Those Tea Party Rubes Barely Have A Clue...

...and they don't speak so well. But they're beginning to grasp reality:
"The movement has matured into realizing that sometimes the “least of two evils” — as one activist put it — is necessary in a traditionally blue state like Massachusetts."
Actually, its always the lesser of two evils, even if the state is purple or red.

But the point is well taken. Us tea party folk are getting gooder and gooder at understanding stuff every day.


  1. It is a said commentary that the fire against wasteful government spending and business bailouts has now fizzled back to holding our nose. I am calling out to all people that are sick of this BS and want to be heard regardless of social agenda.

    The Average Joes/Janes Party is for reigning in government spending, prevent bailouts, and prevention of crony capitalism. The Average Joes want to restore the American Dream of hard work and opportunity that has been stolen by the government and its big business/bank donors. We need to stop pushing other like minded people away due to purity of social agenda tests.

    Here is to the Average Joes!

  2. @Sandy,

    You said:
    "We need to stop pushing other like minded people away due to purity of social agenda tests."

    Hmm. Not sure what to think about that. I mean, if I wanted to compromise, I would be a moderate who is flimsy and floppy on issues for the sake of "political peace" without regard to The Big Picture.

    In that scenario, the people will lose somewhere along the lines. I want America to win and to never again suffer the bondage of forced liberalism that is nothing short of Socialism.

    So, I reckon we disagree. There is no compromise for me. Ever. Compromise has brought us to this present moment in time as a Nation. And look at us now.

  3. ecc102 has it right! It's all or nothing... Do or die! A draw is not an option. Do you think liberals are ready to take a break?

  4. I hope you enjoy four more of the Joker, because there are a lot of people in the middle that just don't give a rat's butt about gay marriage, but sure do care about reigning in the government. I am betting that you focus on the important issue of the day of controlling government spending, you will find a lot of supporters. As soon as you force them to adopt the socially conservative agenda you drive them back to the opposition.

    I guess if the only desired outcome is a theocracy then you are one your way. If you want a country were freedom and liberty are important then there are a lot of angry voters that agree with you on that. Do what you want, but the Tea Party is over because it is being eaten alive by the business as usual Republicans. If I am wrong than why did all those Tea Party Freshmen vote the Republican party line on almost every issue. Everyone meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

    Sorry, I don't see how you turn this country around by alienating 40% of the population that is solidly in the middle (fiscally conservative, pragmatic socially). If you do the math even with 30% base enthusiasm, you don't win a single election. You have to offer more than the same take it or leave it agenda. I am not saying go liberal, but stop shutting the door.

  5. @Sandy Salt

    I haven't seen a big emphasis on social issues recently. And while I agree that there's no need for the GOP to alienate the middle, I see nothing to be gained from stepping on SoCon toes either.

    Social-issue discord is the last refuge of the cowardly statist, so I expect to see more social issue fear-mongering coming from the Dems in 2012 as they are the ones who have so much more to lose. But of course when (and if) the Republicans push back, they'll be the ones blamed for dragging social issues to the forefront.

  6. That is exactly why we need to focus on the financial and accountability issues. I am finding that there is still purity tests for anyone wanting to be on the Tea Party Team, which is driving some voters away. The whole point of the Tea Party was a protest of wasteful government spending by both parties, not just an anti-decomcrat/anti-Obama spending.

    I guess I am wrong because the movement is now just another branch of the Republican party.

  7. Screw the republicans, and screw the democrats.

    I want the republicans to stay out of my bedroom and the democrats {and republicans} to stay out of my wallet.

    Look, we need to focus on fiscal responsibility and accountability. We need to close the loopholes that allow multi millionaires to escape paying for the infrastructure they enjoy, we need to end crony capitalism and corporatism, we need to stop the foreign welfare {charity starts at home}, we need to stop sending jobs to Chins. India, or wherever, we need to repeal NAFTA, we need a cohesive industrial policy so we compete against the global competitors that are currently winning the trade wars, we need a government with some integrity and a broad vision, and it is time to tell the republicrats and the demicons to go screw themselves rather than the pooch.

