« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Put down the signs

As our country spiraled into a black hole of debt and entitlements, I found myself puzzled that the free market of ideas hadn’t responded how I had hoped it would.

Just as nature abhors a vacuum, society normally finds a bright light to fill the void in times of crisis.  George Washington in the Revolution, Martin Luther King in the 60′s, Reagan in the 80′s and so on.  As we stepped into Barack Obama’s dream of “fundamentally transforming America” I became fearful of the future while confident in America’s resilience and Her incredible ability to produce precisely the person we need at exactly the moment we need them.

I knew  in my heart of hearts that if Obama became hell bent on destroying the country that someone will rise up to counter his efforts and thwart his opportunistic form of Progressivism.  As the Tea Parties began forming across the nation, I thought to myself “Ahhh, this is where he/she will come from.  Rising up amongst the throngs of people and offering an alternative to this mess!  Just in time to stop Healthcare from passing too!!”  Alas, this was not to be.  Healthcare passed and I looked around as though I’d been stood up on a date asking, “Where’s my leader?”

Some glimmers of hope appeared.  Paul Ryan of Wisconsin held his ground against the president and trumped him so hard on the numbers around the health care bill that Obama had no choice but to utterly ignore every single word he said and simply move on.  Embarrassing? Yes.  Effective?  Not even slightly.  While Paul Ryan is a great and important player in our cause, I’ve come to the conclusion (as has he) that true leadership is not in the cards for him right now.

Sarah Palin maybe?  Not so much.  She’s gifted, smart, savvy and unafraid.  But she’s found her role in the conservative movement and it seems to be finding talent and giving them the media attention they need.  That’s an important role as well and she remains a huge player, but once again, leadership is not on the table.

Well there was one man who told Obama right to his face that the Healthcare Bill was unconstitutional.  On the day of the infamous vote he defiantly yelled at his Democrat colleagues asking them rhetorically if they believed this bill was a good bill that the people wanted and then answering for them with appropriate anger “HELL NO!”  Yes! That’s the kind of leadership we need! It’s just too bad it was all an act.

Well what about Chris Christie?  He’s no faker right?  HELL NO he’s not a faker.  He’s the real deal.  A conservative with the right mixture of telling it like it is and common sense that I’ve rarely seen since the days of Ronaldus Magnus.  He’s been up to his ears trying to fix the massive problems that plague the liberal bastion of New Jersey.  Therein lies the problem.  He’s up to his ears in it and frankly doesn’t have time to take on Obama while simultaneously trying to fix such a financially ruined state.  He’s certainly a future contender, but this administration is moving so fast that we can’t afford to wait for him.

Bobby Jindal?  Despite his credentials and background, his Republican Response speech does raise serious questions about whether or not he is equipped to tackle an oratory master like Obama.  You need to either counter with streetwise common sense like Christie does, or you need to be able to take him on in his arena.  Jindal seems ill-equipped to do either at this point in his career and once again, time is not on our side.

Mike Pence?  He’ll have to do better than this.

Mitt Romney?  Populist disguised as a conservative.  He’s fine as a northeastern politician, but he’s not “the one we’ve been waiting for” by any stretch of the imagination.

The list goes on and on.  From people that are awesome but the timing is wrong, to “leaders” that true conservatives are chomping at the bit to get rid of in November.  My thoughts from January ’09 have not yet come to fruition.  You may think that I haven’t given it enough time, but in truth, leadership appears as a result of circumstance, not a calendar.  They appear when they are needed, and they are needed now.

Then this morning I came across this Redstate article by Erick Erickson and I realized where the problem is.  Unfortunately it seems the problem is with us.

We are splintered.  As I see it the factions are as follows: Tea Partiers; GOP; Libertarians; Social Conservatives (which includes Religious Right)

The left is splintered as well: Soldiers in Obama’s “army”; Democrats; Ultra-Liberals

But for the left, it doesn’t matter that they are splintered, they HAVE their leader.  No matter the bad press he may give democrats on a regular basis there is no denying that they have a smart, charismatic, talented leader to articulate their message on a national level with an army of lock step soldiers ready to do his bidding and spread his talking points.

