T.E.A. and Solipsism with Lolita - How Conservatives Killed the T.E.A. Party

[Luis Gonzalez]

T.E.A. and Solipsism with Lolita, or How SoCons Killed the Party
By Luis Gonzalez
The Last Wire

The Book

Vladimir Nabokov's "Lolita" is a stunningly beautiful example of prose at its very best. An absolute pleasure to read and to immerse oneself in the writer's delicately crafted imagery, Lolita, as seen through the eyes of Humbert Humbert is the epitome of one who "walks in beauty like the night."

"Oh, what a dreamy pet! She walked up to the open suitcase as if stalking it from afar, at a kind of slow-motion walk, peering at that distant treasure box on the luggage support. (Was there something wrong, I wondered, with those great gray eyes of hers, or were we both plunged in the same enchanted mist?)

The deftness of the prose is incredible. In your mind's eye you can "see" exactly what the writer wants you to see moving at the exact pace that he intends for you to move at.

"She stepped up to it, lifting her rather high-heeled feet rather high and bending her beautiful boy-knees while she walked through dilating space with the lentor of one walking under water or in a flight dream. Then she raised by the armlets a  copper-colored, charming and quite expensive vest, very slowly stretching it between her silent hands as if she were a bemused bird-hunter holding his breath over the incredible bird he spreads out by the tips of its flaming wings."

Just then, you feel a tinge of something wrong.

You begin to sense the vulgar aesthetic of it all, and you come to grips with the realization that you're enjoying beauty through the eyes of a pedophile, and the book is never the same again. You struggle with Humbert's morally repugnant behavior even as you recognize the greatness of the writing.

Lolita herself is nothing like what Humbert describes her as being. She is a rather ordinary twelve year-old, and her exotic beauty resides solely in Humbert's mind. The nymphet described in the book exists because he exists.

That's classic solipsism.

The theory or view that the self is the only reality. An extreme form of skepticism which denies the possibility of any knowledge other than of one's own existence. Applied to political ideology, it is the belief that one specific set of beliefs is the only acceptable set of beliefs which defines that political ideology, to the exclusion of all others.

The modern day Social Conservative movement is Humbert Humbert to the Taxed Enough Already coalition's Lolita.

~~~

Read more at The Last Wire

[Luis Gonzalez]

Looks like it was a less than stellar night for the Tea Party last night.

[Bigun]

Who was it who said "Rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated"?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Who was it who said "Rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated"?

A guy who is now dead.

[DCPatriot]

A guy who is now dead.

Now....I don't care who 'you' are!   That there was funny as hell!   

PS:  another brilliant piece, Luis!

[massadvj]

Personally, I don't consider these "losses" to be failures.  They are more like sparring matches.  They force a certain "vetting" of our candidates and they do force the incumbents to work a bit in the primary season, which can only be a good thing.  In the end, the insurgents will nearly always be done in by the big money and marketing finesse of the establishment, except in cases where the incumbent is so reviled or the challenger so strong that an anomalous result occurs.  When that happens, the GOPe candidates tend to squeal like stuck pigs.  I just love that.

I do have a problem with people who suggest our candidates should always run unopposed in primaries.  After all, where would the Globetrotters be without the Washington Nationals?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Now....I don't care who 'you' are!   That there was funny as hell!   

PS:  another brilliant piece, Luis!

I missed my headline last night.

I place the blame squarely on the Miami Heat.

[Bigun]

A guy who is now dead.

Look for the TEA party to take it up!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Personally, I don't consider these "losses" to be failures.  They are more like sparring matches.  They force a certain "vetting" of our candidates and they do force the incumbents to work a bit in the primary season, which can only be a good thing.  In the end, the insurgents will nearly always be done in by the big money and marketing finesse of the establishment, except in cases where the incumbent is so reviled or the challenger so strong that an anomalous result occurs.  When that happens, the GOPe candidates tend to squeal like stuck pigs.  I just love that.

I do have a problem with people who suggest our candidates should always run unopposed in primaries.  After all, where would the Globetrotters be without the Washington Nationals?

