PostHeaderIcon Et tu TEA Party?

“(CNN)-Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich picked up a big endorsement Monday, from the head of an influential group.

Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips threw his support behind the candidate for the 2012 GOP nomination, who’s candidacy suffered setbacks early in the campaign.”

Is nothing dependable anymore? I know that Mr. Phillips does not officially speak for the organization he helped found in making this endorsement – but, I’m not sure everyone understands that. I fear this endorsement will have a negative effect on the GOP primary and on the TEA Party movement.

In the first place, Newt Gingrich is a 100% “establishment” Republican. As a reminder, to date, the establishment Republicans have been outright enemies of the TEA Party movement. They find some way to go along with the Obamanation’s big government, big spending proposals at every turn, despite ‘weasel word’ protestations of “opposition” at first.

For my part, I cannot imagine what possessed Mr. Phillips to make such an endorsement. Don’t misunderstand – I think Newt Gingrich is a brilliant man with a very refined view of the American situation, based on his knowledge of our history. That said, despite his attempts to make himself seem a renegade, he is most certainly not that. Nor does he have any real proposals other than modest revisions of business as usual. Mr. Gingrich had his day in the sun, his opportunity to make real changes, and he FAILED, being forced to leave his post as Speaker as well as his seat in Congress. Yes, I know he was behind the so-called “Contract With America”. I also know that said “contract” made no meaningful difference in the conduct of the federal government.

The last thing we need is another establishment Republican nominee, be it Perry, Romney, Gingrich or Santorum (or Christy, should he decide to run).

We simply cannot afford more business as usual. What we need is someone with ideas so different they will rattle the entire system. Someone who would dare to propose the elimination of entire departments of the federal government rather than modest cuts in the estimated future growth of federal spending. Under the establishment, that is exactly what passes for “spending cuts” – cuts in the projected growth of spending, never a real cut in current spending, much less the generation of surpluses that could be used to pay down the current debt.

My friends, America stands on the very edge of a precipice. And, there is no safety net below – only our destruction as a free nation, should we go over the edge.

I have been an active member of the TEA Party movement since its inception, thinking that it was our one, final hope to avoid disaster. Now, our co-founder seems to have jumped ship and that makes me very discouraged.

There is a force out there that wants to see the end of a free America. Is there no place its tentacles cannot reach, nobody it cannot corrupt?

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

5 Responses to “Et tu TEA Party?”

  • I always thought the more recent incarnation of the Tea Party was hijacked by evangelicals as a way to vent publicly without the Republican party having to take the heat for it. I keep expecting them to throw it under the bus before the election. Now it looks like they are changing the plan.

  • Daedalus says:

    I thought the “Contract with America” was responsible for briefly getting the deficit under control during Clinton’s reign.

  • ◄Dave► says:

    I completely agree with your assessment and lament, Troy. We are rapidly approaching the point of realization that our salvation is not going to come from the ballot box, no matter whose names are on the ballots. Realistically, we have already passed the point where anyone could make the systemic changes, which you rightly suggest are required to save us, without triggering a violent Greek-style uprising by the tax spenders. I have often referred to the 2nd Amendment as the reset button on our Constitution. Like it or not, and likely sooner than later, somebody is going to push it.

    That said, I don’t know anything about Mr. Phillips or what his motive might have been; but for the sake of discussion, I am willing to suggest it might have just been pragmatic. At this point, assuming we are even permitted to have another election, it appears that there is enough dissatisfaction with the Obamunist, to even overcome the massive voter fraud that will unquestionably attend it. Thus, since the Incumbrepublocrats have the system rigged to thwart 3rd Party insurgencies, whoever the Republican candidate is, will become the next POTUS. Like it or not, the ‘establishment,’ which includes the RNC, the incumbents, movers and shakers, donors, pundits, and conservative media, has an enormous say in who that candidate will be.