Every time we gain ground with the public, they take some back after he goes on a speaking tour.  Lately this has continued to trend in our direction to where even when he gains ground it’s not as much as we’ve taken, but I don’t believe this can last without central leadership.

I hate to say it but I think the reason it’s our fault is because our protests have overstayed their welcome.  As many before me have said, it’s time to “put down the signs.”  I was none too please when Erick Erickson essentially said the same thing a few months back because I felt that the Tea Parties were a great way to involve previously unmotivated voters into being a part of the process.  I’m not here to completely contradict that previous perspective but I do believe that the time for signs that read “Honk if I’m paying your mortgage” are not producing an environment that will cause a leader to step forward.

I think the time for Tea Party protests in their current form is over.  The time for Conservative Rally’s is here.  We need to stop pretending like this movement is free of ideology.  It’s not.  This movement is about originalist interpretations of the constitution.  This movement is about low to no taxes.  About small government.  States Rights.  This is about Conservatism.

I don’t care if you’re here because you don’t like spending, you’re against abortion or you just really like the GOP.  If we can agree on the core principles of conservatism then THAT is what we should be saying.  We shouldn’t be getting together just to have some pipsqueak trying to hock a book that he’s selling on his website talking on a megaphone in front of people holding signs that say the same tired things they’ve said for two years.  We should be getting together and having leaders talking to groups of people that aren’t there in a rage but are there to figure out how to articulate our message, how to get organized and how to work together.  It’s ok to be angry at the government, but we have to educate and get informed simultaneously.  I’ve had conversations with people at Tea Parties before that made me CRINGE because of their lack of true understanding of conservative fiscal principles.  And looking to the speaker to fix this is generally a waste of time as they mostly seem to be there in order to get people to chant “U.S.A! U.S.A!” before having the opportunity to buy his new book “How I started the Tea Party movement!”

At CPAC it was completely different.  You had motivated people that while they were angry at government, they wanted to be informed.  They wanted to listen, to learn.  There were no signs.  There were no chants.  Just an exchange of conservative ideals as well as Scott Brown. (sorry I couldn’t resist)  The Tea Parties should emulate this but in nationwide scope.  From a movement like this, a leader WILL appear.  Someone to bring unity to our assemblage of conservative divisions as Reagan did a generation ago.

Put down the signs.  Pick up the mantle of conservatism and let’s take this country back.

COMMENTS

  • Common_Cents

    Tea parties reach so many new people. Rallies help make it socially acceptable to come out and realize that sick feeling you have something is very wrong, is shared by many Americans.

    Tea parties are the marketing and recruiting phase that needs to continue while a plan gets formed to channel all that energy into action.

    People are social and shouldn’t be left to fight as individuals against the system. Quit poo pooing the rallies and let’s channel all that energy in the right direction.

    Leaders don’t create movements, movements create leaders.

    • Ben Howe

      That was my whole point. The movement has been hijacked by self-interested wannabe pundits who are now in the business of manufacturing the appearance of inspired protest.

      Inspired protest is fine and dandy and a great recruitment tool. But once recruited they need to have something more to do then hold up a sign that says “not in my country.”

      Protests will and should happen. Giant organizations that are trying to make a buck off of the anger of protestors must end and in it’s place should rise a way to get people to be productively involved in taking the country back.

      I’m not saying never pick UP the sign, I’m saying if you have picked it up, and you’ve been holding it these last two years, it’s time to put it down and DO something.

      • acat

        Inside the GOP, specifically.

        ColdWarrior and the Precinct Project have been explaining the how and why of moving the Tea Party indoors since, well, since there were Tea Parties.

        Mew

      • Common_Cents

        Perfect is the enemy of the good. You call repeatedly for ending protests including the title of your diary. Rallies are one critical function to promote, recruit, empower. Like a big revving engine with potential energy, we just need to get that power to the wheels to get somewhere. Your solution is to take your foot off the pedal? How bout keep revving and shift it into drive?!

        What would happen to coca cola if they quit advertising and promoting?

        Ive seen this many times on RS about tea parties are overdone bla bla bla. Sheesh the left mindlessly chanted bush is dumb for years relentlessly and that was devastating. Tea parties need to get bigger and more frequent. Instead of putting them down for their faults we need to ask, how do we get all this power to the wheels!