The premise of what the T.E.A. Party was has been lost, co-opted into near obscurity by the injection of Social Conservative ideals.

I loved the original movement's across the political spectrum's membership and their rejection of the Federal government's agenda. It felt completely "American" as opposed to conservative vs liberal.

That was refreshing, and that is now gone.

[DCPatriot]

The premise of what the T.E.A. Party was has been lost, co-opted into near obscurity by the injection of Social Conservative ideals.

I loved the original movement's across the political spectrum's membership and their rejection of the Federal government's agenda. It felt completely "American" as opposed to conservative vs liberal.

That was refreshing, and that is now gone.

It's only "gone" in the MSM reporting.

I consider myself a T.E.A. Party charter member.  And so did the rest of the MILLION people there on 9/12/09 in Washington, DC.

That number has grown exponentially.

We're out there, Luis. 

But totally agree that it's the SOCON fringe that needs to be tied up and thrown in the trunk.

[Luis Gonzalez]

It's only "gone" in the MSM reporting.

I consider myself a T.E.A. Party charter member.  And so did the rest of the MILLION people there on 9/12/09 in Washington, DC.

That number has grown exponentially.

We're out there, Luis. 

But totally agree that it's the SOCON fringe that needs to be tied up and thrown in the trunk.

2009 was eons away politically, and what you joined up for no longer exists as it did when you signed up.

[EC]

2009 was eons away politically, and what you joined up for no longer exists as it did when you signed up.

Sadly true, looking at it from this side of the pond. Back when the TEA party caught fire, it was a single issue that brought people together. I recall hardcore Liberals, Independents, and people who otherwise don't give a crap about politics banding together with Conservatives and saying "Enough."

[massadvj]

The premise of what the T.E.A. Party was has been lost, co-opted into near obscurity by the injection of Social Conservative ideals.

I loved the original movement's across the political spectrum's membership and their rejection of the Federal government's agenda. It felt completely "American" as opposed to conservative vs liberal.

That was refreshing, and that is now gone.

I don't really know if this is true or not because I don't have any personal involvement with the Tea Party.  I assume you do.  From what I do know, there are different factions that call themselves Tea Party.  I don't know if Dick Armey is still involved with one of them, but I wouldn't consider him to be a SoCon. 

I'm just not sure you can paint the movement with such a broad brush.  I still perceive it as a movement that is opposed to big government, not one that is involved in religious issues.  But, as I say, I am not really involved with it, other than my inbox is sometimes filled with spam from different groups calling themselves Tea Party (a price I pay for belonging to the NRA).  Most of the e-mails I get are focused on reducing the size of government, not on abortion or teaching creationism in the schools.

I do think the MSM has succeeded in marginalizing and demonizing the Tea Party.  I think it's a shame when people who consider themselves conservatives join in that cause.

[alicewonders]

The Tea Party has a website?

God, Luis - you're playing the MSM's game here - trying to paint all of us with the SOCON paintbrush! 

There is NO Tea Party website!
 
There are groups that have included Tea Party in their names - but they are not tied together in any kind of network by any means!  There are people that claim to speak for the "Tea Party" - but they do not speak for me!  There are idiots that run for office calling themselves Tea Party - but they are not selected by the vast majority of people that self-identify as Tea Party - just like with the GOP establishment!  It's not possible for any idealogy that proclaims freedom to the individual to be monolithic!

To say that the Tea Party is on it's death bed is to join the MSM and to play by their rules.  When you have the full force of the IRS, the White House - and now the GOP party - against you......you have a tough fight ahead of you.  The Tea Party philosophy is one of FISCAL conservatism in government!  Nothing more or less!

Just like in everything that becomes successful - you have your shysters, your opportunists, stalkers, imposters and outright criminals jumping on for the ride.  We do have to move up to the next phase of a burgeoning new movement - we have to start organizing and find a leader - a spokesman for us.  This is the hard part, but is essential to our eventual victory. 

The Socons are just as bad as the Progressives they deride - they think that Government is the answer.  They are the opportunists that are trying to take over the movement and the MSM sees that and rubs their greasy hands together with glee - ah!  We see a weakness we can exploit!  We do have to purge these types because they are working with the enemy in that they are weakening our mission. 

We're not dead.  We're learning - much like a baby learns to walk - by falling and picking ourselves back up.  We've got some skinned knees but we're not mortally wounded.  Our mission of fiscal conservatism is sound and as things keep deteriorating, it will resonate with more and more people.  We just have to keep focused on the message and not allow ourselves to be led off the path - to go look at something "shiny". 

[Luis Gonzalez]

I don't really know if this is true or not because I don't have any personal involvement with the Tea Party.  I assume you do.  From what I do know, there are different factions that call themselves Tea Party.  I don't know if Dick Armey is still involved with one of them, but I wouldn't consider him to be a SoCon. 

I'm just not sure you can paint the movement with such a broad brush.  I still perceive it as a movement that is opposed to big government, not one that is involved in religious issues.  But, as I say, I am not really involved with it, other than my inbox is sometimes filled with spam from different groups calling themselves Tea Party (a price I pay for belonging to the NRA).  Most of the e-mails I get are focused on reducing the size of government, not on abortion or teaching creationism in the schools.

I do think the MSM has succeeded in marginalizing and demonizing the Tea Party.  I think it's a shame when people who consider themselves conservatives join in that cause.

I don't see myself as attacking the party, I do see the party having been transformed into something that it wasn't intended to be, IMHO.

I do believe that our country will not set itself on the "right path" by way of the control of one Party over government as opposed to the other, or one ideology over the other.

It will do that when the country, as a country, not as differing ideologies or competing political parties, sets its collective mind to do it.

I saw some of that in the original T.E.A. Party, and I don't see it so much from the Party as it stands now.

Sadly, I also see conservatism as the ideology and practice of exclusion.

We need big tents... really big tents, where admission isn't set as adherence to a narrowing set of ideals.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The Tea Party has a website?

God, Luis - you're playing the MSM's game here - trying to paint all of us with the SOCON paintbrush! 

There is NO Tea Party website!
 
There are groups that have included Tea Party in their names - but they are not tied together in any kind of network by any means!  There are people that claim to speak for the "Tea Party" - but they do not speak for me!  There are idiots that run for office calling themselves Tea Party - but they are not selected by the vast majority of people that self-identify as Tea Party - just like with the GOP establishment!  It's not possible for any idealogy that proclaims freedom to the individual to be monolithic!

To say that the Tea Party is on it's death bed is to join the MSM and to play by their rules.  When you have the full force of the IRS, the White House - and now the GOP party - against you......you have a tough fight ahead of you.  The Tea Party philosophy is one of FISCAL conservatism in government!  Nothing more or less!

Just like in everything that becomes successful - you have your shysters, your opportunists, stalkers, imposters and outright criminals jumping on for the ride.  We do have to move up to the next phase of a burgeoning new movement - we have to start organizing and find a leader - a spokesman for us.  This is the hard part, but is essential to our eventual victory. 

The Socons are just as bad as the Progressives they deride - they think that Government is the answer.  They are the opportunists that are trying to take over the movement and the MSM sees that and rubs their greasy hands together with glee - ah!  We see a weakness we can exploit!  We do have to purge these types because they are working with the enemy in that they are weakening our mission. 

We're not dead.  We're learning - much like a baby learns to walk - by falling and picking ourselves back up.  We've got some skinned knees but we're not mortally wounded.  Our mission of fiscal conservatism is sound and as things keep deteriorating, it will resonate with more and more people.  We just have to keep focused on the message and not allow ourselves to be led off the path - to go look at something "shiny".

TeaParty.org

Tell Palin, Cruz et al.

P.S. Is that all you got out of the article?

[alicewonders]

TeaParty.org

Tell Palin, Cruz et al.

P.S. Is that all you got out of the article?

TeaParty.org - TeaParty.schmorgasbord

Never been there - don't ever plan to go there.  They are just an organization that is trying to BE the tea party, I guess.  There is no official Tea PARTY.  No official Tea Party WEBSITE.  No ballot that has the Tea Party listed on it.  No national Tea Party convention - only a bunch of groups trying to establish themselves as the establishment.  It's a necessary process, hopefully the fiscal conservative ideology will win the day.

The website.  Is that all you got out of my answer?

[Luis Gonzalez]

TeaParty.org - TeaParty.schmorgasbord

Never been there - don't ever plan to go there.  They are just an organization that is trying to BE the tea party, I guess.  There is no official Tea PARTY.  No official Tea Party WEBSITE.  No ballot that has the Tea Party listed on it.  No national Tea Party convention - only a bunch of groups trying to establish themselves as the establishment.  It's a necessary process, hopefully the fiscal conservative ideology will win the day.

The website.  Is that all you got out of my answer?

 ^-^

[truth_seeker]

TeaParty.org - TeaParty.schmorgasbord

Never been there - don't ever plan to go there.  They are just an organization that is trying to BE the tea party, I guess.  There is no official Tea PARTY.  No official Tea Party WEBSITE.  No ballot that has the Tea Party listed on it.  No national Tea Party convention - only a bunch of groups trying to establish themselves as the establishment.  It's a necessary process, hopefully the fiscal conservative ideology will win the day.

The website.  Is that all you got out of my answer?

Michelle Bachmann set up the Tea Party Caucus, in the House. She was head of it. Todd Akins was a member.

Luis' article described the hijacking of the original TEA Party movement, which BY definition, was NOT SoCon, by the Socons.

Multiple polls over the past year conclude the Tea Party brand has lost popularity, lost approval.

Deny it if you like. That doesn't alter those facts.

And of course when the left sees all this happening, they pick up on the opportunity. But they had such obvious volunteers for portraying the TP as goofballs, like O'Donnell, "I am not a witch."

[katzenjammer]

The Tea Party has a website?

God, Luis - you're playing the MSM's game here - trying to paint all of us with the SOCON paintbrush! 

There is NO Tea Party website!
 
There are groups that have included Tea Party in their names - but they are not tied together in any kind of network by any means!  There are people that claim to speak for the "Tea Party" - but they do not speak for me!  There are idiots that run for office calling themselves Tea Party - but they are not selected by the vast majority of people that self-identify as Tea Party - just like with the GOP establishment!  It's not possible for any idealogy that proclaims freedom to the individual to be monolithic!

To say that the Tea Party is on it's death bed is to join the MSM and to play by their rules.  When you have the full force of the IRS, the White House - and now the GOP party - against you......you have a tough fight ahead of you.  The Tea Party philosophy is one of FISCAL conservatism in government!  Nothing more or less!

Just like in everything that becomes successful - you have your shysters, your opportunists, stalkers, imposters and outright criminals jumping on for the ride.  We do have to move up to the next phase of a burgeoning new movement - we have to start organizing and find a leader - a spokesman for us.  This is the hard part, but is essential to our eventual victory. 

The Socons are just as bad as the Progressives they deride - they think that Government is the answer.  They are the opportunists that are trying to take over the movement and the MSM sees that and rubs their greasy hands together with glee - ah!  We see a weakness we can exploit!  We do have to purge these types because they are working with the enemy in that they are weakening our mission. 

We're not dead.  We're learning - much like a baby learns to walk - by falling and picking ourselves back up.  We've got some skinned knees but we're not mortally wounded.  Our mission of fiscal conservatism is sound and as things keep deteriorating, it will resonate with more and more people.  We just have to keep focused on the message and not allow ourselves to be led off the path - to go look at something "shiny".

Boy, Alice!!  I don't know what kind of coffee or orange juice you had this morning, but you are hitting them out of the park!!  As I said another post of yours that I read earlier was so damn inspiring and uplifting, I have to say that this one is one of the most insightful and intelligent ones I have read in a long time!!  Thank you, again!!

[massadvj]

We need big tents... really big tents, where admission isn't set as adherence to a narrowing set of ideals.

