Tag Archives: Tea party

TEA Party redefines GOP

no_more_rinos_button-r97538a5782bf4c0ab20814f2a24f2ddf_x7j3i_8byvr_324

One of the more fascinating dynamics of the current political climate has been the realigning — in the minds of some folks — of the Republican Party.

I actually have laughed out loud at the TEA Party faction of the GOP that has taken to referring to “mainstream Republicans” as RINOs: Republicans in Name Only.

TEA Party, of course, actually is an acronym that stands for Taxed Enough Already. They comprise the harsher wing of the once-great party. They also have dominated the debate within the Republican Party and are seeking to dominate the debate across the nation.

The impending nomination of Donald J. Trump as the GOP’s next presidential candidate quite possibly is going to trigger a major realignment. The party we’ve come to know and (some of us) loathe might not exist after the November election if Trump gets swept by Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton; by “swept” I mean that Clinton quite possibly could score a historic landslide victory.

My hope for the party is that it reconfigures itself in the mold of, say, Gerald Ford, Nelson Rockefeller, Everett Dirksen, George H.W. Bush and — just for good measure — Ronald W. Reagan.

Today’s TEA Party faithful like to compare themselves to Reagan. It’s a false comparison. Why? Reagan knew how to work with Democrats. He was unafraid to reach across to those on the other side when the need arose.

Today’s TEA Party cabal has none of that skill, or willingness.

I keep hearing from my network of friends, acquaintances and former professional colleagues who keep tossing the RINO epithet at today’s Republicans who, in my view, are far more traditionally Republican in their political world view than the zealots who’ve hijacked the party’s once-good name for their own purpose.

Let the realignment continue.

 

Speaker fails to perform ‘basic’ task

90

Paul Ryan spoke the truth when, as chairman of the House Budget Committee, he said the federal government must perform its basic function, which he said is to approve a budget.

Now that he’s speaker of the House, Ryan is finding matters are getting complicated.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/paul-ryan-no-budget-votes-222270

Speaker Ryan said he lacks the votes to approve a federal budget.

He’s battling the TEA Party wing of the GOP, which wants to stick to the sequester provision that allows across-the-board cuts in many government programs.

Oh, the divisions within the Republican House caucus are deep and wide — and they might be getting deeper and wider.

What’s the speaker to do? How does he get his fellow Republicans to speak with a single voice? Isn’t that what leaders do?

Well, he’s finding himself in the same predicament that bedeviled his predecessor as speaker, John Boehner, who ended up getting so fed up with the TEA Party that he gave up the speakership — and then quit the House of Representatives.

Governing involves compromise. It means all sides give a little. Sure, they can cling to their principles.

The speaker, though, is unable to lean on House Democrats to bail him out. Why? That toxic environment on Capitol Hill has become seemingly terminal.

Government cannot function under those conditions.

 

Can’t we just end this ‘secede’ talk? Now?

secede-sign_jpg_312x1000_q100

I can’t believe this topic is still being discussed in some dark corners of Texas.

Some people actually want the state to secede from the United States of America.

It won’t go anywhere. The Texas Republican Party — which controls almost everything in this state — won’t allow it.

And yet …

The talk continues to fester.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/04/19/texas-secession-debate-getting-kind-real/

The Texas Tribune reports that when the Texas Republican Party meets next month the talk is going to get some traction in some quarters.

Sheesh, already!

The article I’ve attached to this post lays out an interesting summary of state history. The most fascinating element of it is how — after the Civil War, which the Confederacy lost — a law came into being that denied all the former states of the Confederacy the ability to ever secede from the Union.

Which state brought that prohibition forward? Texas!

Here, though, is where we stand today — with elements of the state GOP talking openly about persuading Texans to actually vote to secede.

Then-Gov. Rick Perry didn’t help matters when, in 2009, during a TEA Party rally he talked about how Texans might secede if they got angry enough at the federal government. He took back those comments, saying he opposes secession.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2009/04/what-he-could-have-said/

His retraction seemed to fall on a few deaf ears.

