« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Senate Tea Party Caucus Meets – Washington Post Mocks

By: Brian Darling (Diary)  |  January 28th, 2011 at 12:30 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The first ever meeting of the Senate Tea Party Caucus was convened yesterday on Capitol Hill and it was a great success.  The left wing media is doing everything they can to demonize the Tea Party movement.  It is not going to work. 

The Heritage Foundation sent a camera and here is a video of the proceedings for those who could not make the first meeting which was open to the public.

Here is the opening paragraph of the Washington Post story today.

The Republican senators who rode the tea party wave to victory in the fall are now weighing whether that label will help them on Capitol Hill or become a scarlet letter.

Why would being a member of the Tea Party be a “scarlet letter?”  I think Tea Party members agree that there is infighting between the major Tea Party groups, but the Tea Party movement is unified by an ideology.  All Tea Party groups want to shrink the size and scope of the federal government.

The Washington Post reported that three Senators elected by the Tea Party movement have yet to join the caucus.

Thursday offered the first clear illustration of their situation as the newly formed Senate Tea Party Caucus held its inaugural meeting without three of the senators who won election under the tea party banner.

Those three are Senators Ron Johnson (R-WI), Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Pat Toomey (R-PA).  That should not be an indication that there is a boycott by conservatives of the Tea Party Caucus.  It is an indication that these members are more cautious and not ready to embrace the idea of a Tea Party Caucus just yet.  These members should be judged on the basis of whether they support the Tea Party agenda.  Don’t let the liberal Washington Post create a schism between the Tea Party Caucus and these more cautious members of the conservative movement.

I was at the meeting and had an opportunity to see Senator Pat Toomey watching the speeches.  It can be said that Senator Toomey was in attendance at the meeting, so one should not be worried about a boycott of the meeting by Senator Toomey.  You might get the impression from the Washington Post that Toomey, Rubio and Johnson were boycotting and will never join. 

I get the impression that the lack of participation by other Senators is due to the fact that this is a first meeting and the Tea Party Caucus has not had time to build membership or an agenda for the year.  I would more so attribute the lack of participation by other members to early growing pains, rather than to say that the 45 Republicans who are not a member of the Caucus yet are boycotting the organization.  It takes time to build political institutions.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said at the meeting that the Tea Party movement has co-opted Congress.

Some said when people who came from the Tea Party were elected that Washington would co-opt us. Are we going to let that happen? The interesting thing is I think we’re already co-opting Washington. Before we were even sworn in, the Republican caucus got together – and this isn’t my thanks, this is thanks to Senator DeMint who’s been working on this for years – they for swore and said no more earmarks. Now, are they going to co-opt us? I went to my first State of the Union the other day and guess who now is against earmarks? The President of the United States has been co-opted by the Tea Party.

Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) said talked about how Senators will listen, at least Senators DeMint, Paul and Lee, to the Tea Party movement.

The seats that we sit in every day in the senate are not ours, they’re yours, and they were lent to us to speak for you here and we want to make sure that as we try to represent the constitution, our oath of office, and you, that we listen to you.

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) said that he is part of an organically grown movement without leaders.

None of us; neither Senator DeMint, Senator Paul, nor I, purports to speak for the Tea Party movement. The movement is what it is, far from a party or from any single organization. It is an organically grown, spontaneous, nation wide, grassroots, political phenomenon. The media has chosen to give us the name of “Tea Party”, and that is a quick shorthand reference to refer to something much broader. What we really feel is the need to stride towards something that I refer to as constitutionally limited government.

The first meeting of the Senate Tea Party Caucus was a success.  Maybe Senators Johnson, Rubio and Toomey will formally join at some future date — maybe not.  It really does not matter.  What does matter is that Senators Paul, Lee and DeMint are showing that they will be the tip of the spear in the Senate for the Tea Party movement.  Paul, Lee and DeMint will be carrying the ideas for the Tea Party into the Senate and Senators will either support or oppose the Tea Party agenda.

