in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000.
| CNS | Well Then: Hoyer: ‘The Fact Is You Don’t Need a Budget’ |
0 |
| Ballot Box | 2012 Watch: In wake of Proposition 8 ruling, Santorum attacks Obama |
0 |
| Gallup | 0 | |
| NYT | 0 | |
| Heritage | Disturbing: The 2012 Index of Dependence on Government |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
Gaffetastic:
Vice President Joe Biden had his “oops” moment Wednesday speaking in a 49er-crazed SF when he told a crowd at a city political fundraiser that “the Giants are on their way to the Super Bowl.” - SF Chronicle, 1-18-12
Big Government- Sens. Ayotte and Shaheen: A Contrast in Honesty and Leadership on Religious Liberty
- ObamaCare Architect: Catholic Institutions Should Provide Birth Control as ‘Moral Imperative’ to Stop Population Growth
- The ObamaCare Mandate Against Freedom of Conscience: It’s Only A Constitutional Crisis Because Liberals Want Government Healthcare
- Hot Air
- Michelle Malkin
- Jake Tapper
- Legal Insurrection
- Lynn Sweet
Sarah Palin to Tea Party crowd: Time to pick between the two parties
Via CBS News:
(CBS) In front of a crowd of Republican Party activists and the tea-party movement’s rank and file here on Tuesday night, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin seemed to put a damper on speculation that she might consider running for president in 2012 as a third-party candidate.
Asked what her advice would be to conservatives as the November elections approach, Palin first lavished praise on the Tea Party movement, calling it “a grand movement” and adding, “I love it because it’s all about the people.”
But she quickly pivoted to the broader question of whether the Tea Party movement might successfully field its own candidates in national elections, and on that point she sounded far from convinced.
“Now the smart thing will be for independents who are such a part of this Tea Party movement to, I guess, kind of start picking a party,” Palin said. “Which party reflects how that smaller, smarter government steps to be taken? Which party will best fit you? And then because the Tea Party movement is not a party, and we have a two-party system, they’re going to have to pick a party and run one or the other: ‘R’ or ‘D’.”
Palin said that the Republican platform best meshed with the Tea Party’s creed. However, she mentioned that her husband Todd was not a registered Republican and that the party should be open to embracing independents.
I agree with her on this point and I’m glad to read that she made it. I’m a supporter of the Tea Party movement in terms of what it’s done to encourage straying Republicans to go back to the party’s roots. At the same time, though, I am resistant to any efforts to make the party into an official “third party” – and yes, I know some of my fellow Republicans believe the exact opposite; that their should be a third party alternative to the GOP because, in their view, the GOP has competely lost its way. My view is even though it has in some respect lost its ways, it’s still viable and is still our best option for spreading the basic core conservative message of lower taxes, fiscal responsiblity, and less government intrusion into our lives across the country. Right now the message is practically selling itself, in part, thanks to our celebrity President.
With that said I also believe that we have to be realistic and realize that there are going to be moderates within our party, especially in the Northeast and on the left coast, and that until – if – the conservative message resonates and takes root in those regions, it’s going to be that way for the forseeable future. Because of that, conservatives and moderates within the GOP need to figure out a way to work together and find common ground. Conservatives were excited about the election of Scott Brown, but Scott Brown is a MA Republican, which translates into moderate. His votes are going to please conservatives sometimes and other times irritate the you know what out of them. But we have to remember that he was elected by a majority of pepole in MA to represent them, not to represent any party.
It all goes back to the “politics is local” thing, IMO. That is how it works everywhere. The Scozzafava/Hoffman race is a prime example of that. It was close, but in the end, the liberal Democrat won against the conservative Republican because that district was not ready for a conservative representative in Congress. Had Hoffman and the prominent conservatives who took an active role in that race had more time to sell the conservative message, maybe he/they would have pulled off the upset but in the end, it didn’t work. That district has always leaned moderate to liberal, and that is how it stayed after the NY-23 election.
There’s also the question of “what is a moderate”? For example, some conservatives saw/see anyone who sided with McCain and Bush on immigration reform as a “moderate,” which I think is a shame because I was in the pro-immigration reform category but on most every other issue I am a solid conservative. If I ran for office as a Republican, would the Tea Party movement reject me simply because I was pro-immigration reform and allegedly “pro-open borders”? That’s the kind of thing I’m talking about. How moderate is too moderate for the Tea Party? Obviously an Arlen Specter-type Republican who sides more often with liberals than conservatives is more of a moderate – some would say liberal – than a conservative who disagrees with her fellow conservatives on a few issues, and clearly those types of Republicans are understandably out of favor with the Tea Party. But what about conservatives who have taken positions classified as “moderate” by some and “pragmatic” by others, such as my example on the issue of immigration reform?