I take heart in the belief that the state won’t secede. History tells us the only time we did so didn’t turn out so well. The state and the rest of the Confederacy lost the bloodiest war in American history.

If only some of our fellow Texans would just heed that lesson.

 

Let’s talk, Mr. Senate Majority Leader

48604710.cached

Every effective American politician has a consigliere — a wise man, or perhaps a wise woman — who’ll tell them the unvarnished truth.

JFK had Bobby; George H.W. Bush had Jim Baker; Ronald Reagan had Nancy.

I’m wondering this morning who in Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s inner circle fills that role. Hmm. It might be his wife, Elaine Chao, a former labor secretary during W’s administration.

Whoever it is, are they having a serious, candid and frank discussion with the boss? Are they hunkered down in some ante room in his spacious office in the Senate wing of the U.S. Capitol Building?

Here’s a thought, offered from the Flyover Country Peanut Gallery, on how that talk might proceed:

McConnell: OK, I sense we have a problem with this Supreme Court pick. I’ve declared my intention to block whoever Barack Obama nominates. I’m trying to stand on some sort of principle but my knees are buckling just a little.

Wise Man: And they should, Mitch. You’ve boxed yourself into a corner. Did you think Obama was going to pick some flaming, judicial activist liberal? He didn’t. He went with this Merrick Garland fellow. Everyone loves the guy. You love the guy. Hell, Mitch, you voted to confirm him to the D.C. court nearly 20 years ago.

McC: True. But that was then. The stakes this time are gigantic. They’re y-u-u-u-u-ge! (Laughter). I hope you don’t mind my saying it that way. Antonin Scalia’s death upset everything. He was one of our guys. Now Obama has picked one of their guys to replace Scalia. The balance of the court will change.

WM: So, what’s your point? Did you think Obama was going to select an archconservative like Scalia? We all knew this would happen if one of our guys died. But hey, he didn’t pick a flamer, Mitch. He picked a mainstream moderate judge. Hasn’t he done well on the D.C. court?

McC: Yeah, he has. He’s been the kind of judge I said he was when I spoke in his favor in 1997. I get that he’ll be that kind of justice on the Supreme Court, too. But it’s different now. I’ve got those TEA Party yahoos who want me to dig in. They insist — in that way of theirs — that Barack Obama’s re-election doesn’t really count. And you don’t need to remind me of what I said early in Obama’s presidency about making him a “one-term president” being my top priority. I get that it didn’t work out.

WM: So, consider this, too. We’re about to nominate Donald Trump as our candidate for president. The Democrats are going to nominate Hillary as their candidate. Trump vs. Clinton. One of them will get to pick the next Supreme Court justice if we continue to obstruct this selection. Who between them do you want? Trump, who you’ve criticized before for the outrageous accusations he has made along the campaign trail? Or Clinton, who the TEA Party wing hates nearly as much as it hates Obama? Don’t you think maybe that Merrick Garland is going to be the best choice we’re going to get?

McC: I get your point. But what about the principle we’re standing on here? What about giving in to the Democrats? I’m going to get fried if I cave in.

WM: Well, Mitch, a lot worse is going to happen to you if we obstruct this nomination, Hillary makes a huge campaign issue of it, wins in a landslide and the Democrats retake the Senate.

McC: How do you propose I back off? How do I justify this to my base — our base?

WM: Look, Mitch. I might be a wise man. But I’m not a magician. You figure it out.

 

‘Establishment’ now the target of the right

Vietnam-War-Protests-H

Once upon a time, the term “establishment” became a four-letter word to those on the left.

That was during, oh, the Summer of Love — 1967, or thereabouts, the year I graduated from high school. Protesters were taking to the streets to chant slogans and carry signs against the Vietnam War and, yep, the establishment that supported that effort.

Little did I realize at the time that I’d be joining that conflict … but that’s another story for another time — maybe.

The establishment comprised old guys in dark suits who sat around big conference room tables in Washington, D.C., making decisions that affected young people’s lives.