    Forgive me my rant Tim, but I am getting fed up to my ears with all the BS that passes as intelligent thought, from both the democrats and republicans. Frankly I don't know what it means to be a conservative anymore.

    Classical Liberalism, a it of Aristotelian Logic, and a ample helping of Rand is really where it's at...

  8. Almost forgot, it is time to stop playing the world's policeman and tell the rest of the world to fend for themselves a bit more.

    Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Leprechaun at the end of the rainbow are just fairy tales. It's time the U.S.A reminds much of the rest of the world we are nor should be any of the above...

  9. .

    Sandy Salt - "I guess I am wrong because the movement is now just another branch of the Republican party."

    It always was. And in your heart you always knew it.

    The corporate lobbyists in Washington D.C. established the Tea Party and were using you to forward their anti-Obama agenda. You have to had been wondering why Fox/Murdoch Media hyped the Rubes so much. Who paid for the buses that took you to all those corporate sponsored rally?

    So are you going to vote for Romney?

    Ema Nymton

  10. Ema - If the question is for me the answer is NO. I support Ron Paul. The other person I can support is Gary Johnson.

    Lets cut the crap about Obama. He and the Democratic party hierarchy are using their supporters in the same fashion you accuse me me of being used.

    First I never said I was a Tea Party supporter. They have some reasonable ideas on the issue of fiscal restraint and responsibility , and some not so reasonable positions on other matters. Just like the liberal socialist clap trap that are the puppet masters in he demicratic party.

  11. No, guys like Rational Nation and I are going to look to push Cain forward to put solid business ideas in place that actually work. We need some one that understands tough times and that only hard work fixes things.

    We need an outsider that has worked his butt off to achieve success and does tells it like it is. The Tea Party was a big government protest movement that has just become a repackaging of the far right. It was not always that in the beginning, but it has been molded into that. There are lots of angry voters in the middle that are fiscally conservative that don't agree on the far right social agenda. I am very socially conservative, but that is a personal matter between me and God but my concern as an American is to reign in the government, stop criminal financial activity, and end crony capitalism that makes my elected representative insanely rich on $150K a year.

    I am an average joe that has worked hard all my live and achieved. I didn't do it via handouts and I didn't have rich parents. I did it through studying my butt off and getting a degree and then spending time serving this country in the military. I never ask for special treat and if I had I would not have gotten it because I am a white male.

    This country is filled with hard working people of all colors and economic levels and party backgrounds that are sick and tired of what is happening in this country. The original protesters were from all walks and party affiliation and they were just as PO'd at Republicans as they were Democrats.

    We need to keep that fire burning and force real change in Washington. We can't allow this to just slip back to business as usual because if we do we will get Mitt vs. the Joker and nobody wins then.

    We need to bring average Americans on all walks and backgrounds into the fold and say enough of wasteful government, big business/bank bailouts, crony capitalist, and secure our borders. These are not hard concepts and ones that all Americans should be able to support, so why are we saying anything different?

  12. "I want the republicans to stay out of my bedroom and the democrats {and republicans} to stay out of my wallet."
    There are no republicans "in your bedroom", but you've certainly learned the lines you've been handed, and mindlessly recite them on cue.

    it is time to stop playing the world's policeman and tell the rest of the world to fend for themselves a bit more.

    Yeah. Even if it causes grave harm to the United States, because 4% of GDP is just WAAAAY too much to be spending on keeping the world safe for American commerce to thrive. You people are a bunch of children.

  13. .

    Oh Chuck-ie poo poo,

    You always say the cutest things.

    Now run on and let the adults have their talk without your little name calling and hissy-fits.

