So, the Tea Parties are over. What is next? Has everyone gotten it out of their system and now they will go back to burying their head in the sand and pretending that it is all ok? What happens if somehow against all expectations Obama is right and the economy stabilizes?
I really believe that Obama was elected as a response to the policy's of Bush. I also believe that unless something really changes there will be a new president in four years as a response to Obama and his policys. With the way that the system is their appears to be no other choice but to vote out the old and bring in the new. The problem rises when the new is really just a slight variant of the old and as long as we have a two party system this will never change. But, I do not need to rant again about the problems of the two party system.
My question for the people that are on fire about the Tea Party is what is next? Are you wanting to run your own candidates like the Green Party and some of the others? Are you wanting to start another political party that has as it's core fiscal responsibility and constitutional limits? What is next?
3 comments:
"...Has everyone gotten it out of their system and now they will go back to burying their head in the sand and pretending that it is all ok?"
Not hardly, I and thousands of others, are working on coming up with not just protests or marches - something which most conservatives naturally recoil from - but worthwhile, effective steps that can be advanced, to halt and roll back the corrosive leglislation that has been reducing us to this state.
What those steps will be, I don't exactly know yet, I intend to begin chewing it over on my site soon. And further Tea Parties and visible rallies of some sort are probably not entirely avoidable, though hopefully they'll be kept to a minimum.
"What happens if somehow against all expectations Obama is right and the economy stabilizes?"
Should I dignify that with a response? Oops… I guess I already have.
;-)
Lance, the economy 'stabilized' after Hoover & FDR's decade of economic and constitutional destruction, and a significant amount of regulations & policies were rolled back... does that mean anything beneficial was accomplished by him?
From a comment I posted at another site recently, Long before it was fashionable to refer to us as right wing extremists (they referred to those who considered the constitution to be binding on our government, such as Supreme Court Justices who understood what they were talking about, as 'old men' and as "the four horsemen or reaction" back in FDR's day), Supreme Court Justice McReynolds saw the passing of our form of constitutional government under FDR through a number of measures, particularly with the "Gold Clause" cases, (from a paper on the subject)
"Both Blaisdell and the Gold Clause Cases provoked impassioned dissents from the Four Horsemen. “Fewer questions of greater moment than that just decided have been submitted for judicial inquiry during this generation,” wrote Justice Sutherland dissenting in Blaisdell. “He simply closes his eyes to the necessary implications of the decision who fails to see in it the potentiality of...serious and dangerous inroads upon the limitations of the Constitution which are almost certain to ensue.”39 Justice McReynolds condemned the monetary program as embracing “a debased standard, adopted with the definite purpose to destroy obligations.” Such “arbitrary and oppressive action” violated the Fifth Amendment. “Just men regard repudiation and spoliation of citizens by their sovereign with abhorrence,” he remonstrated. “Loss of reputation for honorable dealing will bring us unending humiliation; the impending legal and moral chaos is appalling.”40 When delivering his dissent from the bench, he extemporaneously gave voice to sentiments he had earlier expressed privately over Nebbia and Blaisdell. “This is Nero at his worst,” he thundered. “The Constitution is gone.”41"
The paper then goes on to note "These reports of the Constitution’s demise turned out to be greatly exaggerated."... well... compared with what came soon after after, and what that mudslide has built to today, McReynolds anguish seems an understatement, today.
#1, nothing Bush or Obama has done, will solve the economic destruction they have reaped and 'capitalized' upon. Eventually, assuming we don't go into massive hyper inflation, or the opposite, the economy will eventually stabilize. As with FDR & Truman, etc, Obabma and his ilk on the left and right, will try to take credit for the receding of the malaise.
It will still be false.
The destruction they have wrought, to our wealth and to our nation and to our system of government, can only be corrected, by being understood and rolled back.
"Are you wanting to start another political party that has as it's core fiscal responsibility and constitutional limits? What is next?"
I tend to think that a third party would not only be ineffective, but would fall into the same patterns, and immediately be co-opted by some Perot like demagogue. My current, though not thoroughly thought out sense is, that there needs to be something along the lines of a "Consumer Reports' organization, vocally educating and agitating for, particular measures - some that cannot be tolerated - and some which must be enacted - and which will support or fight against any politician as they align for or against such measures.
As I said, not fully thought out yet.
How about you? Any of the current administrations actions alarming you?
"So, the Tea Parties are over."
Guess again chum
2 things Anonymous. Don't call me chum. PAL!! And second I was referencing the actual Tea Party events themselves not the movement. I wanted to know what was next that was why I asked the questions I asked.
So, for the future take a moment and think before you comment, it will save you a lot of trouble.
Post a Comment