You say you support a big tent, and yet you consistently bash social conservatives, who make up an estimated 35 percent of the GOP.  I don't understand how you can support a big tent when you denigrate 35 percent of the people currently IN the tent.  That just doesn't compute with me.

[Oceander]

You say you support a big tent, and yet you consistently bash social conservatives, who make up an estimated 35 percent of the GOP.  I don't understand how you can support a big tent when you denigrate 35 percent of the people currently IN the tent.  That just doesn't compute with me.

except that (a) social conservatives do just as much bashing, and (b) social conservatives want to impose a narrow set of rigid ideals as the price of admission.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You say you support a big tent, and yet you consistently bash social conservatives, who make up an estimated 35 percent of the GOP.  I don't understand how you can support a big tent when you denigrate 35 percent of the people currently IN the tent.  That just doesn't compute with me.

Because in my experience, SoCons earnestly work at limiting access to that tent.

If you are gay you can't be in the tent.

If you are an atheist you can't be in that tent.

If you do not oppose same-sex marriage you can't be in that tent.

If you think that some sort if amnesty is going to be necessary to solve the illegal alien problem, you can't be in that tent.

In fact, in you don't elevate social issue above fiscal and political ones, you can't be in that tent.

[massadvj]

except that (a) social conservatives do just as much bashing, and (b) social conservatives want to impose a narrow set of rigid ideals as the price of admission.

I don't disagree.  However, the last successful GOP presidential candidate won with a plurality that included these folks.  So far, I don't see any evidence that moderates can be moved to the GOP, although moderates themselves often claim if we just throw the SoCons under the bus, they'll come in droves.  Well, the GOP in most of the northeast states has done just that, and where are they?

You know that I am no SoCon.  But I see no reason to intentionally antagonize that faction of the party.  When they propose something stupid - like public funding of churches, mandatory prayer in the schools, the teaching of creationism or a constitutional amendment banning abortion - then I will oppose those policies.  But otherwise I am not going to intentionally denigrate decent, God-fearing people who are usually model citizens.

[mystery-ak]

TBR is all about the *big tent* and I am not going to go through another election year of GOP factions here bashing each other for not seeing or adopting their POV..we all believe what we believe and TBR was created as a place where we could ALL discuss our POV's and more importantly work to over throw our common enemy...THE DEMOCRATS

[Luis Gonzalez]

I don't disagree.  However, the last successful GOP presidential candidate won with a plurality that included these folks.  So far, I don't see any evidence that moderates can be moved to the GOP, although moderates themselves often claim if we just throw the SoCons under the bus, they'll come in droves.  Well, the GOP in most of the northeast states has done just that, and where are they?

You know that I am no SoCon.  But I see no reason to intentionally antagonize that faction of the party.  When they propose something stupid - like public funding of churches, mandatory prayer in the schools, the teaching of creationism or a constitutional amendment banning abortion - then I will oppose those policies.  But otherwise I am not going to intentionally denigrate decent, God-fearing people who are usually model citizens.

The there is the sustainable theory which accredits Romney's loss to Evangelicals and the Southern Christian Right staying home in droves on Election Day.   

[truth_seeker]

TBR is all about the *big tent* and I am not going to go through another election year of GOP factions here bashing each other for not seeing or adopting their POV..we all believe what we believe and TBR was created as a place where we could ALL discuss our POV's and more importantly work to over throw our common enemy...THE DEMOCRATS

I don't see any "bashing" here. I see people hopefully working towards supporting the eventual candidates. I know I will do that.

Otherwise, this thread is a healthy discussion of the aspects of "conservatism" as it actually is today.

If I had a place like this, I would applaud those who put forth the strongest arguments, not warn them.

And for those who would support democrats, I would warn them about the original and current mission of the forum.

But that is just me.

[massadvj]

The there is the sustainable theory which accredits Romney's loss to Evangelicals and the Southern Christian Right staying home in droves on Election Day.

