Tea party wins in northeastern primaries could bode well for Democrats

[the_phoenix]

Lucky you meeting the pro-lifers among them. There are secularists and pro-choicers among the Tea Partyists who want the less government and less spending aspects of their movement, but who believe that the government has no business interfering with a right to choose.

Same thing with other Partyists.

When I first moved to Northeast Ohio, I went to a local County Fair and saw that both the Democrat and Republican parties had tables set up. Wanting to educate myself as a newcomer to the political lay of the land, I approached both tables and asked the simple question of did they have a candidate I could vote for who was pro-life? Nobody at either table could give me a straight answer.

I appreciate people who will stand up and be counted.

 

[the_phoenix]

Awesome! I am with you. I believe whoever has a right conscience according to our faith and Gospel will vote for candidates with true Christian values.

Thanks for your kind words of support. I’ll have to go back through the campaign literature I was handed from that Tea Party rally … it’s likely that those pro-life candidates are Republicans but I would need to double check. If the Tea Party can help influence the Republican Party to be more in line with true Christian values and actually speak up for what it believes in, that’s a good thing.
:yup:

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. It is for this reason that I consider Thomas Jefferson to be America’s greatest President ever, even topping George Washington. Jefferson was a man of ideas, and a true lover of liberty.

I agree. I especially like the fact that he started Democratic Party.

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

Oh no Via now don’t go there on this thread! I might have to attend a teen Mass in a warm climate in cargos, a navy top, but in a pair of nice clean white sneakers on my feet. Not sandals although I can’t guarantee someone won’t be in flip flops.

Glenn Beck hasn’t weighed in on flip-flops yet.

 

[ishii]

I disagree. Many Libertarians are not believers; they certainly don’t demand it of anyone, and yet none of those, by their very political philosophy, do not believe that the government is a god who will solve everything.

Rich, I was referring to the catholics who still insist on voting for pro-abortion rights Democrats because they still think the Democrat party is the “party of the little guy” and that supporting the welfare state and government programs is more important than protecting the unborn. They are slaves to their ideology and party affiliation- Democrats and liberals first, catholics second.

Ishii

 

[CMatt25]

Glenn Beck hasn’t weighed in on flip-flops yet.

Via, perhaps he will on his chalkboard this wk.

 

[CMatt25]

Rich, I was referring to the catholics who still insist on voting for pro-abortion rights Democrats because they still think the Democrat party is the “party of the little guy” and that supporting the welfare state and government programs is more important than protecting the unborn. They are slaves to their ideology and party affiliation- Democrats and liberals first, catholics second.

Ishii

Or we’re slaves to Christ’s social Gospel message of caring for the poor, the homeless, the hungry, the sick, and don’t forget blessed are the peacemakers.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Or we’re slaves to Christ’s social Gospel message of caring for the poor, the homeless, the hungry, the sick, and don’t forget blessed are the peacemakers.

Well, it’s too bad you vote for big government creating more poor, homeless and hungry.

 

[Shiranui117]

I agree. I especially like the fact that he started Democratic Party.

And back then, the Democratic-Republican Party was for smaller government, and a more state-oriented system, as seen in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. It was the Federalists who wanted big government.

So, yes, thank you, Thomas Jefferson, for starting the Democratic Party.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

When tea party types say things like this, its no wonder.

youtube.com/watch?v=0kh4xhem8tM&feature=player_embedded

 

[CMatt25]

And back then, the Democratic-Republican Party was for smaller government, and a more state-oriented system, as seen in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. It was the Federalists who wanted big government.

So, yes, thank you, Thomas Jefferson, for starting the Democratic Party.

And I suppose the Republican Party today has never evolved since the one of Lincoln.

 

[NotCrazyDan]

I agree. I especially like the fact that he started Democratic Party.

I find this extremely ironic, since everything he believed in is directly contrary to everything that the Democratic Party stands for. Here are some quotes, but I could fill up pages and pages and pages.

*“The true barriers of our liberty are our State governments; and
the wisest conservative power ever contrived by man, is that of
which our Revolution and present government found us possessed.”
–Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811.

“Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a
nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.” --Thomas
Jefferson: Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.