These are the things we all need to think about going forward as the Tea Party progresses. Will it, as a conservative movement, help straying Republicans return back to fiscal sanity and responsibility? I think so, and I will continue to strongly support that effort. But will it help the conservative movement if it seeks to turn itself into an actual third party, challenging moderate Republicans who in some cases may not actually be moderates, in effect helping the liberal Democrat candidate? I believe it would, and for that reason, on the calls for a third party, I respectfully count myself out. Conservatives already have a party. It’s called the Republican party, and it’s time to take it back, while at the same time finding common ground with its more moderate elements until opinions in moderate to liberal areas of the country change.
Your thoughts?
Related Reading:
RSS feed for comments on this post.
20 Responses to “Sarah Palin to Tea Party crowd: Time to pick between the two parties”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Island of Misfit Bloggers
Stats
I may or may not agree with you on your “pro-immigration” stance; I wouldn’t know until I heard exactly what it is. I’m all for immigration; What I’m against is thieves coming across our borders to steal our schools, our health care, our jobs and, in many instances, trying to steal our land back to when it was theirs before they lost it as part of an agreement because they lost a war.
But that’s for another time to discuss. What’s relevant now is that, as long as “moderates” don’t try to highjack the party (which they’ve already done – that’s why conservatives need to take it back) and disassociate themselves from the guiding principles of the party, they are as welcome as any conservative in the party.
When the differences between the Democrat and Republican candidates for president are only a matter of relatively minor degree, there’s little reason for a “moderate” to vote for the Republican. It’s only when there is significant and clear differences that “moderates” will consider the alternative to a headlong rush into social democracy (Naziism).
There is no “meshing” the Tea Party with the GOP until the party has been purged of its leadership. It is simply unacceptable that the same one-world-without-borders-post-partisan-globalists that drove the GOP off of the cliff is still in charge of the party. I am just not interested in backing this party and will not be voting for their candidates.
Blowing up the GOP is our job for 2010. We mustn’t get 2010 mixed up with 2012. If we succeed in driving the Gangs of McCain out of power this year, that changes everything for 2012. If we once again fail to learn the lesson of holding our noses to vote for “the lesser of two evils”, the Tea Party movement will come to a crashing end.
If the GOP ends up presenting, Huckabee, Pawlenty, Perry or some other establishment polymorph, I plan to vote 3rd party and there is nothing that will change my mind. Even if it means losing to the Democrats. I don’t see that as a problem for the Tea Party but for the GOP. It’s their call.
The dumbest thing the Tea Party movement could do is form a third party which would only give election after election to the Democrats. They need to learn from the history of what happened in 1992 with Ross Perot and the Reform Party. They had no chance of winning and ended up giving us the Clinton’s, not just for eight years, but what appears now to be in perpetuity.
I voted for Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996 and am very pleased with the result. Had Bush been re-elected, there never would have been a 1994 Contract with America and the budget never would have been balanced for the next Bush to mess up again. The lesson from 1992 is not that it cost a polymorphic Republican life form from being re-elected but that Perot garnered almost 20% of the vote. He was actually ahead in the polls when he “flaked out” and temporarily dropped out of the race. HE COULD HAVE WON.
So the Perot example makes an excellent argument IN FAVOR of a 3rd party movement because a 3rd party candidate CAN win… with the right platform, money and something like the Tea Party behind. Finding another Perot candidate in 2012 could produce a close 3-way race that would leave the ultimate winner with nothing even close to a mandate. If the Tea Party candidate came in second, the GOP would be banished from history the same way the Whigs were banished.
We are winning and only getting started. Let’s not go wobbly and act like Republicans who have made a habit of snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory. Let’s keep 2010 separate from 2012.
I think you are right. For instance, early today I heard Judge Nepalitano {sp?}..on Fox say that the Tea Party people were against the Patriot Act. I thought that was odd. He is a libertarian and he is against it and I don’t doubt that he has spoken to some people in the movement who might have issues with the Patriot Act, but I have never gotten the impression that most Tea Party people are worried about that. They seem to be concerned about spending and the size of the government.
But it is very subjective and very fluid.
In Arizona Hayworth is running against McCain. If immigration is all you care about, then maybe you could say Hayworth is more conservative…however, McCain actually has a better record on fiscal issues and he was not associated with some of the kind of pork and earmark issues that plagued Hayworth. Once again, I think that to the Tea Party people the issue of fiscal sanity is the more important issue.