In too many tragic cases, those old guys’ decisions ended young people’s lives — if you know what I mean.

Well, here we are in the present day. Nearly 50 years later, and the term “establishment” is still a four-letter word. Only now the righties have taken up the cudgel. They’re beating the daylights out of establishment politicians because, I reckon, they aren’t radical enough to suit the righties’ point of view.

Presidential candidates are split into two camps: establishment and, well, something else. Outsiders? TEA Party faithful? Rabble rousers?

The establishment is getting pummeled now by those on the right and the far right, much like it got battered in the old days by those on the left and the far left.

To be sure, the establishment is taking its share of hits today from the left. One presidential candidate, the “democratic socialist,” is taking aim at the top 1 percent, the very wealthy and seeks to level the playing field to aid the rest of the country.

The heaviest fire against the establishment these days is coming from the right.

Those poor establishment guys — the fellows who still wear the dark suits — just can’t get a break.

As the song from the old days tells us, “There’s something happenin’ here, what it is ain’t exactly clear.”

 

Loyalty? Palin throws it away

Former Gov. of Alaska Sarah Palin speaks during the Faith and Freedom Coalition Road to Majority 2013 conference, Saturday, June 15, 2013, in Washington. Religious conservatives have been skeptical of the Republican National Committee's plan for growth, which calls for more tolerant attitudes on immigration and social issues, such as abortion and gay marriage. Palin, the conference's final speaker, rejected calls for an immigration overhaul, that includes a path to citizenship for immigrants in the country illegally.  (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

Well, that was fun to watch.

Former half-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin endorsed Donald J. Trump for the Republican presidential nomination. She is the queen mother of the TEA Party movement.

The conventional wisdom had been that she’d endorse Ted Cruz for the GOP nomination.

It didn’t happen.

So now  you have to wonder: Has Palin changed her stripes?

TEA Party loyalists — the hard-core folks — call Trump a closet liberal. He’s not the real deal, they say. He used to be friends with (gulp!) Bill and Hillary Clinton, for crying out loud. He’s given money to Democrats.

But then out came Sarah Barracuda today, talking glowingly about Trump.

As for Cruz, he’s now the man left in the cold.

Cruz welcomed Palin to a conservative action conference a year ago, calling her someone who “picks winners.” He called her “principled” and “courageous.”

Is she now all of those things, in Cruz’s mind? I’d bet not.

I never thought the Republican Party primary campaign could get any more fun — or hilarious — than it has been up to this moment.

Silly me. It just did.

 

Where is the outrage?

landscape-1451841523-oregon-standoff

The media have been reporting the arrest of Bill Cosby.

They’ve been talking about the horse race among the Republicans running for president.

They have been yammering about this and that.

Meanwhile, way out yonder in a place where few people live — or even have seen — a group of wacky “militiamen” have taken over a federal facility.

Is that an act of sedition?

Cliven Bundy’s son, Ammon, is among the protestors who’ve taken over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters office in Burns, Ore. You remember Cliven Bundy, right? He’s the Nevada rancher who mounted a revolt of his own over federal land ownership issues and became something of a hero to the TEA Party wing of the Republican Party.

Well, now his kid has left his own footprint on the crazy movement.

Why aren’t the media taking note of this craziness?

If it were occurring in a major metro area, with, say, college students taking over a university, you’d think the world was about to come to an end. What might the media do if African-Americans commandeered a federal facility? Would that constitute an act of “domestic terrorism”?

The protestors took over the wildlife refuge headquarters to protest the arrest of two Harney County ranchers. They’re set to serve prison terms. I guess those who protested in Burns don’t think they deserve to go to federal prison. Their reaction? Take command of a government building.

This is a dangerous act that needs a lot of attention and it needs to be stopped immediately.

Meanwhile, I am awaiting the expressions of outrage.

 

 

Gov. Kasich bombs again

TAMPA, FL - AUGUST 28:  Ohio Gov. John Kasich speaks during the Republican National Convention at the Tampa Bay Times Forum on August 28, 2012 in Tampa, Florida. Today is the first full session of the RNC after the start was delayed due to Tropical Storm Isaac.  (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

The man who has emerged as my favorite Republican presidential candidate continues to struggle.

