Wednesday, April 28, 2010

If Tea Partiers mean what they say

They will heed this advice. Tea partiers are in favor of smaller government and fewer taxes. If they hope for success, the must walk the walk as well as talk the talk.
John Samples directs the Cato Institute’s Center for Representative Government and teaches in the government program at the Johns Hopkins University in Washington, D.C.

1. Republicans aren’t always your friends.
2. Some tea partiers like big government.
3. Democrats aren’t always your enemies
4. Smaller government demands restraint abroad.
5. Leave social issues to the states.

H/T to Below the Beltway


  1. @John Samples - thank you Capt Obvious!

    nothing to see here...move along.

    Rex Moncrief

  2. Jim, I can't argue much with what Mr. Samples says here. The only issue I might take with him is that the jury is still out on whether Dubya's efforts abroad will have been a bad investment.

    That is something that only historians 100 years from now will be able to tally...if even then.

    I will agree with him on point 1 & 2 totally.

    On point #3...ummm...ALWAYS is a chick term, so I guess I'd have to agree that possibly there is a Democrat (in a position of political power) somewhere that really may not be my enemy, nor the enemy of liberty. So, I'll give a half-hearted Okay.

    #4 I think I've covered.

    #5: This, my friend, is "the rub." This is where the great war within (and without) the Tea Party movement will be waged. The Feds have so restricted the States (starting with those morons in black robes) that it has become dang near impossible to make "social issue" policy at the State level.

    This is where much of the frustration lies within the Tea Party folks. At the same time, MANY of them would like to see "top down" legislation that favors their social bent. It is a curious mindset that I see in many.

    We are living in a unique time, with a unique set of circumstances/ all people have before, and will in the future. If we will do right by our kids and their kids, we must surely tread lightly, but with great resolve.

    We can not be two-faced. We must be willing to take personal hits (social security, pensions, medicare, etc.) if we truly believe in limited government, and fiscal responsibility.

    I fear that many will not go that far...and that the bluster of the rabble may prove to be just that. I certainly hope not, but past history tells me that it's likely.

    I think I'm willing to go the whole banana...but I guess I won't know until I'm confronted with it. Man, that was a long comment. I could have just written, "Dunno, Jim!"

  3. I agree with him pretty whole-heartedly. I think the founders were right when they encouraged no foreign entanglements.
    Trade with all, political alliances with none. I could continue and preach a sermon but I'll stop here.
    The Tea Party will sustain themselves if they will support independent candidates with no party allegiance. The two parties have proved that they are incapable of ruling effectively. Now I'll really stop.

  4. " Leave social issues to the states."

    I often hear this but the problem is social conservatives cannot just ignore the role of the Federal Govt

    It is fine to say Marraige should be a State issue. However when there are efforts to repeal DOMA, make Gay Marriage a Const right , then it makes what happens at the State level mute

    On abortion we see this all the time. The States can pass xyz but when Fed Judges that are confirmed strike them down there is a problem. As to abortion and other related issues we further have the problem that American Foregn policy seems to be run currently by Planned Parenthood

  5. " I think the founders were right when they encouraged no foreign entanglements."

    I think many of the founders realized even at a early date this was impossible. Especially with disasters of trade wars, the hijacking of sailors, and other things effecting our National and economic interest early on.

  6. James H., you have stated the REAL problem with social issues being left to The States (which I totally support). It's those guys in black robes. They have too much power...they are not an "equal" branch. They can trump both other branches at once...and they can trump all 50 States if they care to.

    Too much power has been "assumed" by the SCOTUS. And, the leges and execs (and States) have not put firm feet down against them. Federal money is the culprit...we send it all to them, and only get it back if we play nice in the sandbox.


    It is going to take a true revolution to EVER establish sanity as the rule again.

  7. The Executive & Legislative Branches aren't exactly clean on respecting the rights of the states either, but I agree that the court has entirely too much power.
    Thank all of you for your input, I thought it was an interesting video.


Rules of the road:
1. No personal attacks or insults.
2. No accustory statements about wrongdoing or criminal acts against anyone.
3. Say all you want about the pros and cons concerning the candidates and the issues, or the general subject of the blog post, just follow Rule #1 and Rule #2.