Tags:

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.notadriveby.com DF

    Maybe the Washington Post should focus more on covering what happens at events like this rather than mocking them and adding its liberal personal opinions to the news. There is a reason that the paper is in trouble and has been losing readers for a long time, they cannot seem to focus on news but rather focus on influencing their liberal readers.

    If any other organization (other than a conservative organization) with this much attention and support had a gathering like this it would have national news, tv, radio, etc, coverage without question. The drive-by media would be praising their platform and their purpose. Instead we are mocked.

    DF
    www.notadriveby.com

  • Marcus_Traianus

    intellectual observations and broad analysis of the facts? Reporting of actual events without influence of the writers political preferences? Please, that would take an old fashioned skill called journalism to accomplish. It is so much easier to continue malicious, unsubstantiated memes, myths and one-sided political propaganda.

    • Flagstaff

      Greta van Susteren on Fox has spent the entire week trying to get ANY available Republican to sign on to the idea of a split within the ‘Pub party, exemplified by Michelle Bachmann’s additional response to the SOTU speech and now the absence of some key conservatives from the Tea Party Caucus.

      It’s as if the existence of the Black Caucus means a split within the Democrat party.

      Am I mistaken in believing that the Tea Party Caucus is just a renamed version of the Constitutional Conservative Caucus that Michelle Bachmann was trying to start up immediately after the election?

      • Flagstaff

        that the quotation from Senator Mike Lee (in Brian Darling’s original post) came from that interview session with Greta, I believe. Senator Lee acquitted himself well.

        • Marcus_Traianus

          Her approach is more attuned to the legal field and certainly doesn’t qualify as journalism.

          Even if they want to argue it is a “news opinion” show, in my humble opinion it is poorly done. That is mostly because Greta’s approach appears to be based on forming an opinion then searching for validation. She attempts to perform that “validation” by asking a bunch of scripted questions designed to legitimize her opinion. She then presses her points in an interrogative style and rarely submits to someone producing opinion or evidence to the contrary until a segment runs out of time.

          I have zero use for that type of presentation. It adds nothing significant to the debate and appears to be self-serving and tendentious.

          • Flagstaff

            That was a pretty good description to come out of thin air.

            My own opinion vacillates from “Greta is a Wisconsin liberal” to “Greta doesn’t bother to research her topics” to “Greta is playing devil’s advocate to bring out the truth” to “Greta is dumb as a post.” I really don’t know.

            I find her very irritating when she’s behaving as you describe, but I watch her for the same reason I watch O’Reilly and Hannity–to hear the ideas of the guests she and they present. The hosts themselves rarely add anything to the debate.

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    Instead of worrying about a scarlet letter or being lured into the “get along to go along” mindset why not constantly remind the rest of the current office holders that they likely won’t be there after the next election and if anyone should be getting along to go along it’s the non-TEA Party representatives who should bend to the will of the people or kiss their perks/cushy jobs bye-bye…

  • earlgrey

    what they are dong. They didn’t dupe the electorate by claming to be a centrist to get elected.

  • edwyrd

    the stronger it will become. it is the focal point of a political revolution that will completely change american politics for generations to come. and the MSM will only aid and abet this revolution, bringing it about sooner, with its short sighted politicaliy agendized coverage. mark my words!

    and watch out rubio, we are watching you!
    we brought you to washington and we can take you back out!

    • carolina

      The liberal lamestream media hurts themselves every time they show disrespect towards responsible hard working citizens. Even folks who used to ignore the biased liberal media (and maybe even believe them some of the time) have had their eyes opened. The liberal media is going to lose this battle.

  • Scope

    and I hope he holds his ground on not joining what has become a one issue, one plank conservative message, controlled tightly by the national Tea Party organizations. Most did not want an Tea Party leader, they wished the movement to remain with the people, in small communities across the nation. Sure they were called Tea Parties, meaning taxed enough already. Not many would disagree with that message, but, it has become the only conservative message. Social conservatives, and national security conservatives are addressed no where with respect to the Tea Parties and their message. Read the mission statements, or core principal pages of The Tea Party Patriots, Campaign for Liberty, Freedomworks, Americans for Tax Reform, Tea Party Nation etc. It can be summed up in few words- less taxes, less government, more liberty/freedom. The only mission statement that includes the words “social issues” is in the Tea Party Patriots in their last sentence. “We do not take any stances on any social issues.” There you have it. I wonder how many Tea Party members or supporters realize that only their fiscal concerns are addressed, and any of their other conservative beliefs are not wanted or needed.

    Power abhors a vacuum, and those needing power for their own purposes were bound to rise out of the ashes. It’s unfortunate that the likes of Dick Armey, Grover Norquist and Ron Paul were the ones to take up that destructive mantle. Google Tea Party Leader, and those names are front and center. Dick Armey is so tied to the moderate wing of the Republican party he wreaks of elitism. Grover Norquist is a long time, well know radical islamic promoter in this country. Ron Paul is the little Libertarian squawk box, who spouts nonsense every day.

    • Scope

      that puts importance on all 3 conservative planks is the Values Voters Summit. By next year they will overtake a dying CPAC.

    • Flagstaff

      because a zebra isn’t a horse we shouldn’t admire its stripes.

      The Tea Party movement is what it is. Other conservative issues can be taken up in other venues, but other conservatives have no reason not to support the Tea Party movement. Low taxes, smaller government, and respect for Constitutional rule are something we should all have in common.

      • carolina
      • Scope

        The Tea Parties are a one plank, one issue movement. The social conservatives, and the national security conservatives need to get in the back of the bus. Thank you for acknowledging that. You say that anything other than fiscal issues can be taken up in “other venues.” Yup, you are right, the Libertarians have taken over the Republican party, but, it won’t last. No single issue advocacy group ever does. I’ll give you a hint, the traditional social conservatives outnumber your small contingency. Just wait until they figure out that they have been sold out by the majority of the Libertarian loudmouths, acting as the Tea Party leaders. The polling trends are not in the Libertarians favor, especially with respect to the traditional values most hold dear. That’s simply why the Libertarians have never gotten a foothold, and won’t in the future.

        • bgintn

          Chattanooga Tea Party Mission Statement

          Our Mission Statement:

          The Chattanooga Tea Party is a grassroots-initiated non-partisan outcry against the deliberate, irresponsible, and unconstitutional policies resulting from the growth of our Federal Government?s size and power.

          Principles in which we believe:

          1) Adhering strictly to the US & State Constitutions

          2) Reducing the size & limiting the scope of the Federal Government

          3) Protecting State Sovereignty (10th Amendment)

          4) Reducing the deficit & balancing the budget

          5) Recognizing the priority of energy independence

          6) Replacing the burdensome & unfair US tax laws

          7) Defending the Free Market System

          8) Recognizing the power of the people

          9) Maintaining a strong national defense

          10) Protecting and preserving traditional 2nd Amendment rights

          11) Restoring Traditional Values

          12) Instituting Term Limits as a means to address political corruption

          Note (9) and (11)

          • Scope

            I wondered if there were still any smaller Tea Party groups, as in those that haven’t just adopted the national tea party mission statements. Thank you for posting this. Maybe we can get more of the Tea Parties to adopt your goals and focus. I’d love to know if there are more like yours. I checked the last Republican Party Platform which was done in 2008, and, it still addresses traditional value and a strong national security.

            It bothered me that Marco Rubio was singled out because he wasn’t hot on joining the Senate Tea Party caucus. He clearly said that it needed to stay with the people, and as leaderless as much as possible, and it didn’t need to be taken over by politicians. I may be wrong but I think he recognizes the fact that some like Dick Armey and Grover Norquist, of all people, are claiming leadership positions.

            Dick Armey is the chair of Freedome Works, and is a co-founder of Tea Party Patriots. If you check it out, which I have, Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty has either folded into, or is sitting at the Table with Tea Party Patriots. Dick Armey made a public statement that the Republicans must show courage and adopt Ryan’s Roadmap, or threatened that they will be replaced. Look at Dick Armey’s background, and tell me he should be threatening anyone. Grover Norquist, on the board of CPAC, and the main event planner has all but destroyed CPAC, which was at one time the leading conservative gathering. It’s not only because he has allowed GOProud a more major role in the event, but, even worse has been his inclusion of a radical Islamist to not only be a speaker, but has been instrumental in getting him a seat on the CPAC board. Norquist has been called a Libertarian, but, if he is a Libertarian and not a Liberal, he sits in the place where the two meet and become one.

            Why would Rand Paul, a Libertarian with an R behind his name insist on starting a Senate Tea Party caucus when Jim DeMint already had a conservative caucus? Jim DeMint already asked that question, but, I suspect was forced into joining it with the 3 others including Paul. You can tell by Paul’s budget cuts proposal where his head is. He wants to cut an additional 6.5% from the already skeletonized Defense budget. He wants to cut off foreign aid, specifically naming Israel. The middle East is on fire, and Israel is at even greater risk, and he wants to abandon them.

            I like Mike Pence because he recognizes the value in all three major conservative areas. He made a great speech on the House Floor when a Defense spending bill was up for a vote. He said that defense spending legislation should only only defense items. The legislation included more money for the teachers, and some other inappropriate items. Indiana is very lucky to have such a man to represent them. Wish there were more of him.

          • rightwingmom52

            From our website, rainydaypatriots.org, local group started in Birmingham, Alabama

            “More than just Tea Parties. We are 13,006 strong and growing!
            A grassroots common sense group of everyday American folks from the heartland, who believe in, State Sovereignty, Enumerated Powers, a strong National Defense, and the inherent goodness & traditional values that our founders instilled in the Constitutional Republic that is the U.S.A.”

  • Paul Seale

    For people who live and breath government, like those at the washington post, being a tea party person equates you to being a lunatic and IS a scarlet letter.

    For the rest of us, it means you are listening to your constituents and sticking to the constitution.

    So the quest becomes: will the Represenatitive or Senator “grow” into Washington, or stay in touch with “we the people” and do their job.

    The choice is theres, as it is ours.

  • concap

    Movement, is a GRASS ROOTS ?A? POLITICAL MOVEMENT made up of AMERICANS and only AMERICANS, defending the Constitution of the United States.

    Politics is the reason this movement sprang up.

    The Tea Party needs to stay out of Washington.

    The Tea Party caucus must be dissolved.

    Putting a caucus in Washington now makes the movement POLITICAL.

    The fact that the Tea Party movement in not centralized makes a smaller target to those wishing it ill.

    Now instead of having to attack each individual movement, all they have to do is attack the Caucus.

    ATTACK THE TEA PARTY CAUCUS AND YOU ATTACK ALL THE DIFFERENT TEA PARTY MOVEMENTS AT THE SAME TIME.

    DAMAGE TO ONE IS DAMAGE TO ALL.

    GET OUT OF WASHINGTON.

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

        What concap seems to be saying is that making the Tea Party into a D.C. caucus, it becomes easier for the liberals and the media (but I repeat myself…) to point at Rand Paul and smear the average Tea Partiers by association.

        The problem with this is that most of the Tea Partiers don’t give a donkey’s left nut what the media say about them, so won’t be dissuaded .. and by going after Rand & Company the media only brings more attention to the cause.

        While I think a Tea Party caucus is redundant (and question the true motives behind it … why not join DeMint’s conservative caucus, eh?) I do not see concap’s prediction playing out as portrayed.

        Mew

        • concap

          I knew someone out their would figure it out sooner or later.

          I personally, have no problem with a Constitutional Conservative Caucus.

          I say Constitutional because no one puts in front of Conservative what they are trying to conserve. That?s causes a he#l of a lot of problems.

          There are just as many Conservatives on the left, trying to conserve what ever it is they stand for, like Socialism.

          As for my prediction, Lets just set back and watch. Hope i’m wrong.

          • acat

            I do hope the only damage you took is to your vocabulary. (grin)

            Mew

          • concap

            been sitting on my ars reading this forum for over 70 hrs this week, so that part still works and I?ve had three kids since I retired, so that still works.

            All is good.

          • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

            Seriously.

      • concap

        now that I look at it after it’s posted.

        Yes, a lot of redundancy and slightly hyperbolized.

        20yrs in the military has greatly limited my vocabulary and my ability to use words over four letters, in a social decorum, if you know what I mean.

        But i’m sure you get my drift.

    • boyydz

      Isn’t the point of the Tea Party to affect politics? If so, how does one go about affecting politics? By electing desirable candidates to office or by trying to influence office holders. The Tea Party succeeded grandly on the first method in November. Now you want these senators to NOT claim their Tea Party ties?

      The Tea Party is a brand that stands for lower taxes, smaller government, and increased personal freedom. I’m not sure how having some members of Congress align themselves with the Tea Party, and thus its ideals, is a bad thing. Indeed, in my view, it is a testament to the power the Tea Party wields, and it warns those in Congress to heed it. That’s good, not bad, in my opinion.

      • concap

        Not to be taken over by it.

        At this point in time, the people are running the Tea Party movement, putting people in or taking them out.

        Wither fact or not, soon the people will perceive the notion that the caucus is running the show and quit the movement.

        Just watch.

        At a very minimum, change the name. Do not use the words Tea Party.

        That’s just my opinion.

    • runner12

      I think some people in the Tea Party are overreacting to the presence of a Tea Party caucus. I understand why some are concerned or cautious, after all Washington is a cesspool of corruption. But to say it needs to be disbanded or that it has no potential to be positive is ridiculous and pre-emptive. I think the rule of thumb here is to closely watch them and how they vote and if they begin to claim to “speak” for the Tea Party as a whole. I think that is what Toomey, Rubio, and Johnson are doing. They want to wait and see where it goes and if it will be true to its roots.

      And concap, it does not matter if the Tea Party is in Washington or not. The Left will always demonize those who get in the way of their agenda. So, IMHO it is a moot point.

      • edwyrd

        “don’t organise. they didn’t organise in the french revolution, they didn’t organise in the russian revolution, and we shouldn’t organise now”
        he said this in england at a meeting of soviet dissident writers sometime in the seventies.

        the same message applies today. let the grass roots spread as they may, to cover every valley and hill, each blade its own organism of ideals and deeds. each blade a heart of its own will and action. untill an unstoppable tide inundates american politics and everyday life.
        to hold it down for definition is to miss its definition. to persecute it is to feed it.

        we see a marxist cataclysm in reverse, as america has reversed history. we see the great unwashed masses confirming a way of life, not revolting against it. the old tried and true split between rich and poor, which obama has worked so hard to ignite, is a no show. no marxist revolution here.

        sorry dumbass, delusional libs. all you’ve done, by abandoning the frog boil is jump in the pan yourselves as we got out. and we are going to COOK YOU GOOD!

        • concap

          “hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say!”

          • edwyrd

            thankyou concap

  • adumas

    Speaking of Scarlet Letters, how does that 18% approval rating of a pre-Tea Party congress measure up?

  • Common_Cents

    Oh, forget the 13,000 registered paid lobbyists who spend over $3 billion annually.

  • bobmontgomery

    .. is getting rid of the Department of Energy and the Department of Education a good idea?

    • carolina

      I think Rand Paul is right on! (and I have worked at a LOT of the DOE nuclear weapons facilities) Get rid of them!

      • bobmontgomery

        …that a lot of Republican elites would say “That’s crazy talk!” I say, “let’s get crazy!”

      • leftwing

        what would you do with the facilities?

        sell them?

        there are terrible contamination problems. would you do anything about the contamination?
        or not?

        • rickbull

          that we should do with the United Nations building: gut them and turn them into open air parking garages.

          Jimmy Carter established the Department of Education–and our kids’ national testing scores have been on the decline ever since.

          Carter also established the Department of Energy–and we have grown more and more dependent on imported fossil fuels ever since.