He cannot get traction among a GOP primary electorate that favors bloody, red meat over cool collegiality.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich reportedly was the biggest loser at the fourth Republican debate, according to Politico. This hurts my heart. Honestly, it does.

Kasich is the one Republican candidate who can stake a unique claim to fame among the current crop of GOP candidates. He is the only one of the bunch who has demonstrated an ability to work with Democrats to craft a policy that is good for the nation.

When did he do that? He did when he chaired the U.S. House Budget Committee in the late 1990s and worked hand in hand with House Speaker Newt Gingrich and President Bill Clinton to balance the federal budget.

Gingrich, of course, is a fellow Republican. Clinton was that dreaded Democrat in the White House. Kasich showed an ability to hammer together a budget that met everyone’s expectations by providing a balance that eventually worked its way into a substantial surplus by the time President Clinton left office in January 2001.

That doesn’t sell, though, in today’s political climate. GOP primary voters aren’t interested in working with the other side. They have been infiltrated by the TEA Party faction, the folks who think government is evil and who see any effort to use government as a tool to push policy forward as an ideological capitulation.

Kasich won’t buy into the Donald Trump notion of deporting every one of the 11 million illegal immigrants. That, too, has produced scorn among the right wing of his party.

Good grief! The man knows how government works. He has executive experience now as well, running a state government in a large and diverse state such as Ohio.

Is it too late for my favorite Republican to catch fire? Technically, probably not. However, the pundits are saying that the game might be up for the likes of Kasich and other so-called “establishment Republicans” seeking to make a dent in the armor that’s protecting the outsiders — Trump and Ben Carson, to be specific.

Trump keeps pounding on that insane idea of rounding up every illegal immigrant and sending them back to their home countries. How he intends to do that, well … that’s to be determined later — if ever!

And Carson? Someone will have to explain to me how his training as a brain surgeon has prepared him in any way for the complexities of becoming head of state and government of the world’s most powerful nation.

For that matter, Trump’s career as a real estate mogul and reality TV star leaves him equally unprepared.

Meanwhile, candidates like Kasich — with actual government experience — continue to languish, flail and flounder.

Oh … my.

 

Speaker’s parting gift to country? A budget deal

boehner

John Boehner is about to leave the House of Representatives’ speakership, but he also is set to leave the country with  thoughtful parting gift.

A two-year budget deal he and the White House hammered out.

What does this mean? It means that President Obama won’t have any more threats of government shutdowns during the remainder of his time in office. It also means — with Congress set to approve the deal — that Boehner is sticking it in the eye of the TEA Party cadre of legislators who have bedeviled him and the White House.

Deal averts crisis

Perhaps the best part of the deal is that is recognizes the need for the United States to honor its debt obligations by increasing the debt ceiling. This is sure to anger the TEA Party folks, who keep insisting on fighting with others in Congress — including the so-called “establishment Republicans” — over whether to honor our obligations or default on them.

Boehner has made no secret of his disdain for this tactic. The pressure from the far right of his party, though, got to him. He packed it in.

The presumed next House speaker, Paul Ryan, is on board with the deal.

Well, I and millions of other Americans will accept the speaker’s parting gift gladly.

 

Will local election serve as bellwether?

Old fashionet American Constitution with USA  Flag.

This won’t take long.

The upcoming Amarillo election on the multipurpose event venue well could determine whether the wackiness that’s driving the national political debate has found its way to the Caprock.

The pro-MPEV forces in Amarillo are well-funded and well-organized.

The anti-MPEV forces are neither of the two.

The pro-MPEV side is seen as the “establishment.”

The anti-MPEV folks are seen as “anti-establishment.”

Nationally, the anti-establishment side is winning the argument, particularly as it relates to who should become the Republicans’ presidential nominee.

Locally, well … the jury is still out.

I’m pulling for the establishment — in both instances.