The Eternal Battle: Grassroots vs. Establishment

I find the disgust and disdain toward the Tea Party within Republican circles pretty astonishing given what we witnessed in 2010. In fact, arguably, Speaker Boehner might still be Congressman Boehner if it weren’t for the grassroots uprising of the Tea Party in 2009 and 2010. Yet, in the same way the Republican National Committee attempted to fully embrace the grassroots in 2010, they’re making every effort in 2014 to sweep them under the rug.

Let’s just cut this down to brass tacks, shall we? The establishment is concerned that too many Tea Party-Republicans are far too green, in the amateur sense, to be running on the national stage in a US Senate campaign. They’ll point to Senate seats lost in 2010 as their example of this and they’d be, by and large, mostly correct. There were some unseasoned candidates who lost seats that could have been winnable. Names like Sharron Angle, Todd Akin and Christine O’Donnell come to mind. All “Tea Party” candidates who lost Senate seats that should have been winnable by Republicans.

I don’t discount the criticisms that those candidates were flawed, in some way, which presented them challenges in their respective races. However, are we pretending that every candidate isn’t flawed in some way? Just examine 2012 with Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee. The issue of Obamacare was largely off the table. Why? Because Mitt Romney passed a health care plan in Massachusetts that was, in fact, the blueprint for Obamacare at a national level. Hard to argue against something when it was one of your signature achievements at your previous job.

Being the reasonable person that I am, I fully supported and advocated for Mitt Romney’s victory in 2012 despite several misgivings and disagreements with some of his policies and lack of standing on some key issues. In my opinion, he was far too flawed to be carrying the mantle against President Obama but he won the primary and history is history.

I felt similarly toward my own Congressman, Representative Frank Wolf during the last several years. Is he the candidate I would pick in a perfect world? No. He is, however, a honest man with good intentions and I’d much rather have him holding that seat than a left-wing radical progressive usurping my liberties. I’ve sent Mr. Wolf many a disgruntled email as a constituent but I did not ever go out of my way to advocate against him during election season nor run down his character with lies and slander.

I’d be more willing to listen to the criticisms of Karl Rove and others within the establishment if they were to take an equally reasonable position with candidates they see as flawed or too conservative. Think of it as a quid pro quo for candidates. I accept some of your “bad” candidates if you accept some of my “bad” candidates.

If that balance can be reached between the grassroots and establishment, I think we might be able to get somewhere. Sadly, I fully expect to see Karl Rove on Fox News during the next 10 months with a white board explaining why some particular “Tea Party” Republican candidate just can’t win the general election because of X, Y, Z.

His prediction will be a self-fulfilling prophecy while he supplies the media with talking points and reasons to write stories about how a particular candidate is so out of the mainstream, even bigwigs in his/her own party think he/she is unfit to hold the office.

As a result, I’m not sure what will happen in the 2014 midterms. Right now, Obamacare is the winning issue for Republicans and maybe they can ride that wave to November. However, I’d argue that a war between the establishment and the Tea Party will leave political casualties at the ballot box, and I’m not talking About Democrats.

  • Nate,

    I firmly believe that the establishment Republicas, of which there is no great love lost on my part, and the Tea Party Conservatives need to identify some common ground internally and run on it. The facts are on their side, the trending is on their side and the general discontent in the electorate is on their side. I’ve always believed in the 80/20 rule. 20% of your priorities will address 80% of your challenges.

    • That’s the thing! There is so much to run on it isn’t even funny. The expectation is that if an “establishment” candidate wins a primary, grassroots needs to support him/her. Flip that around and the knives come out from the establishment. I guess they enjoy being the minority party by ticking off the people who work tirelessly on the ground to win close elections.

  • Bob

    The Vichy republicans are attempting to discredit the Tea Party on a hand full of individuals who lost seats in 2010 through comments they made just as MSNBC is focused on one individual at a Tea Party rally who waves the confederate flag. They neglect to mention how they nurtured the far right into existence with their rhetoric when they needed to win seats in Congress. The victories of candidates like Senator Cruz or Rubio among others weren’t disgraced when the Vichy republicans believed it was O.K. to use the far right to achieve their end. In addition from the weak results of the 2012 election where the establishment republicans should have taken many more seats it is hardly a tsunami of success they are having with candidates THEY SUPPORTED FINANCIALLY.