    Ema Nymton

  14. Ema - Give Chuck a break. His mind is only half open. And the other half is full of fairy tales.

  15. American commerce survives by build better products at a price people want to pay. The say hold true on these shores. If you make it expensive to do business here then you only end up with products from elsewhere. Why do you think Canada is seeing a business boom? The weather? Or is it that they lowered their corporate tax rate to 15%, even with socialized medicine.

    You want to fix this country then clean house and put an end to the cozy relationship between government and business. End sweetheart deals and loopholes for every big donor. Level the playing field with the same rules for everybody, this is America where all men are created equal by their Creator.

    We don't need to police the entire world to ensure safe trade routes. You don't need five times the military of everyone else in the world to protect your people. Why do we still have huge numbers of troops in Germany? Japan? Korea? Why are European militaries so small? Who are we afraid of? The Chinese are buying up the world with our debt dollars, so we are going to lose any future battle (fiscal or military) if we don't turn that around.

    We have a lot of troubles facing this nation and business as usual is not going to cut it and having a euro-socialist in the WH isn't helping things. But putting the next anointed RINO in won't help either. He need a new plan and fresh ideas. Currently the only two people that are talking that are Cain and Paul, so there you have it.

  16. Sandy Salt - The partial reason for such a huge MIC {military industrial complex}, which is supported by both republicrats and demicons is this... It creates a lot of jobs, supports the contractors and industries built to support our global presence, and when it looks like the economy needs a boost, well, bingo... A new war. Somewhere, anywhere. Just find it and we can find the justification for it.

    It wasn't always this way. We we warned by the Supreme Allied Commander and later Republican President of these United States in his farewell speech to the nation in 1961. Dwight David Eisenhower, a real Republican warned us about what we have today. His words were prophetic.

  17. I am with you on this one. I am retired military and I love the military, but it isn't perfect and based on real world economics we need do something to reduce waste and corruption. Plus, the military needs a haircut, because how many additional flag officers and SES have been added as a percentage of troop levels in the last 10 years, 20 years, how about 100 years.

  18. "We don't need to police the entire world to ensure safe trade routes."

    And if all it takes is making stuff up, anything is possible. Nice work if you can get it, I suppose.

    Here in the real world, our ROI on defense spending is astronomical. Our navy is the smallest it's been since 1916. And it needs a "haircut"? Based on what other than your uninformed imagination? Do tell.

    "American commerce survives by build better products at a price people want to pay."

    That is simply asinine. Safe international shipping is one of the main reasons our standard of living has been able to survive the encroachment of Leviathan government. Your head is in the sky. Or maybe somewhere else. :)

  19. So we are the only Navy in the world and we are solely responsible for policing all sea lanes. Nice, but talk about head in the clouds. Our Navy has never been able and never will be able to police sea lanes they only force freedom of the seas. That doesn't take 11 nuclear power carriers and associated support vessels. Yes, I am first in line for a strong military, but at what cost and where does it end?

    As for the haircut, even the Pentagon knows that it is extremely top heavy and is taking actions to reduce flag officers. The only problem is they are converting them to civilians which isn't really helping.

    If you want a strong American economy you build affordable high quality products people want. You build a crappy car and people look elsewhere (see Detroit). You want to ensure manufacturing leaves you raise costs to the point of un-profitability and that includes taxes and labor.

    I don't sit around making stuff up. I have spent a life time in the Navy and fully understand freedom of navigation and it isn't actually policing shipping lanes. Economy is based on what people are willing to pay for a product, the government only skews this equation with regulation and taxation. Safe international shipping is a matter of what is best for commerce and little to do with the Navy.

    Just think how impotent our Navy has been against Somali pirates. If your Navy was all about policing sea lanes, why haven't they solved that problem. You see I do do my homework and you should be nicer to people you don't know and give them the benefit of the doubt that they might know more than you think.