I don't know if it is the reason he lost, but I do think a lot of evangelicals stayed home because Romney is a Mormon.  To me, Romney's record was as liberal as anyone in the GOP.  I would not support him until the last few weeks of the election, not because of his religion but because he is a Wall Street establishment politician.  My point is, if Mitt Romney was unable to garner enough moderate votes to overcome the loss of evangelicals, then how far to the left does the party have to go to get moderates?  Not just on social issues, but on fiscal issues.

For example, freedom to choose abortion is now the law of the land.  Do we placate moderates who insist on government-funded abortion on demand?  How about those who insist we attach welfare dependency to amnesty?  How about we appeal to moderate women with universal government-funded pre-school?  The fiscal arena is where these issues are being played out. 

[DCPatriot]

I don't see any "bashing" here. I see people hopefully working towards supporting the eventual candidates. I know I will do that.

Otherwise, this thread is a healthy discussion of the aspects of "conservatism" as it actually is today.

If I had a place like this, I would applaud those who put forth the strongest arguments, not warn them.

And for those who would support democrats, I would warn them about the original and current mission of the forum.

But that is just me.

Absolutely have to agree with you 100%!   With a smile, I might add.

[mystery-ak]

I don't see any "bashing" here. I see people hopefully working towards supporting the eventual candidates. I know I will do that.

Otherwise, this thread is a healthy discussion of the aspects of "conservatism" as it actually is today.

If I had a place like this, I would applaud those who put forth the strongest arguments, not warn them.

And for those who would support democrats, I would warn them about the original and current mission of the forum.

But that is just me.

I didn't say it was happening now...as an aside were you here in 2012..I can recall a lot of bashing especially towards members of the Tea Party....hopefully we don't have members here who support Dems..if that is the case they logged into the wrong forum....

[Luis Gonzalez]

I don't know if it is the reason he lost, but I do think a lot of evangelicals stayed home because Romney is a Mormon.  To me, Romney's record was as liberal as anyone in the GOP.  I would not support him until the last few weeks of the election, not because of his religion but because he is a Wall Street establishment politician.  My point is, if Mitt Romney was unable to garner enough moderate votes to overcome the loss of evangelicals, then how far to the left does the party have to go to get moderates?  Not just on social issues, but on fiscal issues.

For example, freedom to choose abortion is now the law of the land.  Do we placate moderates who insist on government-funded abortion on demand?  How about those who insist we attach welfare dependency to amnesty?  How about we appeal to moderate women with universal government-funded pre-school?  The fiscal arena is where these issues are being played out.

Political parties only exist to win elections. So if a political party is force to move one way or another because a portion of its membership is not supporting the Party's nominee, then the Party will move as much as it needs to move in order to win that election.

If Evangelicals can't be counted in to support the Party's nominee after the primary process has concluded, then the Party is forced to do whatever it needs to do in order to win elections. 

[massadvj]

Political parties only exist to win elections. So if a political party is force to move one way or another because a portion of its membership is not supporting the Party's nominee, then the Party will move as much as it needs to move in order to win that election.

If Evangelicals can't be counted in to support the Party's nominee after the primary process has concluded, then the Party is forced to do whatever it needs to do in order to win elections.

In most of the northeast states, the GOP has moved in precisely the direction you advocate, and yet the party has precious little to show for it.  In fact, the Dems roll over the Republican moderates with far more ease than conservatives, precisely because they stand for nothing except expediency.  Look at Scott Brown, for example.  If what you say is true then we need to shift to where Elizabeth Warren is on the political spectrum, because that is where the center is in Massachusetts, and the rest of the country is getting there.

I'd rather die fighting for liberty than live winning elections that just propagate the same old big government expansionism.

[alicewonders]

I'd rather die fighting for liberty than live winning elections that just propagate the same old big government expansionism.

       

[Bigun]

I'd rather die fighting for liberty than live winning elections that just propagate the same old big government expansionism.

Get's my vote for quote of the month!

