Just when you think Democrats might get their imperious ways with national health insurance and imposing other Big Government excesses, along comes Republican Scott Brown. Against all political odds, he wins a special election in the bluest of blue states. It's the political upset of the decade. Just in time, too.
Desperate times means bringing in the Big Kahuna, President Obama, aboard Air Force One, to ever-liberal Massachusetts on the eve of a special election for the seat vacated by the death of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA). Yet Democrats could not derail the upstart Republican Scott Brown's stunning election to fill the "Kennedy seat" sought by Democrat Attorney General Martha Coakley.
In the realm of message sending, this is a real zinger. Brown's win signals a sea change in American politics, sure to shake the current Majority Party and its vaunted leader. And it renews hopes that Americans, given the facts, will react favorably to a common-sensical conservative message and we' re not talking Patrick Buchanan here.
It was an election to rejoice in, to relish, for a precious moment in time. (We dug out the leftover champaign from New Years' Eve to celebrated.) It is sweet particularly for conservatives and independents. (Privately, one suspects Blue Dog Democrats with their heads screwed on right, applauded Scott Brown's amazing upset.)
Independents being just that, went for Scott Brown by as much as 3 to 1, say the polls. They, so-called average Americans, made the difference. They saw clearly, and they didn't like what they saw on the national scene. God bless them!
Brown's 52 to 47% win in this bluest of states tosses a monkey wrench, for now, into the Majority Party's well-lubricated plans to have its ideological ways with health insurance, and other crucial issues, in this United States of ours, no subservient vassal of any political party, left or right. Scott Brown in today's Jimmy Stewart's role "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington."
It is premature to claim his win is a clarion call for slowing Big Government's overreach, its penchant forever to raise taxes, impose burdens, control people, and penalize the successful. Dangers are still afloat, not to evaporate in the wake of one man's win over the "Democratic Machine." But this triumph of the underdog pro-life Republican translates into a turnabout on the slippery slope toward what? — shall we say, toward creeping socialism? Can it be reversed? Brown's win is truly encouraging for us freedom freaks, still in tune with the Founding Fathers the Dems seem to have forgotten.
His victory spells danger for those uppity know-it-all Democrats nationwide who lemming-like would follow Obama over the cliff, no questions asked. Call Brown's win in liberal la la land Massachusetts winning one for the Gipper, for God Old Democracy. (Founder Thomas Jefferson would be gratified by the people's move..)
Hell-bent to "win" apparently at any cost, including their jobs, Democrats will promptly blame all sorts of irrelevant factors for their loss. Typically they do this to distract from the real reasons, ignoring the elephant (the gorilla?) in the room. Anything but face facts. (Elephant? What elephant?)
Well, it's the Dumbo representing the essential wrongness of their overambitiouserreaching proposal for health insurance. To say it is about "health care" is incorrect. It's really about who, in a constantly shifting shell game, shall pay for it. Always, it seems, "the other guy." Astute Americans are "on" to this shell game now. Hip hip hooray!
Toss into the toxic mix, Americans' reactions to Dems' costly, job-killing cap-and-trade plans, their plans to tax even big banks (making absolutely no sense), their dirty little back room deals and unabashed bribery, plus exempting Big Labor that liberally feed their campaigns. Corruption? Hey, what corruption? What elephant? .
Certain persons and preferred groups, you see, are "more equal" than others, in the Democrats' New American Way. (Think of pig Napoleon's "four legs good, two legs evil.") Big Labor, and certain groups are given preferential treatment at the expense of others. Fairness is the victim, along with Medicare, to be raided for $500 billion under Dems' plans. Wow!.
Democrats in hand-wringing mode will be united, to be sure, in blaming Ms. Coakley's poorly-run campaign, her malaprops, her foot-in-mouth disease, her previous actions as a soft-on-crime prosecutor, her loving embrace of enemy combatants to be covered as U.S. Citizens under the U.S. Constitution. She had plenty of warts to overcome. No baseball fan, either, she called Bosox World Series hero Curt Schilling "a Yankee fan," before recanting. Why, that's like calling Lou Gehrig a Dodger.) Giving up a 30 point lead in the polls to a rank outsider, the hitherto unknown "Mr. Smith, played by Jimmy Stewart – er, Scott Brown – must be a bitter pill to swallow.