    I suggested in a previous thread the establishment republicans and the Tea Party can only find common ground if they form a coalition party.It would have to be similar to what the Conservatives were forced to do in the U.K. with the Liberal Democrats to attain power. This would mean a shared agenda involving disputing crony capitalism and big government conservatism. If not then ask Richard Luger and Charlie Christ how things worked out for them?

  • Bill Hedges

    Nate wrote:

    “Congressman Boehner if it weren’t for the grassroots uprising of the Tea Party in 2009 and 2010”

    Pure SELF-INTEREST _ con·jec·ture _ of Tea’s importance. A LOT of siting (Ds) were HEADING FOR THE HILLS after passing bumcare except for (Ds) in districts strongly liberal like Pelosi & Reid. TO DATE POLLS ARE AGAINST THIS THINGS CALLED HEALTH CARE. STAMPED (D) though out.

    We can conjure up theory WHICH CAN FIRST the chicken OR the egg. My thinking IS disregard for voters WANTS lead to incumbent (Ds) being NAILED to the CROSS. The _ re·cip·i·ent _ of empty seat in Congress fell automatically to opponent MORE or LESS.

    Long before Tea ever conceived of BREATHING air, A LADY in Alaska had JOB APPROVAL in the 90’s in Alaska. She listened to and fought for voters. Following in Jesus’s shoes cleaning out the church of her own corrupt Party. Tea has a Achilles’ heel which I have discussed previous & will surely do so again.

    Nate wrote:

    “…disgust and disdain toward the Tea Party within Republican…”

    Attitude of “my way or the highway” caused the deteriorating space time continuum toward Tea. Example Cruz was head strong in HIS RESOLVE even after warnings. In his district I understand it played WELL. But HARMED (Rs) in polls though Tea got WORSE PART of polls “disgust and disdain”. Tea being the Kyphosis of D.C..

    In recent comment I quoted Gallup (Tea lowest approval) where BIGGEST SUPPORTER for Tea was (R). Don’t HATE the messenger delivering constructive criticism Tea. When in doubt quote Ronny. See any similarities to Tea in his words ?:

    “Ronald Reagan on the importance of political compromise(in his own words)
    An American Life (his autobiography) | 8/7/03 | Ronald Reagan”

    “When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn’t like it.”

    “Compromise” was a dirty word to them and they wouldn’t face the fact that we couldn’t get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don’t get it all, some said, don’t take anything.”

    “I’d learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: ‘I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.’

    “If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that’s what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.”

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/960104/posts

    (R) has incorporated SOME characteristics of Tea. Attempting to separate the GOOD from the BAD.

    Nate wrote:

    “If that balance can be reached between the grassroots and establishment, I think we might be able to get somewhere. Sadly, I fully expect to see Karl Rove on Fox News during the next 10 months with a white board explaining why some particular “Tea Party” Republican candidate just can’t win the general election because of X, Y, Z.”

    As I have outlined in previous comments, BOTH Karl Rove & Chamber of Commence AGREE, every attempt to preform exorcism removing “wacho birds” from (R) candidacy is STEP TOWARD CONTROL of Senate. Todd of MO. LOST a sure fire WIN with his CRAZY TALK. IS ALL Karl & Chamber of Commerce ARE SAYING. Candidates like “rent is too damn high” is not the winning ticket to hang your hat on:

    http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2013/09/jimmy_mcmillan_7.php

    Nate wrote:

    “His prediction will be a self-fulfilling prophecy while he supplies the media with talking points and reasons to write stories about how a particular candidate is so out of the mainstream, even bigwigs in his/her own party think he/she is unfit to hold the office”

    “Self-fulfilling prophecy”.