“I do verily believe that…a single, consolidated government would
become the most corrupt government on the earth.” --Thomas
Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1800.
“The States should be left to do whatever acts they can do as well
as the General Government.” --Thomas Jefferson to John Harvie,
1790.

“The way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all
to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one
exactly the function he is competent to. Let the National
Government be entrusted with the defense of the nation and its
foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the
civil rights, laws, police, and administration of what concerns
the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the
counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It
is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great
national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends
in the administration of every man’s farm by himself; by placing
under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will
be done for the best.” --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, 1816.

“When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great
things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power,
it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on
another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the
government from which we separated.” --Thomas Jefferson to
Charles Hammond, 1821.

“It is the old practice of despots to use a part of the people to
keep the rest in order; and those who have once got an ascendency
and possessed themselves of all the resources of the nation, their
revenues and offices, have immense means for retaining their
advantages.” --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798.

“What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every
government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing
and concentrating all cares and powers into one body, no matter
whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or of the
aristocrats of a Venetian Senate.” --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C.
Cabell, 1816.*

 

[John_Pascendi]

Your kidding of course…the ole demoncrate party is alive and well…party of slavery,high taxes,bigoted against Catlicks and jews…war war and mo war…as for the publicans,they also are controlled by the ruling class…the corporations…as TR stated in his Progressive party platform…they control both parties,then …1912 and now 100 years later. We common folk have no control over anything.They control the media.hollyweird,the book industry and maybe even the weather…go figure.Even the Pope over there cant talk right!.The church is sad and upset etc etc…come now…our beloved church has been infiltrated like all the gov.of the world…for him to murmur…mea culper is nonsense…the last pope was the worst we have ever had thats why the establishment calls him ‘great’…no,those of us in the tea party bit are a bunch of old time right wingers who still fight on …we are the true rebels…but with a cause…less government, most personal responsibilty and with Gods help…a better world!!! Notice how the left can call us any vile names it wants and stare at the cameras daring us to even question them! Back in the 60s I was one of those who tried to warn my country men of the dangers that lie ahead…more and more centralized fed…they called us …birchers,lunatic fringe,right wing kooks and worse…well for being silent they have not escaped the noose,they also are being taxed out of existence…the morons now look at me and one even murmured…'Pas,history has proven you correct" I wish he were wrong…sigh

 

[Ocean52680]

In this regard, Robert Bork had some thoughts about the conservative position on the Commerce Clause:

He suggests that the Commerce Clause be utilized to enact tort reform. He repeatedly suggests that Congress be mindful of the authority of the states.

If Bork - doubtless a conservative and an originalist - will not advocate the position that the expansion of the Commerce Clause is illegitimate and should be declared unConstitutional by the courts, then I wonder, at this point in history, how conservative tis he idea of returning to enumerated powers? I find Bork refreshing and non-dogmatic, even non-ideological. He makes a distinction between the expansion of the commerce clause and the inorganic creation of rights in the Griswold decision.

I agree with Bork that substantive due process is a far more of a threat to the proper application of the Constitution. However, it is perfectly reasonable to argue for more judicial restraint on the commerce clause. Such a stance is not reactionary. That being said, the Congress must act with restraint with in the limits of the Constitution, irregardless of how free and loose the judiciary is willing to play with the document. A true Burkean conservative would never advocate pushing, let alone exceeding the limits of codified law. Such action, would be against “inherited traditions and practices”.

Again, supporting the role back of 20th century welfare policies is not reactionary. And radical policies enacted by a liberal government are not entitled to protection under Burkean inherited traditions and practices.

 

[CMatt25]

Well, it’s too bad you vote for big government creating more poor, homeless and hungry.

For all the whining about big govt and liberalism. it is one thing we actually haven’t tried in yrs. Clinton and the 90s were centrist to me. Worked better though than the Bush yrs. Since 06 sure we’ve had a Democratic Congress but for 2 yrs of that time a Republcan President. And for less than 2 yrs a Democratic President but look at the make-up of the Congress. Many centrist to conservative Dems. Take just the Senate for instance with the likes of Blanche Lincoln, Joe Lieberman, whom are not liberals, caucusing with the Dems. And now we’re going to have 2 yrs of divided govt with the Tea Party not giving Obama a chance.