In the end, all the king's horses, with Air Force One on the tarmac, and all the kings' advisers and whiz kids, could not put Ms. Coakley back together again after her tumble from the wall of political invincibility. She was clearly outclassed by Scott Brown.
Despite putting the blame on "other factors," the elephantine issue in this race remained Obamacare. It is inaccurately , imprecisely called "health care reform" by its devotees — including most of mainstream media, falling in line with their ideological soul mates, liberal Democrats. Call it what they will, but it is NOT "reform," with a nod to George Orwell's forever penetrating essay, "Politics and the English Language." Change the meaning of language, and you might just alter people's perception of reality. Some game.
"Reform" (a.k,a. "overhaul) is more like reshaping one-sixteenth of the nation's economy, making for a slippery slope toward a one-payer socialistic health insurance, with Big Government in charge. Wait! Scott Brown's people , and independent thinkers, step into the secret ballot box, the same one Ms. Coakley doesn't want for union members (under the Employee Free Choice Act – see Orwell, again) to say, NO. Not on their watch.
Remember Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle? It's a fate awaiting a new Senate Majority Leader, from Nevada, but not, alas, his counterpart in the House, the unsinkable left-liberal, Nancy Pelosi, safe in her San Francisco district.
Fundamental honesty does seem not to phase ardent Democrats. They wrap themselves in powerful Senate and House positions, blind to reality, and fire off misrepresentations of their opponents' positions. That is, when not demonizing their foes for partisan gain. Name-calling substitutes for honest issue debate,. Facts are lost in the fog of politics-as-usual. Winning becomes Everything. But now, the public is "on" to such political chicanery.
The special election is a shot heard 'round the United States. It will crop up in elections to come, and in campaigns to be waged – honestly, it is hoped, on public issues. Senator Brown's win can only encourage other sensible, like-minded , truth-seeking conservatives to enter races to which they had been excluded by public ignorance, or by party-line loyalties, or by gerrymandered political fiefdoms. "The Kennedy seat," they said? No longer.
The big win proves among other things, the left will stoop to new lows to smear its foes. That's what happened in my home state, Minnesota, when "Crazy Al" Franken assumed the 60th Senate seat, by hoodwinking the folks, and adjusting the election results through clever lawyering and pre-election ACORN flim-flam.
Franken's dark game worked among Minnesota's presumably "educated" people, fooled by raw campaign rhetoric, by party lies and misrepresentations. If it worked there, so why not likewise in blue state Massachusetts?
Because, frankly, unlike Franken's falwed, faux win in Minnesota, a majority of smarter-than-average bears Bay Staters, fed up with shenanigans, saw through the smears, through the kowtowing to special interests, through the lies put out by one big union, painting Brown somehow as an nemy of rape victims, of all people! Can you imagine that? Boggles the mind. No wonder a defamation lawsuit was brought against the union. Bully for the truth, even if liberal judges are likely to dismiss it as fair game in the ugliest of politics.
Party bosses must be wringing their hands. An incontrovertible fact confronts them: Unpopular is their plan for the eventual certain take over of health insurance in America, en route to other Big Government triumphs, such as costly cap-and-trade, taxing death (well, okay, estates then) and God knows what else moves their control-the-people mentality.
Pity the Democrats. They mean no harm. Really! Good intentions rule.
At the end of his brilliant, ah-shucks campaign, just after the fly-in visitor on Air Force One came to stump for his Ms. Coakley (who, ironically, supported Hillary Clinton in 2008) Scott Brown spoke of some of the mendacity he faced along the long campaign trial:
"The president may recall as well how much he used to talk about a new kind of politics — about campaigns based on conviction, instead of false and small-minded negative ads. Well, as long as he's paying a visit, he might want to talk to Martha about that. Not only are her ads negative, they are malicious. How quickly the politics of hope have become replaced by the politics of desperation. Shame on Martha."