    While the TEA Party movement has been fun to participate in, and it certainly has reframed the debate, the fact remains that the majority of the sheeple still aren’t paying attention, and/or are inclined to want to vote for who they perceive will be the winner, rather than the rogue they might actually prefer to win. The ‘don’t waste your vote on a loser’ mantra is ubiquitous, and however irrational, seems to work every time. Thus, national polling consistently keeps the establishment types in the lead over the insurgents. It is not too difficult to become frustrated and convinced that one will ultimately prevail in the Primaries, no matter how hard we try to prevent it.

    It is probably too early to give up; but once one becomes resigned to that conclusion, one immediately is faced with the lesser of evils dilemma. When I look at the list you posit, including and especially Christy (who, since you left out Huntsman, is more RINO than all the rest, by a long shot), I have to conclude that Newt is much the better choice among them. Not only is he a brilliant historian, he is a renowned futuristic thinker, who is an effervescent font of ideas, occasionally a good one.

    I didn’t see the contract with America as a failure, nor his departure from the House as much of a personal failing. He was the original poster boy for the politics of destruction, being deliberately demonized by the Democrats beyond all sense of proportion. Having been trapped in a failed marriage myself once, I understood how easy it is to become enamored with a simpatico co-worker, and the inclination to follow one’s heart over one’s head in such matters. In other words, I can forgive him his past transgressions.

    I am also inclined to allow someone to grow and change their views and positions over time, because I have certainly done it. Nor, do I find fault with a politician putting his wet finger in the wind, and agreeing to follow the lead of his constituents over his own vision. It seems to me that this is exactly as it should be in a Representative republic. I know most sheeple are looking for a leader to follow; but I am not, and I want a representative to go to DC to advocate for my vision of America, not necessarily his.

    When one realistically looks at the power of POTUS, it is the Congress that we need to work hard to change, to get our economics back in order. The POTUS bailiwick is really foreign policy, and Newt outshines all (except perhaps Huntsman) in experience in that realm. Guys like Cain sound pleasing on the stump; but if elected we are pretty much going to be at the mercy of whoever he chooses for Sec State, etc. as advisors. When it comes to the infamous 3:00 AM phone call, I am pretty comfortable with Newt being the one to answer it. The rest, not so much… Paul, not at all. ◄Dave►

    • Troy says:

      I left out Huntsman because I know virtually nothing about him.

      A few years ago, I was a bit of a Gingrich supporter. I saw him speak at the World Money Show in Orlando, liked most of what he said, then poor J9 stood in a very long line to buy a signed copy of whatever book he had just published. I took said book back to the condo we were renting and, when I got to chapter 2, I found that atheists are one of the primary problems in America and we should be made to give up our citizenship. At that point, I wished Mr. Gingrich a speedy trip to hell and haven’t supported him since. I do realize that his fall from power was little more than payback from the Dems for what he did to Jim Wright (speaker for speaker as it were).

      I rate the Contract With America a failure because any good effect it had was only momentary. Such an exercise is a success only if it meaningfully changes the course of things and the Contract most certainly did not do that.

      Yet, I doubt that any of this matters because, if there is a 2012 election, Obama is sure to win it. The world is due a major calamity whether Obama engineers one or not and I am sure such a calamity will either ensure his re-election or will be the pretext to declare martial law and cancel the election.

      While I lack a crystal ball, in my estimation, the two most likely calamities are: 1: a nuclear attack within the US using material provided by Iran or Pakistan -or- 2: a general conflagration in the middle east -possibly becoming worldwide- set off by an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. o course, nothing rules out worldwide rioting set off by an economic collapse. There are so many calamities just waiting for the slightest thing to set them off that the Obamanation pretty much has a menu of choices.

      As for members of congress, we have just been re-districted such that we will get new representation no matter what. So far, none of the candidates give me much hope. We will also be electing a new senator, given that Hutchinson is not re-election. I heard a rumor that Debra Medina might seek that seat -which would be great- but the rumor could well be based on wishful thinking rather than anything of substance.

      Troy

Leave a Reply

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Political Spectrum
Political Circle

Think Up/Down not Left/Right

Archives
Blogroll
Internal Links
Other Sandboxes
T-Speak

Please also join us here. ◄Dave►