 

[bbarrick8383]

For all the whining about big govt and liberalism. it is one thing we actually haven’t tried in yrs. Clinton and the 90s were centrist to me. Worked better though than the Bush yrs. Since 06 sure we’ve had a Democratic Congress but for 2 yrs of that time a Republcan President. And for less than 2 yrs a Democratic President but look at the make-up of the Congress. Many centrist to conservative Dems. Take just the Senate for instance with the likes of Blanche Lincoln, Joe Lieberman, whom are not liberals, caucusing with the Dems. And now we’re going to have 2 yrs of divided govt with the Tea Party not giving Obama a chance.

Since the great society all we have had is big government. We’ve funded these programs to the teeth and they still get raided and pillaged by government.

And if you can not see the decline and destruction of society, the traditional family, and religion and relate it with big government then, I’m sorry, it’s a sad day in this country and eventually people will either see it or they will continue to blame the problems on the private sector and keep on believing the public sector is the answer to all their problems.

As credit scores and credit cards became more and more important, the old fashioned only buy what you can afford, pay cash, believe in God, have one spouse, a handshake is all we needed is becoming less and less important. If anyone believes that is a good thing, well they are as wrong as they can be.

Governments too big for it’s britches, they are ripping at the seams, instead of losing weight they want to buy bigger britches. Obama doesnt deserve a chance, he never should have been elected, it’s a shame he’s even in government. We are, all togethor, better off with a limited government passing common sense regulations to keep us from being demolished by scams and schemes from the private sector.

Instead we are being demolished by scams and schemes from the public sector.

 

[ishii]

Or we’re slaves to Christ’s social Gospel message of caring for the poor, the homeless, the hungry, the sick, and don’t forget blessed are the peacemakers.

Obeying the gospel message of helping the poor and advocating the failed liberal welfare state are two very different things. The former is something we must do, but we don’t have to do it all the same way - some volunteer in soup kitchens, others help with their own donations, some do both. The government on some level has a role as well, although honest people can disagree as to what should be the extent of the help.

So I think the crux of the issue we’ve been discussing is this: honest people can disagree about the welfare state, the extent of government help for the poor, and on what level. You and I might have a great conversation on how to help the poor: you might advocate welfare and government programs, and I might advocate some kind of programs but probably to a much lesser extent and emphasize private volunteering and charity. But its okay to disagree on this issue. Abortion on the other hand, is different, non-negotiable. Its wrong. Period. And needs to be elevated above debates on what the extent of the welfare state should be. We need to have the right priorities. The unborn should come first - as they are the most vulnerable and being killed daily. How could you disagree with that? Elevating the failed ideology of the welfare state above respect for life of the unborn is unconscionable and not something a Catholic should do.

Ishii

 

[mary_bobo]

For all the whining about big govt and liberalism. it is one thing we actually haven’t tried in yrs. Clinton and the 90s were centrist to me. For part of clinton’s term he had a Republican Congress who drug him kicking and screaming to the center. Worked better though than the Bush yrs. Since 06 sure we’ve had a Democratic Congress but for 2 yrs of that time a Republcan President. Yes, a republican president who did not veto the big spending of the liberals in Congress. And for less than 2 yrs a Democratic President but look at the make-up of the Congress. Many centrist to conservative Dems. Take just the Senate for instance with the likes of Blanche Lincoln, Joe Lieberman, whom are not liberals, caucusing with the Dems. I beg to differ. Blanche Lincoln portrays herself as centrist but if she truly were, she would not be in trouble with her base back home. And Joe Lieberman is no centrist. And now we’re going to have 2 yrs of divided govt with the Tea Party not giving Obama a chance.

Hopefully we will have divided government so that perhaps the hole that our president is digging can be stopped. He has had a chance to turn this economy around and no one expected it to be done overnight. But what he has done is to totally ignore the will of the people and embark on a far, far left agenda. In doing so, he has thrown his own party off the cliff to achieve his very radical agenda.

 

[Ridgerunner]

'Shrug lite"? I like it. You make some interesting points. I’ve lived in and visited different parts of the country and they all have good and bad. I landed back in RI because this is home. I have a multicultural family and the more conservative parts of the country are a little less tolerant of these things.

