A Second Look Rotating Header Image

tea party

Tea Party Caucus Takes Shape In Senate, Sort of…

Re:  Tea Party Caucus Takes Shape In Senate, The Huffington Post, Elyse Siegel

Rand Paul Supporter-cum-goon Tim Proffitt stomps a woman's head

Rand Paul Supporter-cum-goon Tim Proffitt stomps a woman's head

A newly-launched Tea Party caucus in the U.S. Senate will hold its first meeting on January 27, Roll Call reports.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who announced the creation of the political affinity group last week, first spoke of the idea during the 2010 midterm campaign. Shortly after floating the concept, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) took it upon herself to introduce the idea into the U.S. House of Representatives.

Roll Call reports that Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) will be members of the new caucus in the upper congressional chamber.

“Republicans in the Senate have already made a pledge to end earmarks and fight for a balanced-budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” said Paul in a joint statement released by his office, according to the Washington Post. “By joining with my fellow Senators, Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Mike Lee of Utah, as well as grassroots groups who see the need for government reform, the caucus will work to enact real change to protect our country and its taxpayers from an ever-expanding government.”

Three. Three guys, Paul, DeMint, and Lee, making some back-room pact does not a caucus make. But! The great thing here is that we may see some fragmentation in the Republican Party. Finally. I knew that they could not hold the wall together forever.

The first rift that jumps right out at you here is the statement: “Republicans in the Senate have already made a pledge to end earmarks and fight for a balanced-budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” said Paul…”

Not true. Republicans in the Senate are actually pretty closed lip on the subject. This means that the majority of them actually want earmarks to continue. In legal terms, silence is not acceptance. But, I’ll bet the business/corporate lobby/interests in the red states are screaming. Earmarks mean improvements to commerce. They know it, we all know it and welcome it, even those of us on the far left.

Well, I’ve just got to say, three cheers for Rand Paul! The more the Right Wing© divides, the better.

Share

The Real Reason the National Debt is So High

People wave signs at a tea party protest. | Reuters Photo

People wave signs at a tea party protest. | Reuters Photo

First, I want to tell everyone that I have been nursing a nerve injury in my left hand. It has caused me to not want to type much as there was no telling which keys my fingers would hit. The numbness is subsiding some and I am able to work the fingers again. I’m back, somewhat.

The tea partiers rant and rave about the national debt, but fail to remember just how it got to where it is today. This is from an article back in July from Politico:

Sixty-one percent of the 697 self-identified tea party supporters surveyed identified the federal debt as one of the “extremely serious threats” to the future well-being of the United States.

They blame Obama, of course, but here’s the real reason our national debt is out of hand:

Re:  The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond

There is no question that the Iraq war added substantially to the federal debt. This was the first time in American history that the government cut taxes as it went to war. The result: a war completely funded by borrowing. U.S. debt soared from $6.4 trillion in March 2003 to $10 trillion in 2008 (before the financial crisis); at least a quarter of that increase is directly attributable to the war. And that doesn’t include future health care and disability payments for veterans, which will add another half-trillion dollars to the debt.

As a result of two costly wars funded by debt, our fiscal house was in dismal shape even before the financial crisis — and those fiscal woes compounded the downturn.

Where were these pasty old white men with their “big government” rhetoric in 2003?

Share

An Outline of Republican Party Troubles for November

Re: Lincoln Mitchell: The Republican Midterm Dilemma, Lincoln Mitchell, Harriman Institute, Columbia University, as posted in The Huffington Post, May 17, 2010 01:55 PM

After the Democratic Party took back control of congress in 2006, the 2008 presidential election emerged not just as an opportunity, but also as a test for the Democrats. The 2006 election had defeated, but more importantly, discredited, the Republicans. Had the Democrats been unable to win in 2008, it therefore would have raised the questions of whether the Democrats could ever win, and what the point of the Democratic Party was. Fortunately, Barack Obama got elected president in 2008, so these questions have been avoided.

Ironically, the Republican Party, by portraying President Obama as seeking to bring about the socialist apocalypse, and by stressing the strength of anti-Obama among voters, has spun itself into a similar corner today. Raising expectations is never wise in politics, but the Republicans have done just that in the last eighteen months. They have made this more of a problem by overstating the danger represented by the Obama presidency.

They have also raised expectations of victory in November through the constant droning of the right wing echo machine, i.e. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck.

The author here has made some very good points to ponder. He has made the case that Republicans have painted themselves into a corner again. Remember the box they put themselves in with financial reform? It is hard to justify some of their stances. I want to share his paragraph thesis statements in outline form.

1. [Raising expectations… by overstating the danger represented by the Obama presidency] has led to a context where if the Republican tsunami of 2010 fails to materialize in November, even loyal Republican voters will be forced to ask some tough questions about the relevance and future of their party.

2. Obama’s poll numbers, which fell steadily through the last half of 2009, have been reasonably steady this year. The tea party movement has not brought new energy into the Republican Party or become a new force in American politics, but it may continue to derail the Republican Party from nominating electable candidates.

3. The Republican Party has added to their problems by taking policy positions, notably their almost blind allegiance to the health insurance, finance and oil industries, which have pushed voters away and made Republican attacks on Obama easier to dismiss, particularly for those in the political center.

4. The anger and fear that many Americans feel towards the Obama administration is real. Obama, after all, very overtly campaigned on a theme of change, and change always scares some people. However, the Republican Party will remain unable to use this anger and fear to their advantage until they move away from the policies and positions which the American people have voted against in the last two elections.

The fear of Obama that the tea baggers hoped would sweep the nation like wildfire has only been a flash in the pan. Most Americans find it hard to believe that we are facing a socialist nightmare with the policy changes that Obama and Congress have implemented so far. Republicans continue to shout about Obama, but most of the noise just isn’t ringing true. Those folks who are vehemently frothing at the mouth over Obama are the 30% who would still vote for George W. Bush, and would never vote for Obama, or any other Democrat for that matter.

____________________________________________________________________

Share
You are protected by wp-dephorm: