http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/107001988.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:U0ckkD:aEyKUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr
Since the rise of the Tea Party the accusations flew about their racist and bigoted thoughts. At every turn the Liberal media and pundits attempted to paint all Tea Party goers as angry, white, middle aged men. While there was a fringe group that joined the fray for a chance to vent their anger against a black president, the majority of them were just fed up with over taxation, deficit spending, loss of freedoms and the arrogance of a growing central government.
Democrats did their best efforts to put a face on their liberal agenda with Obama because it offered them the opportunity to paint the GOP as the Party of "Fat Cat" white guys. Unfortunately, the Democrats didn't realize the ground swell of fiscal Conservatism that existed in America. Personally, I wished the Tea Party movement had started during the 2010 Primary season to avoid the racist, angry, white man moniker the Left has attempted to paint them.
As the article points out, the Tea Party backed candidates are more diverse then what the media leads on. Probably the biggest Tea Party backed candidate is Marco Rubio and he is a Latino. It will be interesting if the Congressional Black Caucus will offer an invitation to the newly elected black Congressman that are cloaked in the GOP.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Really? We've talked this to death haven't we?
ReplyDeleteWhy not talk about the budget commissions report yesterday?
Truman - To be honest I haven't read the report yet. My plan is to read it before Sunday and then place comment up here. I did see a few snippets of it and found a few pieces interesting but I want to dive into it a bit deeper.
ReplyDeleteAre you not curious as to how the black GOP freshman Congress members will be greeted by the Black Caucus? I agree that we have discussed the angle of racism within the Tea Party but what never got the day in the sun was the fact that they were running more minority candidates then the Democratic Party.
Nope, I couldn't care less if the GOP black congressmen are in the black caucus or not. Who cares if the tea party is racist? Really, who cares?
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I'm not trying to be belligerent but we have such major things going on in this country, and that commissions report was a very very interesting topic at hand that I'd like to hear your opinion on so it makes these kinds of topics seem banal.
ReplyDeleteSo it's not ok to call the Tea Party racists but it is ok to call the left socialists, commies, and/or Hitler?
ReplyDeleteAgain, who cares?
ReplyDeleteSticks and stones man, sticks and stones.
Truman - we understand that you see other issues as bigger than whether or not the Tea Party is justified in being labeled as it has been.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous - The Left is Socialism. Now it can't be compared to Hitler as that is the opposite of Socialism. To label the Tea Party movement as racist is patently wrong for it that were really true why are Tea Party goers backing and voting for minority candidates?
So let me get this straight, every person on "the Left" is a Socialist. Right? And you know this how?
ReplyDeleteTalk about painting with a broad brush.
Your sort of logic would only allow one conclusion about the Tea Party then. The Tea Party is racist.
Why must that be the conclusion? Because, according to your logic, racists do exist within the Tea Party so the entire Tea Party is racist.
I know. It's your "I'll argue something even if I don't believe it so that I can just "advance the conversation". Either that or make yourself look like a complete fool. You choose.
Slick Willie
ReplyDeleteI am sure you will agree, and I positive that Viper will too, that when referencing the Left it is not the same as referencing Liberals in general. The Left is the Socialist arm of Liberalism, at least how I see it, and for Viper to make the statement above is accurate. Obama is at the front of the class.
"He was a Marxist-socialist in college," said John C. Drew, who knew Mr. Obama as a university student, in an interview. "He kept talking about the need to overthrow capitalism in favor of a working-class revolution." - a portion of an article that ran in the Washington Times on March 5, 2010.
You're right, it is wrong to label the whole Tea Party racist. And it's wrong to lable the left as all socialist. But you don't agree with the left, so it's "different" for you. Your statement causes you to lose any credability you had left with me.
ReplyDeleteThere is no way to have an honest, intellecutal debate about issues with someone you takes such an extreme stance. You don't want to listen to arugments on the otherside.
Good day.
Anonymous - You are correct. When I speak of the Left I am talking about the Socialists in the Liberalism midst. I understand that not all Liberals are Socialists just as all Conservatives are not Fascists. And yes I don't agree with Socialism. Now, if pockets of the United States want to experiment with Socialism then so be it for it is the land of the free. Just don't push that type of agenda on everyone else.
ReplyDeleteJust as if a group of people wanted to carve out an area of land to live under a Fascist regime. Do it, as we are the land of the free, but don't bring it to everyone. The Framers set up a very simple yet complex notion of freedom and limited government. Since that time we have eroded that very fabric and become closer to a one State Country instead of a collective as it was meant to be.
That is a pretty powerful quote about Obama that Anonymous posted but it gets swept under the rug by most as nonsense. Is it really?
To the second Anonymous - I do start the conversation a lot of the times with an extreme stance but I do, unlike many here, find common ground or at least attempt to find common ground.
As I have said before, I opened it up to Anonymous postings to help bring in more people. My hope was that as people visited more often they'd post with an identifying moniker as it is easy to cast stones without one.
Casting a stone!
ReplyDeleteSorry, must have missed that along the way. I had no idea that "the Left" was a specific reference to "the Socialists in the Liberalism midst". I don't know how I could have missed that one.
ReplyDeleteHere's what I don't get about your follow up comment Viper. you talk about "pockets of the United States" wanting, perhaps, to experiment with Socialism but not pushing "that type of agenda on everyone else". How do you see that happening?
Do we round up every Socialist and cordon off an area for them? Do we round up every Fascist and cordon off a separate area for them? What about Conservatives? What about Progressives? Should we designate each state as being the state for a particular brand of political theory?
I really like the "pushing that agenda on everyone else" comment. You know what that sounds like? A sore loser. Sour grapes. The loser's lament. Sure, Republicans won back the U.S. House, made gains in state legislatures and houses around the country and captured governorships, but it's just a funny comment.