Indeed, shame on the Democrat' apparatchhiks in Massachusetts, at the DNC level, at the Service Employees International Union, for spewing – yes, that – lies. Onions also to ACORN, Franken's little helpers in Minnesota, and to news media for attempting, unsuccessfully it turns out, to shield the public from sure-fire knowledge.
Losing "the Kennedy seat" it held so long was not a proud moment for the Democratic Party of control, control, control. Will the party, or can it, retool to face reality? To work WITH Republicans, not to vilify and demonetize them, or call them names. Are Democrats to rise above somehow, someday, their churlish, savage political ways? Ah, we shall see.
What happens after Scott Brown's Big Win? Some sneaky end run to denytemporarily the new senator his rightful seat? Says our Massachusetts friend Carolyn Abbott, one-time editor of Americas' Voices and Loud Citizen:
"We all expect the [Democrats'] machine to delay certifying the election…and for the Senate to delay swearing him in, to deny the voters. Process may suffer here. But it's hard to believe they think being so blatantly partisan will buy them support, given the intensity of the national interest in the race. But it could happen."
Indeed. When "anything goes," beware of surprises. If "they," the powers that still be in the Bay State, seek to stonewall Brown's timely entry into the Senate, they do so at their continued peril,maybe for the ages. Because the pendulum, you see, is swinging perceptibly to the right as traditional American values, old stuff, reassert themselves, enshrined by We the People with Freedom itself at the top of the list. Let Freedom ring throughout the land, as John Adams once proclaimed for the Fourth of July. T. Jefferson would nod approvingly. The People, YES!
(Editors' note: I.C. columnist Larson's review of Al Franken's campaign for a Senate seat in his home state, Minnesota, is found in "Franken's Dubious Win: A Gloomy Postmortem," as posted July 7, 2009.)
Gary,
In your post you state; “That’s what happened in my home state, Minnesota, when “Crazy Al” Franken assumed the 60th Senate seat, by hoodwinking the folks, and adjusting the election results through clever lawyering and pre-election ACORN flim-flam.”
The mistake, in my opinion, that Norm Coleman made was winning by only hundreds of votes. Any close election is an election that the progressives can steal.
Scott Brown did it right. He whipped Coakley by an un-stealable margin. I can almost hear her campaign handlers saying; “Ya’ know; five or six hundred we can do something about. But Martha, even Rahm Emanuel himself couldn’t ‘adjust’ 60,000 votes from Scott’s column to yours!”
This is the new challenge of conservative candidates. It’s not enough just to win. You have to win by such a wide margin that progressives would have to don a mask and a gun and hijack the election in open daylight to win.
It is no longer enough just to squeek by. We must win by 5 or more percentage points.
In an orgy of gloating, Conservative writers can talk of nothing but Brown’s victory. Obama, they claim, looks like a “failure” and more than likely it’s the end of “Obamacare” as we almost came to know it. But it’s hard to believe one election vindicates a belief that Americans are basically Conservatives and Republican voters by nature. Another interpretation of Brown’s victory is that the voters, who voted for Obama in overwhelming numbers a little over a year ago, are already fed up with him and his Democrats and voted against him rather than for Republicans, at least in one Democratic Party loyalist stronghold.
And why the change of heart? Because folks are hurting and Obama, who had promised miracles in their minds, has delivered nothing but flops in hundred billion dollar increments. As Phil Jackson often says on this website: You can vote Republican or you can allow those other guys to get in – and we all know what he means by that. What surprised everyone are those heaven blessed Democrats who managed to self-destruct so quickly – they usually do exactly that when they gain power, but don’t set a new land speed record in the process. However, the question is: Are Republicans prepared to learn something or do they just bill themselves as “we’re not Democrats, so vote for us”? Learning “something” could be very important if Republicans want to repeat their victory in the playoffs.
Everywhere I look in my business relationships there is economic pain at the individual level. Folks are out of work, not for a few months, but for over a year and still counting. Working wives and mothers are looking for part time work to supplement their day jobs, while husbands sit home surfing the web for imaginary job opportunities and foregoing part time jobs to keep the unemployment money coming in. It can make more economic sense to sit home doing nothing than to take a part time job whipping up lattes at Starbucks, which pays less per week in actual take home pay than unemployment, even after you throw in the free cappuccinos.
Job openings, which in the past solicited 50 qualified resumes, will now receive 500. The effect on families with one or both wage earners out of work has been devastating, kids are being told to find jobs if they want spending money or need textbooks – find jobs – sure, find those jobs which no one else can find in the present economy. Everybody else is clinging desperately to a job and keeping a tight lid on spending; we can be ruefully proud of the fact Americans are finally replenishing saving accounts and paying down debt at record levels. The aptly named “Great Recession” isn’t turning out to be just another short term contraction in the business cycle. At present, businesses I work with aren’t looking to increase hiring, there’s still too much uncertainty in the markets, maybe a few temps will be hired, but temporary work force furloughs, where employees are required to take time off without pay, remain very popular with worried managers until “Business” can determine which direction the flea will jump when leaving the frying pan.
What Republicans need to learn is stop peddling those principles which win elections but are soon forgotten once you’re elected; instead, focus on specific issues which will fix the economy. Forget the “blame game”, leave that to the Democrats and come up with a comprehensive and realistic approach to repair the present economic mess, specifically the lack of decent jobs. Fix that one problem and a lot of other problems will fix themselves. Forget global cop on the beat policing, forget jumping between whichever Muslim groups want to kill each other; instead police our borders so “documented workers”, meaning Americans, can work and aren’t competing with migrants looking for a better life – many native born Americans would like to find a better life also – and soon.
If the Independents are responsible for delivering the election victory in Massachusetts, Republicans better wise up and craft real plans to help the average American and “plans” which Independents, who think Republicans are wealthy bags of hot air, can actually believe in.
Pat,
I’m sure we can find a lot that you and I disagree with. I don’t think I’ve ever voted Republican (though I have donated to some Republicans). I don’t think we can step back from a global cop role – particularly in Afghanistan.
That said: you make a lot of good points here. Most of all, “Forget the ‘blame game’”. I would say Bush had 8 years to screw the country up and people shouldn’t be surprised Obama hasn’t fixed it in 1 – breaking things is easier than not. You would probably say that Obama promised more than he could deliver and is causing more harm than good. But does it matter?
Regardless, we’re in this recession. It’s not going away as fast as we would like. We need our politicians to acknowledge that both sides have good ideas that should be implemented. We need the people to work in the right direction too – if your job is as secure as mine, spend more. And don’t spend it at Walmart on something made in China. Spend it somewhere where the person who gets that money is going to spend it to hire someone else or increase someone’s hours.
This is generally a pro-Republican board so here’s my comments directed at them. If the next political fight and Republican filibuster is over whether banks should pay higher taxes or take fewer risks with our money and our economy even as they raise credit card rates and pay huge bonuses, the Republicans aren’t going to do too well out of it. If they actually try to do something other than just “break” Obama and work for reasonable regulations that provide safeguards for our economy with minimum obstruction to growth, maybe they won’t do well out of that either, but the rest of the country might. I’d rather lose an election than harm the country. Despite how it appears to me, I’m sure most Republicans deep down feel the same.
quick comment: by “does it matter”, I’m referring to “does it matter who of Obama or Bush gets the blame?” I realize rereading it that it could be interpreted in other ways.
Pat,
In your posting you comment; “Obama, they claim, looks like a “failure” and more than likely it’s the end of “Obamacare” as we almost came to know it. But it’s hard to believe one election vindicates a belief that Americans are basically Conservatives and Republican voters by nature.”