 

[Luis Gonzalez]

In most of the northeast states, the GOP has moved in precisely the direction you advocate, and yet the party has precious little to show for it.  In fact, the Dems roll over the Republican moderates with far more ease than conservatives, precisely because they stand for nothing except expediency.  Look at Scott Brown, for example.  If what you say is true then we need to shift to where Elizabeth Warren is on the political spectrum, because that is where the center is in Massachusetts, and the rest of the country is getting there.

I'd rather die fighting for liberty than live winning elections that just propagate the same old big government expansionism.

There is a supposition in your post that could be the subject to an entirely new thread. We don't really know whether or not a more conservative candidates would be more successful in an ultra liberal State like Mass. That's like suggesting that someone to the left of Elizabeth Warren would be a more viable candidate for the Democrats in Mississippi.

The point is that a political Party cannot just write a State off completely. 

[Luis Gonzalez]

I'd rather die fighting for liberty than live winning elections that just propagate the same old big government expansionism.

Government expansionism is not the sole realm of liberals.

[Bigun]

Government expansionism is not the sole realm of liberals.

Luis I could be wrong but I think that is EXACTLY the point Victor was making!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Luis I could be wrong but I think that is EXACTLY the point Victor was making!

If all we can look forward to is expansionism from both liberals and conservatives why are we wasting out time?

We may as well all just lay down and die.

[speekinout]

The premise of what the T.E.A. Party was has been lost, co-opted into near obscurity by the injection of Social Conservative ideals.

I loved the original movement's across the political spectrum's membership and their rejection of the Federal government's agenda. It felt completely "American" as opposed to conservative vs liberal.

That was refreshing, and that is now gone.

 

Luis, I loved this article. It explains exactly why I became disillusioned with the Tea Party. I was very much a T.E.A. Partier in its original form - I did rallies, worked booths at community events, all of it. Our local group divided just as you said, and it's not a united group anymore. That's sad.

[massadvj]

If all we can look forward to is expansionism from both liberals and conservatives why are e wasting out time?

We may as well all just lay down and die.

Liberty does not die for the simple reason that we are endowed with it by our creator.  The true libertarian lives his philosophy and does not wait for government to "allow" him to live it.  This is true for the immigrant who comes to this country to exercise his right to negotiate his labor, and it applies to the gun owner who keeps his guns in spite of government edicts to turn them in.  Freedom is something that is maintained as a state of mind, not something conferred by government.  Yes, government can take freedom away, but the true liberty lover can be free though he lives in a prison, because he knows that no jailer can bind his mind.

So, no, my friend.  I will not lay down and die.  I will resist.  Sometimes resistance will manifest itself in electioneering, but more often it will manifest itself in how I live my life.  Laying down and dying is nothing more than surrendering to the bastards.

[EC]

There are two strong words which are rarely used.

No.

Enough.

Might be time to dust them off?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Liberty does not die for the simple reason that we are endowed with it by our creator.  The true libertarian lives his philosophy and does not wait for government to "allow" him to live it.  This is true for the immigrant who comes to this country to exercise his right to negotiate his labor, and it applies to the gun owner who keeps his guns in spite of government edicts to turn them in.  Freedom is something that is maintained as a state of mind, not something conferred by government.  Yes, government can take freedom away, but the true liberty lover can be free though he lives in a prison, because he knows that no jailer can bind his mind.

So, no, my friend.  I will not lay down and die.  I will resist.  Sometimes resistance will manifest itself in electioneering, but more often it will manifest itself in how I live my life.  Laying down and dying is nothing more than surrendering to the bastards.

I was responding to Bigun, and if you read his post closely, he implies that my point (expansionism isn't the sole realm of liberals) is the same point you were making in your post.

If that's true, if government expansionism is the outcome of both liberal and conservatives in government, then what exactly is it that makes liberals and conservatives different, and why are bothering to vote at all?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Luis, I loved this article. It explains exactly why I became disillusioned with the Tea Party. I was very much a T.E.A. Partier in its original form - I did rallies, worked booths at community events, all of it. Our local group divided just as you said, and it's not a united group anymore. That's sad.

Thanks.