          The Department of Agriculture’s primary function is to oversee the states’ administration of food stamp programs.

          The Environmental Protection Agency has gradually become an Emperor Napoleon since it was established by Richard Nixon, and has done an end run around a failed piece of legislation to regulate CO2.

          These are bureaucracies that eat up hundred$ of billion$ annually, and do nothing more than oversee state agencies that could run autonomously. And the UN is nothing more than a punchline to a joke now.

          Not a reason to spend a thin dime on any of them, anymore.

          • gekster

            And have them do something about it.

        • carolina

          Decontamination is on-going at Hanford. The Nevada Test Site is still used for a lot of different missions. Savannah River Site still has production operations, and always will. (nuclear weapons degrade over time and have to be ‘re-fueled’).
          All of the National Labs like Los Alamos are still operating (should probably be consolidated and reduced to one)
          Decontamination is on-going at all of the sites, as needed.
          Eadh facility has different options and costs are being reduced over time.
          DOD could take over the weapons production. The rest of DOE just does stupid things like give grants for green energy projects.
          We do NOT need the DOE = total waste of tax $$.

          • leftwing

            You want to move them to DOD. That might save a little money, but not much.

            You say that Nevada Test Site should be used.

            You say continue operations at Savannah River.

            You say continue Los Alamos, but maybe at less cost.

            You say keep the clean-up going everywhere, “as needed.”

            I am pretty sure that the big money is in the clean ups. How much do you think is needed, and where? That is the real choice, not whether there is a DOE or a bigger DOD.

            Green grants may be very irritating to you, but that is chicken feed.

            The big cost is elsewhere.

          • carolina

            Then the facilities can be decommissioned/shut down. I don’t think we want to give up our nuclear weapons capability altogether….. so SRS and NTS are needed and operating. The overall footprint can/is being reduced.
            The National Labs should be consolidated.
            DOE is just excess overhead. Most of the mission funds are from DOD already.
            The “chicken feed” green grants are still a waste of tax $$.

        • carolina

          Decontamination is on-going at Hanford. The Nevada Test Site is still used for a lot of different missions. Savannah River Site still has production operations, and always will. (nuclear weapons degrade over time and have to be ‘re-fueled’).
          All of the National Labs like Los Alamos are still operating (should probably be consolidated and reduced to one)
          Decontamination is on-going at all of the sites, as needed.
          Eadh facility has different options and costs are being reduced over time.
          DOD could take over the weapons production. The rest of DOE just does stupid things like give grants for green energy projects.
          We do NOT need the DOE = total waste of tax $$.

          • bobmontgomery

            Isn’t this a lot more fun than just arguing about a “10% across-the-board cut” or a “Roadmap” or a “Blueprint” or an amendmen tor “fiscal responsibility”?
            Keep this up , Rand and Co. and we might just reduce Kathleen Sebelius to a whimpering basket case.

  • saterp

    A Tea Party legislator with a minimum of 2 to 6 years in his term, or a columnist/headline writer/reporter for a disreputable member of a dying industry?

    I doubt that the Tea Party caucus cares what the WaPo dweebs think. On the other hand, if those legislators cut the out of work handouts, the WaPo expats are gonna care a great deal.

  • givemeliberty

    As a teacher I fully support eliminating the the Dept. of Ed. In my opinion education (like most things) should be a state issue.

    • rickbull
      • runner12

        We need to drastically reduce and/or end the Department of Education. Some people may call that crazy, but they most likely have not spent any time within the school systems or for that matter talking to teachers. I think that the momentum has shifted and that many would support at the very least a drastic reduction in th size of the Dept. of Education.

        • http://minorcan-maven.blogspot.com/ minorcanmaven

          Very concerned, as a former home school mom, with the trend to think we need “national” standards, etc…the more the federal govt gets into the classroom, the more the parent and the local community is pushed out.