I don’t agree that Americans are republican voters by nature. Having said that, I do believe that America is a ‘center/right’ nation. At least in ‘fly-over’ country. I may be mistaken, but liberalism seems to have a relationship (for some reason) with population density.
I am curious as to your judgment regarding the President’s first year in office:
Inability to close Guantanamo Bay
Transparency regarding legislative negotiations
Passing a $787 billion stimulus that has yet to contain the unemployment rate
Rewriting bankruptcy law to place unions ahead of lenders & stock holders in the auto bankruptcies
Not being able to pass his signature piece of legislation (health care) in 12 months with bullet-proof majorities in both Houses.
Loaning TARP money to the banks, and after being repaid, insisting the banks continue to pay fees while ignoring the terrible conditions and large bonuses being awarded to executives in charge of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
You soon come to the conclusion that there was a certain amount of naiveté through political inexperience coupled with the hubris of ‘over reach’. In 2008 liberals took control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, and with little or no bipartisanship, began the process to remake America. Bill Clinton once said; “It’s the economy stupid.” Obama would have done himself and his party a service by recalling that statement. I believe New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts were all results of the above list. I’m also of the opinion that he and his advisors are unsure about what to do to turn things around.
My opinion is that government cannot create jobs nearly as well as the private sector. Since government cannot create wealth, only seize it, government will never match the private sector in job creation. Apparently a majority of people, at least in the aforementioned states, agree with that assessment. I don’t have a problem with increased oversight in the financial sector. Let’s apply stricter lending curbs to the big banks, but those should apply to government institutions making loans also.
I’ll admit I was no fan of George Bush. While he may have been a republican, he was certainly no conservative. I was appalled at his failure to control spending and his leaving the country mired in a $500 billion hole. But I really don’t believe the answer was to ‘double-down’ on that bad bet.
Jcm52,
I agree with your opinion that; “If they actually try to do something other than just “break” Obama and work for reasonable regulations that provide safeguards for our economy with minimum obstruction to growth.”
This is why I’ve always placed more stock in ideology as opposed to party. I don’t thin anyone can argue the fact that Scott Brown is not your ordinary republican. He’s a pro-choice candidate that actually supported single-payer health care while in the Massachusetts Legislature. Neither of these positions will endear him to the far right-wing of the Republican Party.
However; he does display two extremely ‘conservative’ characteristics, fiscal discipline and tax relief. Both of which would go a long way toward helping to alleviate our current economic stagnation. He also has a demonstrated ability to negotiate across party lines. In a state legislature overwhelmingly stocked with liberal democrats, his ability to partner with liberals in order to discover the best method of doing things was touted by both sides.
Republicans aren’t going to make any more headway than democrats did if they continue to adopt the ‘my-way-or-the-highway’ attitude we’ve, to be honest, seen both sides display on more than one occasion.
Americans pull together, especially in times of strife such as today. I think these recent elections are sending a signal to Washington that we all expect them to offer some genuinely bipartisan solutions to the country’s challenges. I believe that we need a mix, an amalgamation if you will, consisting of ideas from both parties. Case in point; I don’t have any issue with health care companies being told they must eliminate annual and lifetime caps on benefits. I also have no issue with forming ‘pools’ of high risk patients and mandating coverage for these patients much as we do with risky drivers. Nevertheless; I also favor increased competition by allowing the sale of health policies across state lines and tort reform. Tort reform has already been proven to drive down cost in states where it has been enacted. Increased competition has also been proven as an effective way to drive down the costs of other products and services.
These recent defeats for democrats were not so much a refutation of the ideology as they were a refutation of the ‘we’re gonna’ shove our agenda down your throat’ manner that business has been conducted in Washington over the last twelve months.
We’re all intelligent enough to know that when Harry or Nancy stepped up to the microphones and accused republicans of doing nothing but obstructing an offering no ideas that it was a falsehood. First republicans didn’t have the numbers to ‘obstruct’ anything: And as for ideas, they had plenty, but none of them were the correct ideas by the liberal methods of doing things.