Anyway, there is a problem on the right and a problem on the left. They both have to do with the suspension of reality to insist on a lifestyle based on “higher ideals”. The right is disabled by this notion of American exceptionalism and that we are Winthrop’s City on a Hill. This is obviously based on Calvinism and suggests that we were/are “the Elect”. Fast forward. It has given us Manifest Destiny, made us a superpower, entitled us to a disproportionate percentage of the world’s resources and the transcendent right to project power, economic and military, around in order to preserve the standard of living to which God has entitled us. Fine.

The left feels that we should take money from some people and give it to others because it’s the right thing to do. Politicians and activists (who are often sufficiently financially insulated themselves) have taken it upon themselves to borrow billions of dollars to give entitlements to people because the universe owes them. Paying mortgages, buying cars, paying college tuition. They think that money falls from the sky and that the nobility of their intentions will justify it all.

The only necessary skill in life for many people is the ability to reach the lever in the voting booth.

American politicians and the people who put them there are often just plain delusional. Spending money we don’t have is killing us. Money borrowed by the right and money borrowed by the left still results in debt. We reached a tipping point because we are self-centered and have insisted on having our cake and eating it too. Congratulations America. You are heading to being $14 Trillion in the hole. In the history of the human race I don’t think there has ever been such a huge gradient between what a group of people think they are and what they actually are economically than 21st Century America.

I’m inlined to agree with you. I’m not a political science wonk. I don’t know what points Jefferson made against Hamilton or Hamilton against Jefferson. Nothing about Calvinism appeals to me, and never did.

But I do have a problem with a government that, one way or another, takes half my labor away from me though a myriad of taxes, a good portion of which are invisible on April 15. Sometimes I feel like the serfs of old, who only owed their lords 1/3 of their labor, had it pretty good.

I see my young adult children (thankfully, all have jobs, though they were hard to come by) paying, paying, paying, and struggling to form families, and I remember when I was their ages and it was a lot easier then to acquire assets if a person only had the wisdom to see the opportunities and the boldness to seize them. And I know the debts that are being stacked on their shoulders; not to buy productive assets (I was a borrower almost all my life for that purpose) but because some “lord” of Washington wants to buy off a union here or a corporation there, so the recipients can return, what, a tiny fraction of that money to the grandee’s campaign coffers? Sometimes I think we might just as well make political stealing legal. It would probably be a lot less expensive. Perhaps the “graft fund” portion of the national budget could be established so we don’t have to pay out billions to unions or GE just so the politicians can get back hundreds of thousands from them in contributions and “favors later”.

Those who support reduction of taxes and government spending have my support; not because of some economic theory some think-tanker thought up, but because I hate it that the politicians are spending money that they never earned, and burdening my children and grandchildren; selling them into half-or-more slavery to the government or to favored businesses.

So, my son, for example, drives 90 miles/day to and from work. Takes a lot of gas even though his car is pretty efficient. More than half of his expense goes to the government. One of my daughters drives about 60 miles/day. Same deal. And they pay a sizeable chunk of their earnings to the state and to the federal government. And when they buy anything, there’s tax after tax after tax laden on every single thing they buy. And so naturally the government wants them to pay even more for their gasoline, the products they buy, their heat, lights, health insurance, on and on and on and on.

And for what? I don’t believe any of this government’s nonsense about “global warming” or its claims to “help the poor” (which it absolutely doesn’t do) or its claim to “help the middle class” (which it absolutely doesn’t do). They have to dedicate half or so of their labor to the whims of a bunch of people who throw money around; some to gain contributions and some for just plain ideological nonsense.

Tea Partiers might be a bunch of middle class white people, for the most part. They might be suburbanites (I’m not) They might be all the things the elitists love to hate. I don’t know if they’re inspired by Winthrop or Calvin or the Austrian School or Arthur Laffer or whoever. And I don’t care. I do know they’re just as tired as I am of being robbed shamelessly to no good purpose except to buy votes for those who have power.

 

[Suudy]

Had to edit for length. I apologize for any chopped quotes.

Because only one exists. To what purpose you disturb the dust on a bowl of rose-leaves, I do not know.