    Not of Karl’s doing. Karl DOES WANT (R) controlling Senate. Todd was going against a candidate who kissed buma’s butt all across MO.. Todd BLEW his SEAT acting STUPID…

    THERE ONCE WAS A candidate who said follow me I DON’T CHEAT ON MY WIFE. News folks took picture of him on his boat with gal. Wasn’t boat named MONKEY BUSINESS ? THEN THERE is Todd among others. Karl PLAYED no part in either self destruction:

    “Todd Akin: Women Can’t Get Pregnant From ‘Legitimate Rape’”

    http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/todd_akin_women_cant_get_pregnant_from_legitimate_rape_20120820

    DID Tea stay home & result in second term for buma ? IF TRUE, how short sighted & SHAME ON YOU. BY THEIR ACTIONS, segments of Tea is a Albatross around (R) neck. I refer to them as “wacho birds”…

    • Bill,

      May I ask about the success of the “electable” establishment-backed candidates for President in 2008 and 2012? How did that work out? Romney was THE establishment choice. The “most electable” Republican and he failed. Why? Don’t hang the failure on the Tea Party, Romney was not their man. He lost to Obama just like McCain did in 2008 due to poor campaigning, poor messaging, and poor technology.

      Furthermore, what good is the “Republican House” when they’re going to push amnesty this year just like the Dems?

      As I’ve said before, Democrats want immediate decline of our nation. Republicans prefer managed decline. They’re both supporting progressive ideas, one party more than the other. The Chamber of Commerce is selling out American workers and our culture at the expense of cheap labor. They do not represent me, they’re pushing the progressive agenda also.

      Only leaders like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul among others recognize the crisis we face. Call me a whacko-bird with them, I’ll wear it on my sleeve.

      • Bill Hedges

        Nate:

        1. “The “most electable” Republican and he failed.

        I wanted Newt NEVER what we got. Newt accomplish MUCH through Reagan’s method of COMPREOMISE.

        Was you that gave AT LEAST SOME credit to Tea for 2010. I gave my on site _ dis·ser·ta·tion _ ON THAT.

        2. “Don’t hang the failure on the Tea Party, Romney was not their man”

        So between the two YOU VOTED FOR buma ? OR, OR, OR stayed home. Either of these choices is, is despicable. One MUST VOTE & VOTE closest to ones heart. With the Tea Party crumbling in Congress as I discussed a week or so ago, unlikely in your lifetime you will be voting for a Tea President.

        Tea has defiantly chartered new waters for the Republican Party for which I proudly salute.

        3. “He lost to Obama just like McCain did in 2008 due to poor campaigning, poor messaging, and poor technology”

        buma won first time AS THE PROMISED ONE. SECOND times his flaws was SELF EVIDENT to those with EYES TO SEE. YOUR holy trinity is a GIVEN to ALL CAMPAIGNS. IN OTHER WORDS_ Could of, Should of, Would have.

        4. “Furthermore, what good is the “Republican House” when they’re going to push amnesty this year just like the Dems?”

        Like Reagan YOU MEAN ???

        5. Your next to last paragraph was a statement, conclusion, and/or your belief.

        6. “Only leaders like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul among others recognize the crisis we face. Call me a whacko-bird with them, I’ll wear it on my sleeve”

        As I previously wrote. Here I stand TALL:

        “Todd Akin: Women Can’t Get Pregnant From ‘Legitimate Rape’”

        http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/todd_akin_women_cant_get_pregnant_from_legitimate_rape_20120820

        DID Tea stay home & result in second term for buma ? IF TRUE, how short sighted & SHAME ON YOU. BY THEIR ACTIONS, segments of Tea is a Albatross around (R) neck. I refer to them as “wacho birds”…

        • Bill, you didn’t read my full post. I explained why I supported and voted for Romney despite my misgivings. Please read it all the way before you argue with me.

          “TEA”, as you call it, didn’t stay home. Many voters did, for whatever reason I can’t understand. If anything “TEA” was helping the GOP which would have probably lost worse without them.

          I’m aware of Akin, I even mentioned him in the article above, which I think you didn’t read other than the first paragraph.

          • Bill Hedges

            Nate

            If I did not paint a actuate characterization of your statements I truly am sorry. I tend to quote what I speak on SO SUCH THINGS DON’T OCCUR.

            1. Nate wrote:

            “TEA”, as you call it, didn’t stay home. Many voters did, for whatever reason I can’t understand. If anything “TEA” was helping the GOP which would have probably lost worse without them”

            What I wrote was:
            DID Tea stay home & result in second term for buma ?

            That’s with a “DID Tea” as well as a “?”

            New source:

            “Tea party activists vow to stay home on Election Day

            http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/tea-party-activists-vow-to-stay-home-on-election-day/#x2y9euMwvsMfohd0.99

            By the way, instead of “Tea”, what should I write ? Tea Party ?