        Please change your title and references to tea parties not doing any good and focus on how we can burn some rubber!

        • Ben Howe

          You’d know how ridiculous it is to claim that I am allowing the MSM to dictate my thoughts. The Hijacking I’m referring to are the idiots that I’ve seen as news contributors and book writers running Tea Party conglomerates while claiming that they “founded” the tea party. The MSM BELIEVES these guys, not me. I’m not buying what the MSM is saying in the slightest, so take that theory elsewhere.

          Furthermore, as I’ve stated numerous times, I don’t have a problem at all with protests themselves. In order to “put down” a sign, one has to have picked it up in the first place so CLEARLY I’m talking to people that have already been protesting for years wielding the same tired bumper sticker slogans. It’s great for getting people “revved up” like you’re saying but it ultimately has to produce something other than emotion.

          My call for action is simply a call for action. I’m not going to change the title of my post to accommodate people who are so emotional about the subject that they can’t even be bothered to take a moment to understand what I’m saying.

          The Tea Party itself should remain and should always be protest. What comes NEXT is what I’m talking about. Currently, these conglomerates are running around endorsing people and “speaking” for the rest of us and I for one don’t appreciate it. The Tea Parties were a grass roots effort made up of individuals with a conservative ideology. What needs to happen next is precisely what I’m talking about. Less protest, more education, more action. This will produce leadership.

          • Common_Cents

            Still have one question, why In the world less protesting? Obama got billions of free media, we need MORE protesting to invigorate more people. That does not come at the expense of action but rather inspire more action. There is no secret handshake for conservatives, we need the public rallies to bring all those frustrated individuals together to work together. More protests, more rallies will lead to more action.

          • Scope

            particularly with the NAACP calling the Tea Partiers racist, this is a good discussion to have Ben. First, no matter what group negatively responds to the Progressive policies in Washington today, they will be called racist. The only qualification it takes to be termed racist is to not agree with what the O admin. is doing, that’s it, pure and simple. It’s in their playbook for all to see.

            It is mostly true that many of the Tea Parties favor the Republicans, simply as a way to say we don’t want your Progressive utopia that has taken over the Democrat party. Currently we have 2 major parties, and, if you don’t like what one party is accomplishing, then you gravitate to the other major party. I don’t favor any third parties, it’s not the way to go. I see the many registered as Independents, or who simply call themselves independents, as a cowardly group, who vote whatever way the political winds are blowing, they adhere to no principles, even though the Democrats/Progressives have their own set of what you could call principles, even though they are all anti-American ones.

            I know of one Tea Party, just south of me in VA, that will not tolerate any party politics or affiliations to dilute it’s movement. They claim to be big tent, and won’t risk losing any of the supporters. I tried posting our own CW precinct project info at their website, and it was deleted. For that reason, and some others, I agree with you Ben that we need to move onto Conservative rallies, and, away from the big tent Tea Parties. I won’t denounce the Tea Parties, most any of them, they do incite people to come out and make their voices heard, for that they do accomplish a goal. We need to harness those voices, and we are in a political period where we can. Not only are the President’s approval ratings down (they should be even lower), but also the Congressional approval is at something like 20%, and, right direction/wrong direction is somewhere at around 60% wrong direction. We need to tap those unhappy people, and show them that there is an alternative, and, we must dang well mean it and do it.

            In order to move forward successfully with Conservative rallies, I suggest we not have any politician speakers, or any one with any one particular special interest. I’m sure there are plenty of people who have American Exceptionilism and Prosperity in their hearts and souls living in all localities that would willingly come forward. Make it local.

          • Ben Howe

            then I’m all for it. But what I’m not for is a group of conglomerates creating a schedule of “protests” for the next year.

            Every protest I’ve been too, I’ve gone because I felt inspired to go, not because it was part of our “protest calendar”. It just seems like that level of top down structure flies in the face of what a protest is supposed to be and softens the impact of what is being done.

          • penguin2

            are guilty of this very thing you are talking about. Gingrich is an example that comes to mind. The anonymous average American who has come forth to try and do something, anything–is not really guilty of this. It is the career GOP folks who latched on to the people showing up at the rallies and they have sought to bottle and market it.