You should be more clear in what you say. "Stop pushing your agenda on everyone else unless I agree with it, then push away." That's what you really mean. Isn't it? And let's not pretend that "limited government" with "freedoms" and "liberties" for all is not pushing an agenda on someone. It's an agenda.
Slick Willie - No, we are not rounding anyone up. Just as the Mormons have done by carving out an area in Western United States, so too can these extreme ideological stances if they like but stay out of Washington D.C. Either extreme's agenda is bad for our collection of States as it centralizes power and restricts freedoms.
ReplyDeleteI forget who said it but "politics is local" and it should remain that. Issues facing Florida, New York, Washington, Alaska or Iowa are not all the same. The Framers understood that Virginians differed from Pennsylvanians thus limiting the power of the central government.
It's not a sore loser comment but to each their own opinion. You make it sound as if my vote is party line which it is not. Yes, limited government and more freedoms is an agenda. Its the premise our country was built upon so why not keep it that way? Why allow government to get bigger? Why allow government to tell us what we can and cannot do in our private lives? Why allow government to mandate we purchase certain products just to live? That is not the role of government nor is it a free society.
To be clear Viper, less government and more freedom was the Jeffersonian ideal of the country. If you asked Alexander Hamilton his opinion, it would have been quite different since he saw the country as having a strong central government.
ReplyDeleteThat said, both believed that government intrusion on private lives was very bad. However, the tea party advocates just this - since they are both fiscal AND social conservatives.
This makes them anything but libertarian.
Currently there are national tea party groups advocating the following:
Maintain Don't ask, don't tell
Ban gay marriage
Maintain drug war
Ban new mosque construction
And I'm sure this list goes on and on.
So doesn't your political movement of choice want to exert the abuse of federal power with regards to social ideology that democrats want to use it for with regards to economic ideology?
What makes one ideology better than another? Why is one group allowed to abuse federal power to control personal behavior while another is not allowed to use it to control corporate behavior?
Which is worse in the end for our nation?
I think even Jefferson would argue that using the power against corporations is better than against citizens for one clear reason.
Corporations don't have rights, citizens do.
Note, I think both ideologies are wrong, I'm just making a point that this "crying foul" over the things being discussed here is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black.
ReplyDeleteTruman – I have not paid attention to their social agenda as I am more concerned with the fiscal agenda of the current regime and those moderate Republicans as well. Any ideology that curtails freedoms or masked the expansion of freedom through larger government has no place in a free society.
ReplyDeleteThis is why I am not in either party. I am fiscally conservative but social liberal. I don’t think we need a law on the books for every aspect of our lives and that is why I also believe that the best government is localized government.
I agree that neither party or ideology ought to be allowed to abuse federal power which is why we need to reverse a lot of our laws and limited the federal government to those enumerated them in the Constitution. If States want to ban gay marriage, although I don’t think the issue of marriage should be in government, then so be it. It is a States issue and not one enumerated the Federal Government. Just as California’s proposition to legalize marijuana is a States issue and not an issue of Federal importance.
Any abuse of powers granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution ought not be tolerated; personal or corporate. Some regulation is needed to ensure the safety, legitimacy and keep corporations accountable. The trouble is that over regulations in the United States has resulted in the erosion of our manufacturing base and is one of the key components of why we languish in a recession.
Regulations didn't erode our manufacturing base, cost of manufacturing (fully loaded) eroded our manufacturing base. With the ability to manufacture moved first to Mexico and then to China, manufacturers discovered that they could save quite a bit and still create a quality product. (quality is relative mind you) This is what did in the manufacturing base, high costs of production.
ReplyDeleteWhat they forgot is that true quality is higher in the US and productivity is dramatically higher too.
That's why some have moved back, but most won't.
Truman
ReplyDeleteTrue, regulations alone did not erode our manufacturing base but it played a major role. The other being taxes and wages.
So Viper, who decides what constitutes an "extreme ideological stance"?
ReplyDeleteWhat if one of these members of the "extreme ideological stance" movement decides to run for office and by some miracle wins a seat in the U.S. House or U.S. Senate? Are you going to deny the will of the people?
You ask the following: "Why allow government to get bigger? Why allow government to tell us what we can and cannot do in our private lives? Why allow government to mandate we purchase certain products just to live? That is not the role of government nor is it a free society."
My simple response: it's the will of the people. The "government" that you refer to is a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Just relax for a moment and stop it with this chicken little hyperbole.
@Anon,
ReplyDeleteTaxes DID NOT become a factor in moving manufacturing. As a point of fact, US corporate taxes, while at the tax rate are relatively high (relatively being the key term), most corporations do not pay any significant level of taxes. Remember, the statutory tax level is different from the real tax rate due to deferral of taxes and generally speaking, taxes can be deferred indefinitely.
There are two primary factors that drove out manufacturing from the US and they were not regulatory.
They were wages, as I noted above, which caused the fully loaded cost to manufacture a product to skyrocket. For example, the fully loaded salary/benefits of a GM employee is roughly $70 per hour or 140k per year. That is while they get a salary of 60k. So you have 80k in benefits/pension expense on top of their salary. That, while typical private, non-union companies have a cost of ~15k on a 60k salary. That means the unions have forced the manufacturers to pay more than 4x the standard for their employees.
The second reason for manufacturings decline is the dumping of products on the marketplace by China. China has subsidized manufacturing with billions of state dollars and then encourages the dumping of those low cost products on the US market to push industries like steel, etc out of business.
These are the reasons why US manufacturing corporations went down or moved, not regulation. In fact, when comparing our regulatory environment to some other industrialized nations, we are very low on that ladder. Only when you compare us to China/India which are both developing nations do we suddenly see some regulatory gap. But again, a bigger gap is salary expense.