And of course there were the people showing up saying they did not want their Medicare cut or their other benefits taken away to pay for new and more expensive programs..well those people are not going to be supportive of someone who wants to make deep cuts in existing programs.
Here’s my “contract”; your comments, puhleeze !
1. To end corruption we need real campaign finance refrom…individuals only, no groups, publicly listed
2, To improve the economic lot of all willing to earn, we need to exempt from taxation the three components that make people productive, their health care expense, their educational expense, and their earnings re= invested in enterprise
3. To honor the American tradition of equal justice under law, we need to base taxation on any free association of individuals, not just on the traditional family and to apply the same tax rate to all disposable income of such groups
5. To assure the best value to consumers through the discipline of the marketplace, we need to separate our enterprises between those having competitive elements and those inherently monopolistic, such as transportation venues and utility distribution networks, and free the former from regulation while retaining it for the latter
6. We need to balance protecting freedom of religion from extremist groups, be they of any sect, with protecting the freedom of those very same sects to worship as they please
7. We need to balance protecting our natural heritage while also protecting each individual’s property rights
8. We need to assure that immigration into our country brings those who would contribute to our common wealth while excluding those who would drain from it
9. We need to make the compensation from loss in our courts proportional to the true economic and emotional loss incurred
10. We need to find a discourse above the pettiness that prevents universal recognition and embrace of these principles
Can’t agree with you Mrs. Palin, when you are standing by John McCain, who is a progressive. I thought the Tea Party was there to get back to constitutional roots. John McCain is proof of everything that is going wrong with our country. After you backed him, I question what your real motives are??!!??
This two year old article is as true today as it was two years ago… There is one thing for sure.. John McCain remains the same…yesterday, today and always.
By: D. Feder 2008
Before the chorus of amnesiac Chicken Littles drowns out the voices of reason, here are 10 reasons why conservatives should sever their right hands at the wrist before they pull the McCain lever in November:
1. Immigration: He’s not just pro-open borders, he’s Senor Amnesty — co-sponsor of McCain-Kennedy, which would have legalized 15 million illegal aliens, allowed them to bring in tens of millions of their mooching relatives (including the elderly and infirmed), given them credit for past Social Security contributions, etc. The Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector said McCain-Kennedy would have constituted the largest expansion of the welfare state in U.S. history (at an estimated cost of $2.6 trillion). A Republican who served with McNasty in the Senate said he was forever haranguing his GOP colleagues about being perceived as “xenophobes” for not supporting amnesty. At CPAC, he told conservatives he’s heard us. He’ll secure the borders first, then push amnesty — which, of course, will negate anything he does at the border. Build it — a welfare state that embraces intruders — and a fence won’t keep them out.
2. Multiculturalism: If his advocacy of open borders wasn’t enough, McCain has also opposed official English and supported bi-lingual education (two more issues where he’s out-of-step with the overwhelming majority of his countrymen). McCain even voted for an amendment that would have codified Clinton’s Executive Order 13166, requiring recipients of federal funding, like hospitals, to provide translation services in any language requested. (When it comes to pandering, cost is no object) . No wonder he’s a hero to LULAC (the separatist League of United Latin American Citizens), Geraldo Rivera and Juan Hernandez (his Hispanic outreach director, who says he’d like 7th generation Mexican-Americans to think of themselves as Mexicans first). Look for President McCain to make Cinco de Mayo a national holiday, give his inaugural address in Arabic and light an annual Kwanza whatever on the White House lawn.
3. Enviro -Marxism: McCain’s supporters think he’s just the man to lead America in the War on Terrorism. What’s the principal weapon of terrorist states? Oil. What does McCain want to keep America from producing more of? Oil. In 2003, McCain was one of only 6 Republican senators to vote against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. For McCain, keeping America dependent on Middle Eastern oil is a small price to pay to make the caribou comfortable. He’s also the proud co-sponsor of McCain-Lieberman — a $660 billion monument to the myth of man-made global warming (an industry-killing cap on CO2 emissions), which would annihilate tens of thousands of American jobs and make us far less competitive. By what twisted logic does open borders, crippling U.S. industry and energy dependence equal national security?
4. Class Warfare: In the recent debate at the Reagan Library, McCain called Romney a “manager for profits” (would he prefer a businessman who managed for losses?) who has “laid people off” — thus demonstrating how little the Senator understands the market economy. Jobs aren’t permanent — except for those who’ve served in the Senate for 21 years — and sometimes they have to disappear so others can be created. In 2001, McCain was one of only two Republican Senators to vote against the Bush tax cuts. In 2003, he was one of only three. Now, he says it’s because there weren’t matching spending cuts. Then he called them “tax cuts for the rich.” This comes from a man who never held a private-sector job and made his money the old-fashioned way — by marrying an heiress whose father subsidized his early campaigns.