            Two thoughts for general consumption: 1) I’m for doing both–doing more than carrying signs and carry the signs. Those rallies and events help stir up the folks and it helps them to find a way to connect and stay connected. I think that is vital. 2) We need a leader at some point, soon.

          • Scope

            what Ben is suggesting. He is not saying to stop the parties and protests, he is saying to direct those protests into protests that help the Republican/Conservative agenda. I’ve been to many Tea Parties, and have participated with their blog sites. There are many participants that are not sold on Republican/Conservative ideas, and candidates. They are there to “protest”, many for different reasons. They started out being both R’s and D’s and even third party supporters. Read my comment below about a local Tea Party that will not recognize or push conservative goals for fear of losing those that haven’t bought into those goals. In order for us to reap the rewards from those protests, we need to start promoting Republican/Conservative agendas and goals. We have the advantage to accomplish that right now with the current depressed mood of a majority in the country. Some Tea Parties just simply refuse to do that. I’ve backed away from those types, as they are still trying to make up their mind about changing the R party or changing the D party, and I say, Good Luck with changing the D party back to what they once were, before the Progressives took it over.

  • Bill S

    They get people riled up. The proof in the pudding, however, is whether those riled up people do something productive with their anger. Do they volunteer for campaigns? Do they donate money? Do they get active in their local party apparatus? Or do they just b***h and moan about things?

    I’ve posted before that the only real protest is the one that takes place on Election Day. And that protest is fueled by the sign-wavers, as well as the volunteers.

    I agree with your assertion about conservatism being the driver. But first we need to get elected, or it doesn’t matter what our ideals are. I’ve hit some folks around here before about sitting at home in the Barcolounger, being content with being right even though we are in the minority. Our conservative philosophy isn’t worth the paper that Burke and Kirk are printed on unless we have the political leverage to enact legislation that turns that philosophy into law.

    So, yeah, let’s move to Tea Party 2.0. But I’m fine with a somewhat long upgrade cycle so there are still some 1.0 folks hanging around, making sure that the electorate is pissed off at the bad guys.

  • renny

    and no one like a Reagan seems on the horizon.

    But, in this case, I think there is strength in conservatism “diversity.” We do not all have to be here on the question of abortion or the budget (the feds. don’t have one), o’s social agenda, the economy, or sex ed gone wild in public schools. Wnat counts is we are here.

    The “new” and “old” GOP have to avoid exclusivity and litmus tests. Even RINOS, if they can get elected, should be welcomed, as they will contribute to a majority and leadership positions in Congress and census reapportionment in statehouses.

    What counts is defeating the LEFT.

  • Scope

    I don’t even want to start to contemplate that one, it is so wrong headed, and destructive. Are you on a current trip to the motherland from Mars?

  • acat

    That’s what the Dems want, why they have vast tracts of urban real estate where their designated Dem shepherds make sure their voters get to the polls on time – several times if possible – and bring home the government daily bread.

    We’re supposed to be the ones who can think, who can understand why liberalism always fails. Dems have never managed to explain it… and most of the folk who vote Dem don’t even question it – of course liberalism must work, the leaders say so.

    Yes, there are different definitions of “conservative” – social and fiscal and small-ell libertarian, but the underlying beliefs of each group are based on individual liberty – giving people the right to believe what they want, to pray how they want, to live how and where they want, to pursue happiness to the best of their ability.

    Mew

  • jennytheproudconservative

    We can all agree on fiscal responsibility, abiding by the constitution, and getting back to a small government.

    We don’t need to agree on everything as long as we agree on these big things. If we get caught in the minutiae, we will be a house divided.

    Just please agree on these 3 big things.

    In a recent survey, Obama lost to an unnamed Republican. We may not need a charasmatic Reagan to win this one. But don’t take anything for granted.

  • Bill S

    “Conservatism” is not binary. There is NO litmus test that confirms one’s conservative creds. There is room for disagreement on virtually every subject. The problem conservatives have is that each of us has a slightly different topic on which we believe there is no room for debate, and as a result, we have the kinds of rifts that Ben points out in his diary.

