millionaire Buffalo businessman, who last week became his party's candidate for governor, has shaped much of his Tea Party message by railing against government spending and vowing Draconian bureaucratic bloodletting. At the same time, he's received millions of dollars in tax breaks over the years, mostly as payback for investing in distressed properties in and around his native Buffalo, where manufacturing jobs have disappeared and the economy has long been in a free fall." Thus what we have in New York State is a Tea Party candidate who seems to have filled his pockets at the public trough but who has now "seen the light" on the excesses of government spending and wants to end it, that is, after he more than got his fill from that very trough.
In addition to these issues, the trials and tribulations of Senate candidate Sharron Angle just seem to keep on coming. Today it was reported that Republican Nevada State Senator Bill Raggio has done something he has never done before, endorsed a Democrat. Raggio is throwing his support behind the embattled incumbent, Harry Reid (D-NV) due to what he considers Angle's glaring shortcomings as a state level politico. In Raggio's own words: "What is difficult to overlook is her record of being totally ineffective as a four-term assemblywomen, her inability or unwillingness to work with others, even within her own party, and her extreme positions on issues such as Medicare, social security, education, veterans affairs and many others," Raggio said of Angle...He also challenged his Republican colleagues who have lined up behind Angle's campaign."Some supporters tell me we need to support her because we need her vote in the U.S. Senate as a Republican and she 'can't do much harm as a junior back bencher,'" said Raggio. "Since when should this be the criteria on how we select and vote for a U.S. Senator to represent our State?"
So what are the voters to believe and how are they to vote for the likes of Paladino, Paul, Scott and Angle among others come election day. Isn't the Tea Party Movement supposed to represent some sort of catharsis in American politics, a movement to cleanse the system of rot and decay? Is it not supposed to be a citizens revolt against business and politcs as usual, both in Washington and at the state and local level? If so, how is it that individuals of such questionable qualities and backgrounds became some of it's leading candidates? Has the movement been hijacked by the very political slicksters that it's supposed to oppose? Are these accomplished political operatives and savy businessmen in the process of taking the rank and file Tea Partiers for the political ride of their lives? Have professional politicians on the right jumped on the bandwagon of reform and revolt all the while hoping to just harness this energy for their own political ends? Or is it the case that the aforementioned candidates, like Paul of Tarsus, have "seen the light" on their own personal road to Damascus. Are they like Constantine at the Battle of Milivan Bridge who looked into the sky, saw a cross, and then went on to win the battle and spread Christianity, the new and revolutionary religon,across the Roman Empire? My educated guess is that it's the former not the latter.
Steven J. Gulitti
10/8/10
Sources:
"Obamacare Opponent Rick Scott Launches Bid for Governor of Florida"; http://spectator.org/blog/2010...
"Rick Scott, who ran a company involved in the nation's largest Medicare fraud case, wants to be Florida's governor"; http://articles.sun-sentinel.c...
"WSJ: Washington Wire; May 14, 2010, 9:22 AM ET Rand Paul: Cut Spending But Not Medicare Doctor Payments"; http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/...
Tea Party-backed GOP governor hopeful Carl Paladino fighting for $1.4 million tax break
:http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/09/20/2010-09-20_huge_tax_break_fits_carl_to_a_tea_big_govt_foe_fights_for_14m_windfall.html#ixzz11ouPpyw6:
Say what you will about the tea party but it has been remarkably effective at pushing select fringe candidates to electoral victories.
In late 2009, you would have been hard pressed to find anyone in Washington who would have believed that a Republican would soon fill the Senate seat held for decades by the late Ted Kennedy.
Brown -- a state senator at the time of his election -- was the first in what would become a long line of tea party endorsed candidates with rather colorful pasts.
What word would you use to describe a candidate for the U.S. Senate, who just happens to be a Tea Party favorite, that publically advocates repealing health care reform, opposes the regulation of health care insurers while at the same time benefits from health care provided by a federal government agency? If the word hypocrite comes to mind, you just hit the jackpot. Not necessarily intended to be a tongue in cheek quip, but our winner of the hypocrite of the day award goes to Nevada's Sharron Angle, who just happens to hail from the land of slot machines and crap tables.