[massadvj]

If that's true, if government expansionism is the outcome of both liberal and conservatives in government, then what exactly is it that makes liberals and conservatives different, and why are bothering to vote at all?

I have been asking myself that question since the GHWB administration.  I still vote, but I haven't cast a presidential ballot I've been satisfied with for over 30 years.  Meanwhile, the moderates get to cast satisfying (albeit usually losing) votes cycle after cycle.  And you say we aren't moderate enough!  Well, I can't think of a national GOP figure with a more liberal record than Mitt Romney.  If he isn't moderate enough, what must we do?  Recruit Howard Dean into the party and vote for him?  And when we do, and we finally win, what will we have won, exactly? 

[Luis Gonzalez]

TBR is all about the *big tent* and I am not going to go through another election year of GOP factions here bashing each other for not seeing or adopting their POV..we all believe what we believe and TBR was created as a place where we could ALL discuss our POV's and more importantly work to over throw our common enemy...THE DEMOCRATS

Just as the nation's Founders agreed that the contentious issues faced by the nation should be all worked out in the laboratory of the States (bloody ones when it came to slavery), contentious interparty issues should be worked out in the laboratory of forums and debate halls (places where politics used to be argued before Al Gore invented the Internet).

It is imperative that we work through all our differences here, before the battle (as it were) is joined.

My personal goal is to incite intelligent debate among friends. It is not to act as an agent provocateur, or an agitator.

My ideas on government an politics in general are impacted every single day by posts I read here and other places, and I shift my stances as I experience paradigm shifts as a result of being exposed to a point of view that I may have not given thought to before. Understanding why those who disagree with you disagree with you is perhaps the greatest bit of political understanding that anyone could ever gain.

That (to me) is a GOOD thing. I can't be so rigid that I will break as a result of resistance to learning things, or even changing.

Politics and political ideology to me is a journey where the destination is the journey itself.

[GourmetDan]

...and more importantly work to over throw our common enemy...THE DEMOCRATS

The the left/right 'battle' is the creation of the international banking families... who are the enemy of all mankind...

[Luis Gonzalez]

I have been asking myself that question since the GHWB administration.  I still vote, but I haven't cast a presidential ballot I've been satisfied with for over 30 years.  Meanwhile, the moderates get to cast satisfying (albeit usually losing) votes cycle after cycle.  And you say we aren't moderate enough!  Well, I can't think of a national GOP figure with a more liberal record than Mitt Romney.  If he isn't moderate enough, what must we do?  Recruit Howard Dean into the party and vote for him?  And when we do, and we finally win, what will we have won, exactly?

I had never seen a more timely candidate than Mitt Romney this past election cycle.

A tried and true capitalist with real-world experience on the business of running the business that is this nation. The man was nearly God-sent in my eyes.

We have a very real, very explosive financial crisis in this nation, and we rejected Mitt Romney as a liberal.

He was rejected by a great portion of the traditional GOP vote based on his stance on social issues, and his religion.

I know few groups of people more socially conservative than Mormons.

I don't know that anything can be "done" to reverse where our society is today, but a great number of "our side" insists on supporting candidates according to their stances on issues that they can do absolutely nothing about.

[truth_seeker]

The the left/right 'battle' is the creation of the international banking families... who are the enemy of all mankind...

Okay then name these "international banking families."

[Bigun]

If all we can look forward to is expansionism from both liberals and conservatives why are we wasting out time?

We may as well all just lay down and die.

Are you telling me that you do not  believe that both Democrats and Republicans have expanded government greatly over the last 100 years or so?

If so you are entirely mistaken because they have and that is a historical FACT!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Are you telling me that you do not  believe that both Democrats and Republicans have expanded government greatly over the last 100 years or so?

If so you are entirely mistaken because they have and that is a historical FACT!

That's slick. You all do that all the time.
 
When it's time to slam the GOP as a bunch of "RINOs", you all draw a line of distinction between "conservatives" and Republicans.

But when I point out that conservatives are as guilty as liberals of expanding the government, suddenly you want to discuss Republicans.

Don't shift the subject back to Republicans when it's suitable.