Bill,
I’m nervous about letting health care be sold across state lines…
When you get your credit card statement (or at least credit card solicitations), you’ll notice that the vast majority come from Delaware.
Why? Because Delaware has the most favorable laws for credit card companies. If 49 states pass laws saying an insurance company cannot refuse to renew a policy if the policyholder becomes seriously ill, where do you think health insurance companies are going to go?
Throughout 2009, the Republicans kept a low profile, tried hard not to make off the wall, ditzy public statements the Democratic media could exploit and – realizing they were exiled from government and in public disgrace while also realizing Democrats have an immense capacity for self-destruction – decided to wait it out. But with the recent turn of events, they may not have to wait long – 2010 presents a very good opportunity to regain a Republican power base – a year ago no one would have expected that.
As a business, the Republican Party never impressed me, they seem to believe that doing nothing to help anyone other than themselves is being “Conservative”, they market the same tired, recycled offerings year after year and read at a grade school level when it comes to effective advertising and product promotion. Like Avis, they are the alternative to renting your Camry at Hertz, they claim to try harder but remain perennial also rans and second placers. If we’re putting our money solely on the Republicans and their Party as the counter curse to the Democrats, we’re banking on divine intervention to win elections, sorta like Dobbin, the Police Horse, wins the Kentucky Derby by 15 lengths.
Fortunately, the Republican Party’s greatest marketing strength is they aren’t Democrats in the public’s mind. As Phil Jackson so ably points out: the Democrats and Republicans are the only game in town for realistic voters. By putting the Republicans in place, you deny the office to a Democrat. By denying a seat to a Democrat, you avoid the disasters and horror stories the Left dominated Democrats would happily inflict on those of us who pay taxes – see Obama’s first year for example. But that doesn’t mean the Republicans actually do anything valuable while in office, they generally play defense all 4 quarters, never get the ball on offense and can only score by running back pass interferences. This is Conservatism in action Republican style, rob the treasury just like Democrats but do nothing to help so as not to violate “principles” – “nothing ventured, nothing you have to apologize for” is their philosophy.
And I think the public has a pretty good bead on what the Republicans will and won’t do, but their sole virtue at this point in history is they’re the only feasible alternative to Democrats, which to an Obama/Pelosi/Reid weary voting public gives them a luster they couldn’t ordinarily generate for themselves. Republicans need to take the “Fleeting Opportunity” hint, which for them presents a degree of difficulty similar to Maureen Dowd imagining 100 reasons to praise Bush, and need to start talking about how they would help “IF”, (the Big IF) they were to return to power. Unravel some of Obama’s nonsense, sure they should do that – but what positive things will they do?
If anyone thinks “let the Free Market handle the problem” is a viable solution at this time, then get ready for another 2 years of Democratic Party rule. Except for creating jobs within their massive bureaucracy, it’s a Fundamental Truth that all the Democrats and Republicans ever do is take money from taxpayers and give it to someone else – that’s the solution to every problem – take our money, give it to someone else, a universal solvent that prevents Global Warming, funds Job Stimulus packages, provides money to keep from leaving any child behind, buys weapons to send 8,000 miles for foreigners to kill themselves as well as our young folks – it’s the Universal Hammer and every problem becomes a nail.
If the Republicans want to win, they can’t rely on “Do Nothing”, rely on Adam Smith’s liver spotted hand to solve the jobs crisis and, alternatively, they can’t say Washington will create jobs – it’s obvious that won’t work either. But how about getting the government off the backs of Business or, at the least, force Fatso Fed to stand on a rock for a while so the business guy can catch his breath. How about stating they stand behind job creation but not the unions – many Americans have no use for the parasites in Unions and not simply for noble reasons either. How about fixing our government finances so we can ease the tax burden on those who actually pay taxes, police our borders to keep cheap imported labor out, cut back on foreign policing expenses, renegotiate our trade agreements – there are many things the Republicans can promise the electorate and promises that can be used effectively at this auspicious moment to worm their way back into power.