  20. Oh by the way you question me, but you haven't answered my question about the amount of flag or SES that have increased over the last 10 years. Currently in the Air Force there is about one flag officer for every 1100 Air Force member, which is completely out of whack. It doesn't get much better until you get all the way down to the Marine Corp where the number is one for every 2400. The average for the entire military is 1 for every 1500. You can't tell me that this right.

  21. "So we are the only Navy in the world and we are solely responsible for policing all sea lanes."
    Responsibility has dick to do with it. The reality is we're the only ones able and we accrue much benefit from that position.

    "Our Navy has never been able and never will be able to police sea lanes they only force freedom of the seas. "

    A distinction devoid of any meaningful difference.

    "Just think how impotent our Navy has been against Somali pirates. If your Navy was all about policing sea lanes, why haven't they solved that problem."

    Refer to your own statement. Remember? Can't be everywhere and all that jazz? Prioritizing is simply part of living in the real world. That said, the inability to be everywhere is a piss poor argument for being nowhere. As far as all that flag officer stuff, I could give a fig one way or the other. I'm simply stating that our military is already about as small as it's ever been. There is no rational reason to make it smaller for the sake of other things that aren't nearly as important. That's my take anyway. If anything is to be cut, the military should be last.

  22. By the way: what are you thinking the budgetary impact of reducing flag officers might possibly be? You seem to have a handle on the subject, so I'll defer to your expertise. I honestly don't know, but it smacks of the BS arguments union pukes make when railing against a CEO getting paid 100 times more than the guy who cleans the toilets. Just sayin'.

  23. The bloat at the Pentagon is due to "Star Creep" and even they knew that the party was over because they have a plan to reduce the levels by 2014. The only problem is that they are planning on replacing them with SES, which is the civilian equivalent of a flag officer. It really doesn't solve the bloat problem by switching uniforms.

    Thank you for you deferment. The fact is that the military is not as small as it has ever been and its budget is almost double what it was in 2001.

    I am a believer in a strong military, but as you said it is a matter of priorities. We can no longer afford to defend those who refuse to defend themselves, that was my only point. We don't have enough money to do everything for everyone.

    Lively discourse is always a good thing, so thank you for your input and passion.

  24. "We can no longer afford to defend those who refuse to defend themselves,"

    Therein lies the rub for me. I may be wrong, but I just don't see a likely scenario in which withdrawal from maintaining the stability which we alone maintain doesn't in the end cost us MORE than it does now. I'm not a PHD in geopolitical stuff, but I do know that stability is golden...and not the natural state of things...and very hard to replace.


  25. I believe we have found common ground and I too agree that if we let things go to hell in a hand basket it will cost more down the road. I also know we spend billions in Korea, Japan, and Germany maintaining a ready defense force. Why are we doing that? We have the ability to fly aircraft around the world quickly and we have a huge nuclear force. We are we the major supplier of troops to NATO? Do we really need to defend Germany from the Russia horde? Are the Japanese in danger of attacking or attacking someone? I will admit that Korea is possibly the only one might merit our presence, but why is it only us and South Korea when it was the UN's war. There is another waste of money. A smaller military presence the world around isn't necessarily a bad thing, but we also have to show the world we won't be trifled with.

  26. I agree with you about NATO. There's no logical reason for it to even exist anymore. We won. The whole point of a treaty organization is who ISN'T in it. I remember way back some egghead suggesting that Russia should be brought into NATO. Hehe. Talk about a snake eating it's tail.
    All in all, I don't tend to second guess our strategic decision making. I think our presence in South Korea is a manifestly good thing for us as a country. Same goes for Germany. I think the best outcome from having been in Iraq will be our ability to have a constant presence there going forward. Call it "imperialism" or whatever you want. It seems to work. I'm not opposed in principle to saving money on military expenditures, but it sure as hell isn't the first place to start. That's my read anyway.

    p.s. I've never understood what sense it ever made to have a military base in Cuba. It's 90 miles from Miami. Hell, one carrier could subdue the whole island in an afternoon. hehe


Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.