5. Abortion: McCain’s vaunted pro-life voting record reflects the views of his Arizona constituents more than any real commitment. He supports subsidies for embryonic stem-cell research. In 2000, he told the San Francisco Examiner that “certainly in the short term, even in the long-term I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade .” (He later reversed himself under pro-life pressure.) Most critics view McCain-Feingold as an assault on the First Amendment, which it certainly is. It’s also one of the most destructive anti-life measures ever enacted by Congress. Under this so-called Campaign Finance Reform, a pro-life group can’t run ads criticizing the record of a pro-abortion legislator within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary. Needless to say, there’s no similar gag-rule for McCain’s buddies in the mainstream media. Elsewhere on the family-values front, McCain voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment. He says it’s because he wants states to decide the definition of marriage (the only instance in which he’s on record favoring federalism), which is the same as saying he wants activist judges to decide.
6. Judicial Nominations: Though McCain denies it, columnist Robert Novak swears the frontrunner told him prior to the confirmation of Justice Samuel Alito that the nominee was too conservative, and that he preferred those who “didn’t wear their conservatism on their sleeve” (like Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy?). McCain was also part of the Gang of 14 which prevented a rules change that would have stopped unconstitutional filibusters on judicial nominations. Former New Hampshire Senator Warren Rudman was responsible for the Supreme Court nomination of David Souter — the most disastrous Republican appointment since Earl Warren. (The play was Rudman to then-Chief of Staff John Sununu to Bush Sr.) Rudman has a prominent role in McCain’s campaign. Rudman could be President McCain’s Attorney General, giving him more say on judicial nominations than anyone other than the president. In his 1996 book, Rudman wrote that Christian conservatives include in their ranks “enough anti-abortion zealots, would-be censors, homophobes, bigots and latter-day Elmer Gantrys to discredit any party that is unwise enough” to align itself with them. With Warren Rudman at his side, it’s anyone’s guess whether McCain’s Supreme Court appointments would be better than Clinton’s.
7. War on Terrorism: We’ve already noted McCain’s support for energy dependence and his crusade for open borders. (Besides all of the rapists, drug-dealers and gang members coming across our Southern border, terrorists are also infiltrating the United States due to the de facto surrender of national sovereignty.) McCain wants to close Guantanamo and give terrorists the same rights as enemy combatants. He opposes tough interrogation techniques that leave no scars, but have elicited the intelligence that has saved American lives. (Personally, I’d use thumbscrews and the iron maiden on this scum.) A McCain anti-terrorism policy is more likely to be shaped by his friends at the ACLU and The New York Times than by the Center for Security Policy.
8. McPsycho: McCain is famous for going postal on his Republican colleagues — dropping the F-word, calling them f—ing idiots and worse. His dangerous inability to control his temper comes from a God-complex and an ingrained contempt for other human beings. One of his colleagues commented, “I don’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.” Given his mental state, McCain could end up nuking Terre Haute instead of Tehran.
9. Reaching across the aisle: This is media-speak for a Republican sell-out who conspires with the left. McCain doesn’t reach across the aisle — he leaps. Former Senator Rick Santorum discloses: “The bottom line is that I served 12 years with him (McCain), 6 years in the United States Senate as a leader, one of the leaders of the Senate — the number-3 leader — who had the responsibility of trying to put together the conservative agenda, and at almost every turn on domestic policy, John McCain was not only against us, but leading the charge on the other side.” Republican presidents who are unsure of themselves too often try to placate the other party. For McCain, working with the left is his natural inclination. He’ll turn to the Kennedys, Feingolds and Liebermans not as a last resort, but as a first.
10. Rally or Roll-Over: If a Democrat takes the oath of office next January, Congressional Republicans will find their principles again. From 1993 to 1995, without a majority in either House, Republicans fought Bill Clinton to a legislative standstill. They went on to win the House and Senate in the 1994 election — for the first time in 40 years — and to hold both for a decade. If McCain is elected, it will be roll-over time for Congressional Republicans — on taxes, regulation, environmentalism, speech-suppression, internationalism, multiculturalism, civil liberties for terrorists and open-borders. (When it comes to arm-twisting, Captain Queeg would make Bush look like Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm.) This time, instead of losing power for a few years, the party could be permanently discredited.