          We have HUGE waste, indoctrination, and sex in the classrooms. If we could get the federal govt pushed out, we have a hope of repairing things at the local level,,,

        • http://minorcan-maven.blogspot.com/ minorcanmaven

          “These members should be judged on the basis of whether they support the Tea Party agenda. Don?t let the liberal Washington Post create a schism between the Tea Party Caucus and these more cautious members of the conservative movement.”

  • e_rowe

    Both of them have extensive records as very moderate centrist Republicans. Informed conservatives never supported them because they thought they were conservative, only because they’re (originally) Republican opponents of Specter and Crist were so far to the left. It’s like when the Tea Party embraced Brown in MA. Sure some people were disappointed to see him go on to prove himself a moderate. But most people knew it all along.

    Be glad Specter and Crist aren’t in the senate, and start looking for genuine small government conservatives to run against Rubio and Toomey in the 2016 primaries. If there’s one thing those two have probably learned, it’s that they can’t take their jobs for granted.

    • Scope

      Where are the links showing that either Rubio and/or Toomey are moderates. Are you calling them moderates because they support a strong national security and traditional social values? This is exactly why I have called out the Libertarian leaning Tea Parties. I’ve heard on of the Tea Party leaders saying that Rubio has to be watched closley.

      Rubio and Toomey haven’t made their first vote in the Senate, but you are already calling for primaries against them in their next election.

      Yupper, the Libertarians have surely taken over the national Tea Parties. I’ll be happy to see their demise, sooner rather than later.

      • e_rowe

        Just look back at their records.

        Toomey’s scores from his own Club for Growth when he was in the House were even lower than Specter’s in the Senate were. He voted for every single big-government moderate proposal the Republicans put forth when they were in power. He voted for Medicare Part D, for No Child Left Behind, for the Iraq War, and against disallowing the invasion of Kosovo.

        Rubio, while in the state senate, wrote a book, called 100 Innovative Ideas for Florida’s Future, that is nothing but example after example of ways the government can try to manipulate things through central management of the economy. His background is entirely within the Bush wing of the GOP. He was a Romney backer in 2008. And he just named as his chief of staff a former Dick Cheney aid.

        I like how you do that trick with the word “libertarian,” where any time anyone is too your right on any issue, rather than accepting that you’re a moderate, yyou try to paint them as too far to the right to be conservative, so they’re “libertarian” instead. As Reagan noted, true conservatism IS libertarianism.. It’s not like conservatives are made of a recipe of small government on some things and big government on others. Conservatism is a philosophy that recognizes that role government plays in all of our great problems, including economic ones, social ones, and national defense, is a role where bigger more interventionist government isn’t ever the solution to the problem, but it is the problem.

        You can’t be a big-government Republican and a conservative at the same time. It’s one or the other.

        • Scope

          “REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals?if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

          Now, I can?t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don?t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.”

          With your apparent Libertarian foreign policy positions, as you have written them, it is obvious Reagan had your brand of Libertarianism down when he said “there are libertarians who are almost over at the point wanting no government at all or anarchy. There are legitimate government functions.” Reagan was very much in support of strong national defense, and increased the defense budget, and rebuilt a hollowed our military left by Carter. Don’t misquote, or misstate what Reagan stood for, for your own purposes.

          • Scope

            any day over Rand Paul.

          • e_rowe

            And I’m not the one who called me a libertarian. You are. I’m a straight-down-the-line small-government conservative of the mold of the Old Right who have been opposed to progressivism in all its forms since it first infected both of our major parties in the early 20th century.

            Of course you’ll take Rubio and Toomey over Rand any day. You’ve said enough to show that you’re as moderate as Rubio and Toomey are. You’re fine talking a conservative game when all you’re trying to do is stop Obama from increasing the speed at which our government goes down the same trajectory it was already on under Bush. But when Rand comes along and proposes $500 Billion of unconstitutional things to cut from the budget, that just gives you and your ilk the willies. Rubio and Toomey wouldn’t touch a list of cuts like those with a 10′ pole. And anybody who ever thought they would was kidding themselves.

          • e_rowe

            You’re probably right that I would be against Reagan’s bloated militaray spending, particularly when it cam e to expanding a nuclear arsenal far beyond the level and expense at which our nation could enjoy the maximum defensive benefits that arsenal could provide.