  • aesthete

    IMO, there is a good case to be made for philosophical (NOT party), even if conservatism has taken a peculiar pride in its non-ideological nature. A movement that stands for nothing, by definition, is permissive of everything.

  • Bill S

    So let’s just kick out every Senator and Rep without a 100% ACU rating. Oh, but you say “The ACU ratings mean nothing!”. Fine, then. Come up with another set of standards. Whose do you propose using? How about I say that one cannot be considered “conservative” unless they oppose gay marriage? Or gambling? Or porn? Or maybe we should eject anyone who supported TARP?

    It is impossible to establish a set of conservative standards. There is no, nor will there be a single litmus test for conservatism. It is a continuum…not a yes or no proposition.

  • Bill S

    One of my favorite essays that touches upon this topic can be found here (It’s a Google cached copy – the WSJ has apparently hidden their archives now, so you can’t get to it through their normal page hierarchy)

    I find this observation fascinating:

    One explanation of the unity on the left is its belief that today’s divisive political questions have easy answers–but because of their illiberal opinions and aims, conservatives are unable to see this and, in a mere six years, have brought democracy in America to the brink. This explanation, however, contradicts the vital lesson of John Stuart Mill’s liberalism that political questions, as opposed to mathematical questions, tend by their very nature to be many-sided. Indeed, it contradicts the left’s celebration of its own appreciation of the complexity and depth of politics.

    (Emphasis mine)

  • Ben Howe

    It’s not about allowing ANYTHING. It’s about knowing what we will NOT allow.

    Some have a broader definition of how diverse the beliefs should be then I do, but its all debatable. I in NO WAY believe in the “Big Tent” because that is arbitrary.

    Conservatism should always start from the same place in my opinion, but how it moves from that point is debatable and diverse.

  • Scope

    you fall for anything. For me, Scott Brown is a prime example. I believe he campaigned on being a fiscal conservative, and, he was against the O administration big government takeovers. I don’t believe many expected him to be a 100% pure conservative, not even close, however, one would have rightfully expected him to not vote in favor of the Fin. Deform bill that does nothing more than give the feds more power, while not addressing the problems that led to the meltdown in 08. Fannie and Freddy, one of the main factors in the meltdown, was not even addressed in the bill. The Maine twins are also a part of those with an R after their name not having the first conservative fiscal principle in their bodies, proven by their vote for this legislation also.

    There has got to be some core principles that one holds dear in order to call oneself a conservative. As said elsewhere, even McCain calls himself a conservative, after passing a “bi-partisan bill to limit free speech- McCain/Feingold. I believe he said he was dissapointed in the SC Citizen’s United ruling. BTW, I just heard that Lindsey Graham will probably be the only R vote for the Liberal Activist Judge Elana Kagan. Ducky.

    Part of the problem seems to be that now that conservatism is on the rise, it is no longer like hanging a 900 lb gorilla around your neck, as more of the population allies with the term. What meaning each attach to the term is not clear, but, I would say that conservative fiscal issues would top the list, followed closely with individual freedom’s and liberties.

    Yes Obama and his administration, and the Progressives long before him, have attached their long term plans, and have infiltrated every aspect of society, all too successfully for too many years. They have invaded every aspect of American life, including education, religion, long held American traditions, destruction of moral values and etc., and the only thing left for the O to accomplish has been the fiscal destruction of America, and the removal of personal freedoms, so that he can complete the utopian goals of the Progressives. That’ll teach us bad bad greedy Americans.

    It is imperative that those that adhere to American Exceptionalism, that have a profound belief in the Forefathers vision for the Republic, and those that hold dear the rule of law, to make their stand strongly. If we do not insure that at least a base point is established for one to be considered a part of conservatism, we do nothing to unblur the line between freedom and prosperity, and dangerously fall close to the false promise of the utopia the Progressives have been selling. I am not promoting a long litmus test for conservatives, but, there must be some line that our R Congressional politicians don’t cross. To have nothing more than a largely unprincipled politician with an R after their name, is to promote a policy of “falling for anything, because they stand for nothing.”

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I don’t know the context but that comment title gets a 5.