Yeah, you read me correctly, this morning's "Politico's Morning Score" blew the cover off of Ms. Angle's dirty little secret and possibly a hole in her campaign to be the next U.S. Senator from Nevada. Needless to say, this isn't exactly the kind of publicity that the Tea Party Movement is looking for either. Its one thing for the Tea Party Movement to be lampooned by the political highbrows on MSNBC and the Daily Show who can be dismissed as elitist by the party faithful. It's quite yet another for one of its premier candidates to so seriously stumble just weeks before an election that is supposed to be the movement's coming out party in the big leagues of electoral politics. Politico's Morning Score reports: "Angle's campaign acknowledged to Nevada journalist Jon Ralston Monday that both the candidate and her husband receive health care from the federal government. Spokeswoman Ciara Matthews said in a statement: "Mr. Ted Angle receives his pension through the (federal) Civil Service Retirement System. While it is not supplemented by the federal government, current civil servants pay into the program to pay the schedule of those already retired - much like how the Social Security Program works today." But there's more to it than just the machinations of the Angle family, another prominent mouthpiece of the Tea Party Movement, Michelle Bachmann, a regular critic of government health care is also a beneficiary of the very programs she rails against. According to MediaMatters.com:" Angle isn't the only right-wing Republican to bash government involvement in health care while benefiting from it. Back in May, the Minnesota Independent reported that Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), a frequent critic of "socialized medicine," was profiting from a government-run health program in Minnesota through her husband's Christian mental health clinic." A Christian clinic?, What became of the values of honesty and truthfulness, or are they to be convienently ignored when politics is what's on the menu?
So there you have it, some of the leading lights of the movement that is supposed to "take back our country" and bring us back to "the values and wisdom of our Founding Fathers", have found it in their best interest to talk you out of the need for health care reform and insurance company oversight while they and their families are more than happy to benefit from programs they publically oppose. These Tea Party elites, who regularly blast the established Washington elites, have seen fit to insulate themselves and their families from life's vicissitudes while admonishing the rest of us to" work hard, be frugal and trust in the markets and what made America great in the past." The hypocrisy in all of this is obvious and undeniable. What is not immediately obvious is to what extent these revelations just weeks before the mid-term elections will give the independent voter cause for concern as it regards supporting candidates like Sharron Angle or re-electing a Michelle Bachmann. I doubt it will do much to dissuade the rank and file Tea Party foot soldier, but it may. That said, what the rank and file intend to do really is of secondary import, it's the independent voter who holds the key to both this election and the next.
There seems to be a growing sense of buyer's remorse among both members of the Tea Party Movement and Republican Party regulars surrounding the primary win of Christine O'Donnell. Buyer's remorse is a condition that arises after people have bought something or bought into something with a feeling of personal comfort that then disappears after the purchase. The buyer is then left with a sense of remorse over having made the purchase in the first place. Questions surrounding O'Donnell's ability to get elected and her past personal history have caught the attention of prominent Republicans like the head of the Delaware GOP, Tom Ross, Karl Rove, or Congressman Mike Pence, (R-IN). Pence recently said that while a verdict on O'Donnell's political future is up to the voters in Delaware, he also said that she has an obligation to explain past public statements. One should not be too surprised by the fact that more and more Republicans are uncomfortable with O'Donnell considering the controversy stirred up within the G.O.P. regarding how to accommodate the Tea Party Movement. Republicans officer holders and the G.O.P. leadership may pay lip service to the fact that is up to the Delaware voters to decide who will be their next Senator, but don't fool yourself in thinking they would not have preferred Mike Castle and along with him a chance at retaking the Senate.
Likewise her election has given rise to anxiety within the organization of the Tea Party Movement. The discomfort within the movement is evident in the commentary of heavy weights like Dick Armey right down to the level of rank and file operatives. While it's not surprising that established Republican office holders and operatives would be dismayed and at odds with the Tea Party movement, what is interesting to note is the degree of controversy that Ms. O'Donnell has created within the movement itself. Tea Party money man, Dick Armey, former House Minority Leader and head of FreedomWorks, the powerhouse advocacy group which has poured millions into the campaigns of Tea Party candidates declined to back O'Donnell and has yet to endorse her. Armey was reluctant to support O'Donnell in the primary, "largely because of concerns over her electability. Armey has been leery of social conservatives like O'Donnell, who is far more Christian Coalition than tea party. In fact, he has spent the past few years bashing social conservatives for trying to use government to impose their moral agenda on the rest of the country." according to Stephanie Mencimer of Mother Jones.The remorse over O'Donnell's election is more than evident among many of the movement's foot soldiers as well as the following representative quote shows: "Andrew Ian Dodge is the Maine state coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots, one of the largest tea party umbrella groups. TPP doesn't endorse candidates, but that hasn't stopped Dodge from expressing his own opinion about O'Donnell. He thinks she's a bit of a nutter. "Everything I've seen about her has made me laugh my ass off," he says. "What the hell do you say? First you have Alvin Green, and now you have her." His concern is that if she loses in the general election to Democrat Chris Coons, the defeat will be widely regarded as a reflection on the tea party movement-and he doesn't want that....Dodge also takes issue with O'Donnell's status as an "outsider." He explains: "Alvin Green is an outsider. Carl Paladino, who has never run for anything, is an outsider." O'Donnell has run four times for national office and lost. "She's not an outsider," he says. "She's a loser." Dodge notes that while it hasn't made national headlines, there is a reasonable and healthy discussion inside the tea party movement about whether O'Donnell deserves national support...There's video of her saying masturbation leads to AIDS. O'Donnell is on record attacking masturbation as sinful, decrying the costs of AIDS prevention and research, and criticizing the "lifestyle which brings about this disease." Further examples of rank and file discontent with the O'Donnell election can be found in the sources below.