            But I do accept Reagan’s philosophy of peace through strength. The neocons, who are every last one of them far left progressives, don’t want peace through strength. They want war, complete with all the increased largess of government, increased regulations, increased taxes, and increased spending that go with it. And they want it in a never ending cycle. Reagan was no noninterventionist. But he very deliberately kept us out of war. And he despised the neocon agenda of democracy building. His and Kirkpatrick’s philosophy was rightly the diametric opposite of that. Whether I agreed with him on every specific or not, he put America’s interests first, and he didn’t try burden the American taxpayer with the responsibility of paying for and being subject to a global government and global policeman. He never would have gone along with the nation building schemes of Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama, that moderates like McCain, Romney, Rubio, and Toomey love so much.

            Here’s a couple good links about his much more paleo-con foreign policy.

            http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/07/think_again_ronald_reagan

            www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZICDg0FOUI

          • Scope

            you see how that works? I can call myself anything I want whether it’s true or not. You are not being honest, as your positions as to foreign policy are right out of Ron Paul’s playbook. You called Mike Pense’s national security position “progressive.” With that, have a nice day. You bore me.

          • e_rowe

            ?And to send any other message than our unwavering support, that we will stand with what the sovereign government and the people of Israel decide is in their interest, I think represents a departure from where the heart of the American people are at.?
            http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/02/06/pence-u-s-mideast-policy-should-be-dictated-by-israelis/

            So basically, American taxpayers are subject to the whims of foreign politicians we can’t vote out now, politicians who freely spend our money on taxpayer funded abortions and regulations against Christian proselytizing. If you think that’s not progressive, you need a realignment.

            When the regime in DC resorts to central planning it’s always wrong, whether the place they try to stick their tentacles is the midwest or the Middle East.

          • e_rowe

            I identified myself as Old Right. And then you claim that’s not honest because I once said something Ron Paul would agree with. But for all intents and purposes, Ron Paul’s foreign policy is the Old Right foreign policy.

          • catt

            I wanted to see where that Reagan quote posted by Scope about conservatism and libertarianism came from and found it as part of this 1975 interview in Reason:
            http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan/singlepage

            I found it fascinating and just I thought I’d put that link out there.

          • JSobieski

            The link you provided has been cited here on RS numerous times, but that interview is worth re-reading on a periodic basis for the remainder of one’s life.

            Reagan truly was a thinker.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            Reagan read and wrote prolifically on all issues of the day his whole life. He was a blogger before the internet.

          • kowalski

            Yes he was and much of the effort expended by the media during his Presidency was not coincidentally designed to “demonstrate” the opposite.

          • JSobieski
    • jamesmackey

      You’re right about Rubio. If anyone wants to know why Rubio didn’t join the Tea Party caucus just has to look at who he hired as Chief of Staff, Cesar Conda. Conda is the guy who circulated the e-mail last year trashing Rand Paul as not being on of us and getting Cheney to endorse Trey Grayson .

      http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2010/03/17/neocons-target-rand-paul/

      Conda was also a big proponent of Bush Kennedy, McCain amnesty in 2007-07

      http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/218417/no-proof-pence/john-fonte

      Looks like Marco hoodwinked a few Tea Party folks

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        lib-pc reactions to the AZ illegal immigration law and the BP oil spill. Mitch McConnell’s team couldn’t have been more swift and slick to appease the media and cave.

  • nov2012

    I think at 60 plenty I am old enough not to be co-opted by anyone and I would object vehemently if I saw the tea party members moving in that direction.
    I went to the Senate Tea Party Caucus to show appreciation to Senate Members that were prepared to reach out to the we the people. It is time to nudge the government to work with everyday, common sense Americans, who are rooted in the Constitution. I hope Senator Rubio will reach out to us as well.

    • e_rowe

      Starting some time around the summer of 2016 when reaching out to you becomes politically expedient again.

      Until then, he’ll do what the party bosses tell him to do.