  • aesthete
  • Kudzu

    George Washington was a leader… would you not follow him? Would you call the Soldiers of the Continental Army “sheep” or nation builders (as a famous painting refers to them)? You don’t vote for an individual cause he tells you want to do like herded cattle and you don’t follow a man into combat just because he tells you to (unless your North Korea, China, Russia, etc…). You do these things because you believe in the cause or the mission the leader has placed before you. So yes we need a leader.

    Leader’s inspire, they provide purpose, drive, and motivation for the masses that follow them. It is the masses responsibility to ensure the leader performs correctly and within the tenants of our Constitution, not to blindly follow like a lemming.

    Reagan was a leader. Obama is a leader for his cause. Some of the current GOP Representatives are leaders. Governor Christie is a leader… watch him on You Tube. Even those Congressmen who stand up in town hall meetings who actually defend Obama’s and their agenda, without lashing out, are leaders.

    Without one, we are lost and so it the cause.

  • hickorystick

    There is too much work to be done, to spend it protesting or complaining. It’s time to gather our calm but firm voices, and take our case to the electorate.

  • aesthete

    because a given candidate is not conservative, they are not useful to the conservative movement. I can count on my fingers and thumbs the CongressCritters who I perceive to be truly motivated by conservative principles, and I’d still have a few left over. Nevertheless, it is of value to us to support the moderates and populists in our party, for many reasons.

    I do believe that there is merit to viewing conservatism as a spectrum, but it is not unwise to have a cutoff point for what a conservative is or is not. John McCain, for instance, can not reasonably be considered conservative, ditto Scott Brown, GWB, and many others. Dilution of what conservatism is has made conservatives partisans rather than ideologues over the years, when the latter is far more profitable and useful than the former for the citizenry to adopt as a general attitude. In particular, American conservatism has certain inescapable ties to classical liberalism, adherence to the Constitution, and a respect for capitalism, markets, vigorous defense and negative rights that cannot be repudiated by one seeking to call him or herself conservative. Though I wouldn’t argue it for several reasons, one can reasonably state that at least some adherence to the principles that motivate modern-day social and cultural conservatives is to be expected if one is to call himself a conservative.

  • Bill S

    Tell me what the cutoff point should be. Provide some concrete criteria for candidates we should reject.

    I’ve been asking for this for almost 2 years now. No one will do it. And that’s because it can’t be done without throwing some very good conservatives under the bus…because there is no such objective criteria that can be used All I ever get is “well, they have to believe in personal liberty” or some such subjective statement.

    There was an attempt made a year or so ago to come up with some sort of “conservative checklist” and if one assented to like 7 out of 10, then they could be considered part of the club. Problem was…if someone didn’t agree with one particular point, then a bunch of folks would jump down their throats, as that was their personal litmus test.

    It won’t work. There is no objective measure of conservatism. There are degrees.

  • Scope

    n/t

  • aesthete

    There should be no rejection of candidates simply because they aren’t conservative. Sometimes, supporting the moderate or populist candidate is necessary in the interests of attaining conservative goals. However, American conservatism has a concrete, if broad, meaning, and shouldn’t be available as a self-descriptor to whoever wants to call themselves by that term. To that end, I support the exclusion of those not motivated by the principles of liberty, negative rights, a vigorous defense, and some respect for American traditions in their political decisions. Otherwise, you end up with the situation where David Brooks can claim to be the true heir of Burke (as he does), or where massively expansive government in the interests of effecting social change or increasing positive rights becomes conservative. I don’t believe that conservatism, as generous in anti-ideology as it is, is quite that relativistic.

  • aesthete

    He’s pretty good as a Senator from MA, and is probably the best we’ll get from there in a long time. But yes, calling him “conservative” stretches the term too much, IMO. There just isn’t that regard for liberty or the reverence for tradition that you would see in a conservative. In short: he’s not conservative, but he is a fellow traveler and conservatives should support him anyways.

  • Bill S

    Sorry, I must just be dense. I think we’re in agreement, then.

  • edintexas

    With Lindsey Graham. If ever there is a time when we need those who call themselves conservative (and the MSM calls conservative) to actually be Conservative, it is when the Senate is considering a SCOTUS Associate Justice (or Chief Justice). I have failed, over the past few years, to understand why the people of SC have elected him Senator. With his eliminating the ability to filibuster Kagan, I wonder if he finally has done enough to the Republic for the voters in SC to show him the door.