Much is made about the fact that the Tea Party Movement is so decentralized, that it is a truly grass roots "peoples movement", this being the explanation given for the wide variations in the quality of the candidates that the movement produces. Whether or not the movement is truly "grass roots is debatable, but herein rests an essential question: If the Tea Party Movement is to morph into a viable component of, or a replacement for the GOP, can it do so given its current diffuse method of organization, operation and candidate selection? To what extent is the movement undermining its own credibility and emerging "brand name" by allowing candidates of dubious and questionable quality to represent it in high profile races such as the ones in Delaware and Nevada. If its candidates are seen as too extreme, to bizarre or just plain farcical, who will take the movement seriously outside of its own rank and file? And based on the polling from the conservative Rasmussen Reports; the number of voters who identify as Tea Party members is still relatively small. Rasmussen's August poll showed: "national telephone survey finds that 13% of voters say they themselves are Tea Party members. Thirteen percent (13%) more say they have close friends or family members who are part of the Tea Party movement... Sixty percent (60%) say they have no ties to the movement, but that's down nine points from late May." Fourteen percent (14%) are not sure. Prior polling by Rasmussen had shown identification with the Tea Party to be higher at 24%. That said the real challenge for the Tea Party Movement is to convince the independent voters that their candidates are worth voting for. There is more than ample polling to show that independents view the Tea Party in a less than negative light, but I suspect that most of that polling represents the proverbial generic and generalized type of question, one in which the respondent does not have to voice an opinion about a particular candidate that holds specific positions that the respondent may or may not endorse. And therein lays the root of all of the consternation surrounding the primary win for Ms. O'Donnell. She is the product of a system that has no apparent quality control and that lack of control has produced a candidate that raises more questions than answers as to whether or not she is fit for the office of U.S. Senator. The byproduct of this controversy is a host of questions as to the inherent logic, or lack thereof, of the present form of organization of the Tea Party Movement and its overall staying power on the American political scene. Is it as Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently said: "a fad" or is it an emergent political force to be reckoned with? Only time will tell. In the interest of full disclosure I have twelve members of my own extended family who are active in the Tea Party Movement.
Steve Gulitti
9/24/10
Sources:
Christine O'Donnell's Victory in Delaware Shifts Senate Expectations; http://politics.usnews.com/new...
Christine O'Donnell's Candidacy Leaving Some Tea Party Members With Buyer's Remorse?
Rasmussen Reports August / 2010: 26% Say They're Part of Tea Party Movement Or Know Someone Who Ishttp://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2010/26_say_they_re_part_of_tea_party_movement_or_know_someone_who_is
Rasmussen Reports June / 2010 :46% Say Tea Party Good for America, 31% Disagreehttp://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/may_2010/46_say_tea_party_good_for_america_31_disagree
Christine O'Donnell, one of the Tea Party's newly minted stars has revealed that she will forgo any further national media coverage so as to" focus on Delaware." Her last-minute cancellation of two Sunday show appearances two days ago garnered her widespread criticism, see the sources below. O'Donnell said her decision was motivated by advice that she received from Sarah Palin, but we can only assume that in addition to that advice, Ms. O'Donnell hopes to get out from under the media scrutiny that has thus far revealed a history of financial missteps, dishonesty and tales from the world of witchcraft. The real question is does she have the conviction of her beliefs or not? Does she think that she can effectively serve in the office of U.S. Senator from Delaware? A further, compelling question is why forgo free national exposure in the big leagues of the political talk show circuit if you truly feel you are up for the task of being a United States Senator? Don't the voters in Delaware watch television? Would not the news of her appearance on shows like Meet the Press cause the voting public to tune in to those debates so as to see what she has to say? As the days pass, the questions surrounding Christine O'Donnell and her fitness to be the a United States Senator only continue to mount and no amount of limiting her exposure to the media will help allay or deflect these very real concerns.
I can understand that Ms. O'Donnell might not relish the "meat grinder" of the political talk show circuit or that of the 24/7 cable network merry-go-round. However, if she can't stand up to challenges related to her ideas and beliefs, all legitimate questions in an election season, then how will she stand up to a crisis of national or even worldwide scope that she might face as a Senator? If confronted with another 9/11, an invasion of South Korea by the North Koreans or an Iranian missile crisis what would she do? Would she step up to the challenge or would she take the path of her newly found political mentor, Ms. Palin, and conjure up some reason to resign put pledge to continue to work for the people of Delaware by traveling around the country on the lecture circuit or on the talk shows that she had previously avoided?
O'Donnell Tells Hannity She Won't Do Anymore 'National Media' Interviewshttp://www.theblaze.com/stories/odonnell-tells-hannity-she-wont-do-anymore-national-media-interviews/
CNN: No more national media interviews, O'Donnell says http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/201...