I, with Pride, wrote a check out to J D Hayworth !!!!
Sarah Palin left out the most obvious solution: Tea Party people should consider running and challenge politicians from both parties and gain control of them from the inside. That way, GOP can go back to its conservative principles and The Democratic Party can be wrestled back from the extreme left. That way, whichever party wins in the future, the abomination known as Pelosi-Obama-Reid monster will never be repeated.
Tea Party is made up by D, R and I people united for a common goal. That should be its strength and the source of real reforms of both parties.
$arah collected her $100,000.00 from the teaparty so it’s later for them! People were hoping for a third party and there still may be. The founder of the Teaparty has denounced Palin as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” and is taking polls about third party.
Diane:
I can not believe people ask what Palin’s motives are for standing next to McCain. He was the GOP candidate and she was his VP. She stood next to him for that entire campaign…and whatever people might say about how some staffers behaved or whatever, Sarah Palin is where she is today because John McCain picked her. So it would be pretty strange if she refused to acknowledge his existence now.
Pasadena:
So why didn’t you just vote for Clinton? The result would have been the same.
Oh yeah, you thought you would split the vote and bring the Clintons to Washington. There might have been a Contract with America without or without Bill Clinton as President. There is no way of knowing that. After all, conservatives felt the need to see Clinton impeached a few years later. It seems a tad hypocritical to be talking about his bad policy benefited you later.
DEO:
What founder of the Tea Party? There is no founder. People all over the country came out to oppose run away government spending. There is no founder. And to be honest, I think a third party would be a gift to Obama.
Why are those in the Tea Party so weak? Just because Palin has chosen to quit the Party just as she did her governorship doesn’t mean that the GOP is now okay. We should continue to grow the Tea Party and not let the GOP join us until they represent our beliefs.
I so tired of the GOP’s lies.
If the tea party becomes a party how long would it be before it is taken over?
That’s the secret to their potential strength, Russ. As long as they are only associated with conservative fiscal and/or social values, they have a heavy sway in what the voters will do and, consequently, how the elected officials will act (especially election years). As soon as they are taken over by some well-meaning turkey who wishes to use the movement for his personal gain, it will fall into intense bickering and effete nothingness.
As long as we’re associated with the movement, it’s our job to keep that from happening, just to keep the pressure on those from both parties. As they used to say, “Power to the People”, and the people doesn’t include party leaders unless they’re willing to give up their individual power for the good of the movement.
In 1860 the presidency was won by a 3rd party member. In 1864 the presidency was won by a 4th party. History teaches us one thing. To thy own self be true. If you are representing the tea party, then you yourself should stand firmly on the tenants of that belief. John McCain was a classic example of a man who believed that compromise was more important than standing by what he attempted to present himself as to the Republican party. (remember this is the man who almost jumped parties after his 2000 run for President) I laughed at people who told me he was going to be Bush’s 3rd term, when from what I heard, he was as much in agreement with Obama as he was with Bush. Outside of the war, where was the difference, and Obama has come around on the war from what I see.
As far as immigration reform goes. As a representative of your state, how does immigration reform help the people who elected you?? By keeping wages low?? By not paying taxes?? By putting extra burden on the healthcare system of your state?? Also, seeing what we see presently from the present party in power. Why would you stand in agreement with anything they are doing?? To agree with them, is to agree with a liar. Proven more often than not by their very words. – Lorica
Lorica, we live in very different times now. Back then it was much easier for a third party candidate to get on the ballot and win than it is today. The two major parties see to that.
Re: immigration reform, I’d rather not get into that debate. Been there, done that, still have the battle scars.
I didn’t leave the republican party. It left me. If I see a third party person I like s/he will get my vote. Even if it means 4 more years of Obama. The rep party will never get back to where it should be if we keep going back to vote for every McCain or Bush that gets on the ballot. Not any more for me. I’m done.
The point of the matter is that a 3rd party is viable if it wasn’t run by wackos. I personally am against it, but the reality is if a candidate would hold true to their principles, they could easily overwhelm the other parties. Most Americans are smarter than the parties give them credit for, and I think the American People are tired of being duped by the Democrats. Which here in lies the problem with the Republican party. Stand up for what is Right, or continue down the path to Democrat lite.
Regarding Immigration, I didn’t want to dig up that horse to beat it again either. But illegal immigration hurts everyone. – Lorica
Sarah got it wrong. She should have said that it’s time to decide whether you want “x” more number of years with another jackass or jackass wannabe or you vote for positive, real change back to the principles this country was founded upon, with a real, rock-solid Constitution that’s changed by the people, not the politicians or judiciary.