  • swami7774

    I’ve lived in MA for 21 years, and(to paraphrase Queen Michelle) for the first time I’m not embarrassed by both of my state’s US senators.
    Brown is exactly what he was as a local legislator–a moderate conservative. We knew exactly what he was when he entered the race for the people’s seat. He’s been exactly what we expected.
    Jim DeMint he’s not(alas), but Scott Brown is as good as we’re gonna get from Massachusetts.

  • Kudzu

    I don’t think its time to retire the Tea Party(?) so much as its time for an upgrade and do what Ben & Erick have talked about before: level up. You can be the biggest crowd, have the greatest message, right on every issue, but if you’re just yelling and screaming at the TV or phone, you’re the Self Licking Ice Cream Cone. It feels good to do it but it gets you no where.

    Now, we’ve seen this upgrade already. Candidates nationwide are taking up a conservative agenda and platform using the tea party (its not a party, but I had to follow precedence) as its engine. However, the problem is “us”, as Ben put it. Tea party organizations bicker, throw out, cry, sue, and lash at others. Fine… but lets acknowledge where it all came from and how it started.

    Government interference in our free enterprise and daily lives. Rick Santelli shouted it and less than a month later it took place. From there it grew and grew and has grown to this movement that consumes people and creates fly by night political savants. It brings out the best and worst in communities across the country, by “worst” I do mean “dumbest”.

    The tea parties need an upgrade or as my son puts it “you gotta level up”. Become Tea Party 2.0 like Bill puts it, someone pass me a red mushroom, I wanna be big.

  • Flagstaff

    It is no longer the liberals who are our primary opponents–it is the radicals, the Alinskyite Progressives, of which Obama is either the leader or Number Two. Liberals are useful idiots and helpful hangers-on for that movement, but they can still be convinced that Obama has fouled our nest. They are not invested in the destruction of the American system.

    http://www.redstate.com/laborunionreport/2010/07/21/breitbart-goes-fishing-for-minnows-and-brilliantly-bags-the-big-fish/#comment-1421

    So, for the purposes of WINNING, without which nothing significant is possible, the signs need to either come down or become tempered. Lower taxes! Smaller Government! Constitutional Principles! Eliminate the Deficit! Elect Conservatives!

    If the media had spent as much time talking about those slogans as they did trying to convince us that the few out-of-bounds posters were typical, we’d be well on our way to the national dialogue about issues that we want to have.

    The same goes for statements by our pubic faces. Think before they speak would be devoutly wished, not only about what they are going to say, but about how what they say can be easily twisted. Anything can be twisted, I suppose, but don’t make it easy by using hot-button words. Sharron Angle has already learned about this, or at least she’s experienced it. She said something about “eliminating government access to the Social Security lock box,” and it became “Angle wants to eliminate Social Security” in the Democrat Spin Machine.

    And save that fine turn of phrase for anonymous sources. Publicly, be circumspect. Even Van Jones knows it. “I’m willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends.” He only got in trouble because Glenn Beck dug up his past, when he talked more freely in public. Substitute the word “conservative” for “radical” and you get the idea.

    To put a fine point on it, the Close the Fed! and FairTax Now! signs don’t help, either. They are equivalent to Bring Back the Gold Standard! and they scare away folks who might embrace the idea of smaller Constitutional government and lower taxes, and 99% of the population neither understands nor cares about those issues. I’m just saying.

    That’s why Ron Paul will have trouble if he stresses his more far-out positions, or even mentions them, rather than his more mainstream ones. As we have seen. Leave these peripheral, obscure issues in your closet. They ain’t gonna happen unless enough of you get elected anyway, and that won’t happen if you talk about it. THAT is what Obama is all about, OK? He doesn’t let his dirty underwear show. Learn from him.

    One comment about Mitt Romney. He does have his problems, primarily within the Republican Party, but he brings to the table the right ammunition to defeat Obama–not just competence, but expertise and experience. To defeat the big Zero, the argument needs to have a big dose of “you saw what inexperience gets you,” Whether our guy is Romney or not, we have to be able to say, credibly, that our guy is at least an order of magnitude better in the business of being a President.