Chris Matthews doesn't get it.
The MSNBC anchor continues to see the Tea Party as "far right loons from fringe elements of the Republican Party." Perhaps it's time for him to step out of his "Boston bubble" and take a road trip across America!
Not that anyone in the Tea Party truly reveres the opinion of Chris Matthews! There is anger throughout the movement; at the Republican Establishment. It is a general conclusion that these holders of Ivy League diplomas forgot 2008. More conveniently they failed to remember 2010!
Conservatives can blame themselves in part. There were several candidates more acceptable than Mitt Romney. Maybe, too many! Then came the question of "which" Tea Party? And in getting down to the specifics, we realized that there was no clear preference.
To some Tea Parties, Ron Paul was the true conservative. To a lot of Kentuckians, he was the "Gatewood Galbreath" of Presidential elections. It seemed that he was always a candidate; on multiple parties, if my memory serves me correctly. The first one was probably the most accurate. While harboring some Republicans positions, it's fair to conclude that Congressman Paul is a Libertarian.
There are many Republicans who consider Texas Governor, Rick Perry a Democrat. True, Perry's positions were to the right of Mitt Romney's. But his historical involvement in Democrat politics raised some eyebrows. Never mind about his report card as Governor. The important thing to remember is that he was Al Gore's Texas campaign chairmen in 1988. Some have forgotten that the former VP ran for President in '88. Perry's people say that Gore was "different, much more conservative" in 1988!
The die-hard Newt Gingrich supporters must be given a medal; for stubbornness! As great of an orator as he is, Newt was never really electable. He would make a great Secretary of State. But his baggage is considerable.
Michelle Bachmann should have endorsed Perry. Instead, she tried to destroy him. She might have come away with the VP nod. Instead, she is likely going back to her law practice.
Rick Santorum was as unlikely as any candidate. He had no money and an extremist legacy. His 18-point loss in the Pennsylvania Senate race in 2006 signaled the end of his career. Yet he surprised everyone! Today, he is in excellent position for another Presidential run sometime in the future.
Many of us were hoping the Jeb Bush might declare. But he didn't. Now that he is voicing some mild interest in being the Vice President, we're saying, "why now, Jeb?"
April is not yet concluded and it appears that the Republican Establishment has gotten their wish! But what are the implications of a Romney nomination? If he wins, they will note, "we had to defeat Barack Obama." However, if he loses, they will be blamed. And probably divorced!
Ron Paul will make no more attempts at the presidency. His followers will push him for this years nomination. Don't look for it to happen. Still, his message of Constitutional conservatism will live. So will Rick Perry's "states rights, 10th amendment" conservatism. While Perry and Paul don't particularly like each other, their constitutional positions are very similar.
What is interesting is "what will happen to two distinct groups of overlooked and apparently forgotten voters?" They are "blue collar" Democrats and "Disaffecteds."
Who are "Disaffecteds?" Read Henry Olsen's article in the June 20th edition of National Review. They represent 20% of the country. Only 19% identify with the Tea Party. 77% are white. 67% are Independents. The average household income is $30,000 per year. 89% do not hold a college degree.
We frequently reference "blue collar" Democrats. They are often social conservatives. These are the voters Rick Santorum found willing to say "adios" to their party. Why? Because they have concluded that today's Democratic Party is not "the party of John F. Kennedy." West Virginia Senator, Joe Manchin is their idea of a "real Democrat."
These Democrats believe in the second amendment. They opposed both Cap and Trade and Obamacare. They also favor "uncool, politically incorrect ideas" such "prayer in the public schools, photo I.D. cards for voting and a fair tax." Governor Mike Huckabee found these Democrats. So did Ronald Reagan.
Could the Tea Party tent accommodate both groups? This is an important question. If the answer is "yes," we have sufficient numbers to take back America. But we must remember one thing: "These voters are not going to be impressed with "austerity measures" as outlined by some of the "young Tea Party Turks" in Congress! Find a way to cut the budget without compromising their meager entitlements and you win. But the first sign of "austerity measures;" as well as "shared sacrifice," you lose!
Can the Tea Party fill the bill?
We must first find ourselves. Then we need to tailor a platform that meets the needs of these key constituencies, while advancing our standard. But what is our standard? I thought the Tea Party was about restoring fiscal sanity to America. As Senator Rand Paul demonstrated in his plan, there is a way, if we reduce the size and cost of government. We can likewise make our entitlement system more efficient as Congressman Paul Ryan showed in his proposal. But we must do it without compromising our potentially winning coalition. Can this be done?
Yes. The "American English Unification Amendment"("E" Amendment) would bring it all together. And with it, these two groups would become part of a new Constitutional Republican Party. We say "Republic" because those unable to read at a 4th grade level would not participate in elections. Voter fraud would be eliminated. Identity Theft would be greatly reduced because no job that required an Americans' social security number could be outsourced offshore. Throw a real immigration reform plan into the mix and you have something that people can unite behind.
Amazingly the losers would be the Establishment Republicans and the Establishment Democrats. Democrats would lose their backbone. They would be left with Al Gore and the radical "greenies," the oligarchs (Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, George Soros) etc., Hollywood and the "Plebyeih." Please read the passage on this blog "understanding the Plebyeih." They are the "ignorant, illiterate, know nothing masses" spouting slogans who make up a large part of Barack Obama's constituency.
They greatly resemble Joseph Stalin's banner carrying hacks of the 1920's in Soviet Russia.
The Republican Establishment would lose those working but making less than $200,000 per year. It's probable that they would attempt to become more socially liberal in an effort to pick up those "pro business liberals" Paul Tsongas identified in 1992.
But in looking at the map, this party would become more regional in scope. As Mitt Romney proved, they exist. But where and how many remains unanswered.
Meanwhile, the Tea Parties can emerge as the leaders of a new party in American that can dominate from the middle. Job creation through energy exploration, immigration reform, total literacy, a fair and more simplified tax system, a smaller, more efficient government and increased authority for the individual states, will result in a balanced budget. These simple goals can be stressed to this new coalition. Best of all, it need not include eliminating or compromising entitlements.
No comments:
Post a Comment