I already told you, but you don’t seem to get the distinction.

Why do we study history? No just for the facts. The facts are meaningless. It is the lessons we learn from those facts. That is why I talk about things like what “should be” and what “should have been.”

I recognize that most events are double-edged, at best. I’m not going to stand in judgment on the men who fought the civil war, or those that fought for civil rights. They did what they could: that is the “right” way.

But they don’t need to be, that is the point! We can achieve a good end and do it in a licit (not just legal, see below) manner. They didn’t do it the “right” way because it maintained slavery. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t practical to keep slavery, but it wasn’t the “right” way.

I don’t know what you mean by “licit.” What I mean by licit is: laws are passed by the Congress, signed by the President, and reviewed by the Courts. This isn’t philosophy. Laws are realities; everything else is opinion. You think you could do better than everyone else in American history. I have my doubts.

You seem to be confusing licit with legal. Just because something is legal does not mean it is licit. For example, it is legal for a defrocked priest to stand in front of a congregation and confect the Eucharist, but that doesn’t make it licit. Or, it is apparently legal for the federal government to create and fund social programs, but that doesn’t make it licit.

Also, everyone judges history. Was slavery wrong? Should the US have even allowed the institution to continue? After all, the states reviewed the Constitution and ratified it. It was reality. But was it right? Was it just? Was it licit? I think everyone looking back on history recognizes that it was neither right, just, nor licit.

Finally, law is philosophy. What good does law serve if not grounded in wisdom? And what better source of law would there be than in the love of wisdom? You can’t separate the two. Ethics must come into play when considering any law, and ethics is more than just achieving an end. It is precisely this attempt to divorce ethics from law that has led to such disastrous rulings like Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade.

Again, take note that I’m not saying that many of the choices made were considered on a pragmatic basis. Everyone makes compromises. But just because they did make those choices, and we achieved good ends (no slavery, highly prosperous country, powerful force for good, etc), does not mean the means by which we achieved those ends are immune from criticism.

God will sort it out in the end. Power is always a factor in forming our world. In the end, the moral action is as often based more on the practical than the ideal. See, discussion of the founders and slavery, above.

Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out, eh?

But the point is that objective moral action is not based in pragmatics. Morality is based in ideals.

And, by rightly, you mean your way, in disregard of the opinions of those who actually do or have done the work. I’m following right along, I think.

So, I hire you to dig a ditch in my back yard 20’ long, 6’ deep, and 16" wide, and you make it 8’ long, 2’ deep, and 2" wide, and sine I didn’t do the work I’m not allowed to criticize you? Or I vote for a politician to limit the scope of the federal government, but then she votes for Obamacare, and sine I didn’t do the work, I’m not allowed to criticize her? Sorry, but nobody is immune to criticism. Not me, not you, not our political leaders, and not even past politicians.

And no, not my way. But in a way that best conforms to God’s will. I don’t write the rules, I just read them and try to apply them.

You can look up the cases as well as I can.

Definitive answer.

Quit with the hyperbole. My mother getting a social security check isn’t comparable to putting anyone to death. It may be a good program or a bad program, irresponsibly or well run, doomed to failure or a great success. But it isn’t “illicit” and it isn’t comparable to slavery or killing people.

It’s called reductio ad absurdum(and despite what people here think it is not a fallacy–look it up). If the end is to eliminate poverty, one possible means is the killing of all the poor people. And if the ends justify the means, then the absurd conclusion is that killing all poor people is acceptable. This kind of hyperbole exposes the kind of thinking you seem to advocate as absurd. You rightly reject it because it is absurd. But you are only rejecting the conclusion and not the argument as well.

Right: how did we get to be the world’s sole remaining superpower with the largest economy without following all of your fine advice?

Again, your focus on ends. You don’t seem to grasp the concept of ethics. The means are just as important as the ends.

This isn’t some overarching political theory for consistent utilitarianism. It’s about understanding the difference between a moral question and a practical administrative question, and accepting the reality that solving problems involves compromise, and that the world isn’t theory.

But that is no excuse to ignore the means. The hyper-pragmatic approach you seem to advocate are for solutions independent of consideration of the means. Not once in this entire exchange have I see a single appeal to means. Everything has been about the ends.