Jcm52,
I don’t know that I share your concern. It was the government that first prohibited the selling of health care insurance across state lines. This is why we have such an inequitable cost structure right now. In some states there is literally no competition at all; the insurance company in that state is the only recourse. With no reason to control cost or premiums, the company is free to allow them to rise to whatever the Board thinks they need to be in order to maintain profit margin.
If companies were allowed to sell onto any market, they would start developing lower cost alternatives. People would be free to purchase those lower cost alternatives. This would force the existing company to compete or lose market share.
My wife and I are both in our middle fifties. Why does a portion of the premium I pay each month go to pediatrician coverage? Why does a portion of my premium go to Obstetrics services? We would rather our policy covered long-term care.
If insurance companies could compete across state lines, I believe they would ‘tailor’ coverage to meet more specific life situations, as opposed to designing one ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ blanket policy that is the only choice in that state.
Pat,
I can see where you’re coming from. It has always been my belief, that when it comes to politics, liberals have a ‘built-in’ advantage. My theory is that since liberals hold to the belief that there is a government solution for any challenge, they are literally groomed for bureaucracy. Liberals naturally gravitate to government and the best and brightest of them to political office.
Conservatives, on the other hand, believe in business, capitalism. They naturally gravitate to these arenas for their livelihood. So, as a result, the republicans are almost always fielding the ‘B’ team against more polished players in the political arena. Once again, as an example, I use George Bush. This is why I think so many people were so absolutely furious at his Presidency. Everyone knew that both Al Gore and John Kerry were much more skilled politicians. Everyone knew their respective families had groomed these Senators for higher office. That they were defeated by such an obvious dolt was inconceivable!
I really believe that there is a new definition taking root now because of the T.E.A. Parties. I, for one, was always suspicious of the motives of any politician. The T.E.A. Parties have awakened ‘public servants’. I myself, have grown so tired of screaming and throwing stuff at the TV that after the T.E.A. Party was over and I asked myself “What next?” the answer became clear, run for local office.
Here in Garland County, Arkansas an organization has grown out of the T.E.A. Party called C4AA (Citizens for the American Agenda). We have decided on some basic measures.
The problems and challenges that we believe affect Washington DC also affect state and local government.
We must foment change from the inside. Both parties are so institutionalized that a third party is almost impossible. So we have to take back the party that exists.
Since our group was originally apolitical, we’ve stayed that way. We were able to get past the rhetoric. We were able to discover that liberals, conservatives, and independents had many things in common.
None of us believe in needless suffering. None of us believe in fiscal irresponsibility. None of us believe in unlimited government at the expense of individual freedom. We found that once the arguing stopped, and we really listened to each other, that it wasn’t often a difference over the policy, but the proper role of government in enacting that policy.
At the core of most liberal vs. conservative arguments it starts over policy: Abortion for instance; a lightening rod of an issue. As decided by federal law, it has drawn battle lines for thirty years as one group believes it has been ‘forced’ into acceptance of a policy it cannot philosophically accept. The other side of this issue is determined to drag those mouth breathing, knuckle dragging troglodytes into the 22nd century whether they want to come or not.
This issue should have been a ‘state’s rights’ issue. Some states would have opted for publicly funded abortion on demand; others would have outlawed the practice. Depending on which side of this issue you favored; you could vote with your feet and choose by your own will where you wanted to live. The ultimate form of ‘choice’. We have that choice now with state taxation; why not other issues as well. I don’t want anyone to be forced to live under a set of laws they don’t agree with.
I believe that republicans will make inroads against the democratic majorities this year, but it will be a different animal in a lot of cases. I think the ‘citizen legislator’ is making a comeback. Scott Brown is not a perfect republican, by any stretch of the imagination. And I think many of the new candidates will not fit the mold of either the perfect republican or democrat. WE may discover a new type of legislator. The type Barack Obama promised he would be, and then disappointed us all. Maybe this is the first year of a real political breakthrough.