            2. “I’m aware of Akin, I even mentioned him in the article above, which I think you didn’t read other than the first paragraph”

            But I did read. I gave reasons why Karl & Chamber of Commerce want RESPONSIBLE CANDIDATES not “wacho birds” talking non-rational points like Todd did. (R) leaders in my Sate tried to get him to STAND DOWN without success.
            ___

            Logic dictates that pool for Tea party members came mainly from the Republican Party. Chances are VERY HIGH they voted (R) beforehand. School of thought that Ron Paul supporters AT LEAST may have STAYED HOME. THEY were displeased WHEN THEIR MAN loss the bid. On liberal site I was visiting MANY threatened to STAY HOME ELECTION DAY. bob also has been bringing up same sentiment.

      • Bill Hedges

        Nate wrote:

        “Only leaders like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul among others recognize the crisis we face”

        What 30 + times (R) in harmony with Tea VOTED AGAINST bumcare.

        I am NOT SO self absorbed as to believe I am co·gno·scen·te of ALL THAT IS RIGHIST. I believe as Reagan & Newt did, in compromise is necessary. MAJORITY RULES which Tea does not measure up to. Superiority feeling of ones view is short sighted destined TO FAIL AS Gallup polls so indicate.

        Tea Party Caucus appears DOA…

        • Tea Party caucuses was a dumb idea, I never supported it. All politicians should be beholden to the ideas of fiscal responsibility and limited government, not just those who join some caucus.

          Compromise is leading American into fiscal decline and collapse. Why should we compromise our future away and continue piling up debt and pillaging the wallets of our children and grandchildren and their grandchildren? That is immoral, vile and inexcusable. As McCain once said, in one of his wise moments, it’s generational theft. Yet the same politicians keep expanding government and expanding debt. Enough is enough or we’ll be a third-world nation like Greece.

          • Bill Hedges

            Nate

            bob used a source that said Tea WAS GROWING. From ALL THE INDICATIONS I have THAT’S NOT TRUE after Cruz’s battle. Gallup shows Tea at a ALL TIME LOW, with Tea Party caucuses closing their doors ANOTHER nail in the coffin. Another the female leader of group going home with no indication of running for office again.

            Nate wrote:

            “Compromise is leading American into fiscal decline and collapse. Why should we compromise our future away and continue piling up debt and pillaging the wallets of our children and grandchildren and their grandchildren? That is immoral, vile and inexcusable”

            Today I quoted Reagan again on “compromise”. His answer is neither “leading American into fiscal decline and collapse”. Perhaps YOU FAILED to read that !!!

            “Bill Hedges January 9, 2014 at 1:13 pm”

          • Bill Hedges

            Continuation on Nate wrote:

            “Compromise is leading American into fiscal decline and collapse. Why should we compromise our future away and continue piling up debt and pillaging the wallets of our children and grandchildren and their grandchildren? That is immoral, vile and inexcusable”

            Cruz when he fought raising debt level and bumcare, only had bill that passed in House. While Newt had bill in hand passed both in House & Senate. Several times different bills were presented to Bill C. but Bill C. VETOED each one. With alternative exhausted, ONLY course left to take WAS GOVERNMENT CLOSELURE. Was it closed WHAT 3 times.

            Now both Newt & Bill C. wanted welfare reform. Not so for SMALLER GOVERNMENT & TAX CUTS. Of course later when out of office Bill C. TRIED to take credit. TOOK compromise to get bills PASSED. Took COMPROMISE to get the parts of CONTRACT WITH AMERICA passed that did get passed.

            Compromised IS NOT necessarily negative. In fact is usually _ con·tin·gent _ in getting ANYTHING accomplished. Because of Newt’s actions DEBT was reduced as well as LESS SPENDING:

            “Debunking Liberal Myths About Tax Cuts and the Economy”

            http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/taxcutmyths.htm

            “History of the United States public debt”

            “The United States public debt as a percentage of GDP reached its highest level during Harry Truman’s first presidential term, during and after World War II. Public debt as a percentage of GDP fell rapidly in the post-World War II period, and reached a low in 1973 under President Richard Nixon. The debt has consistently increased since then, except during the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Public debt as a share of GDP rose sharply in the late 2000s, in the wake of the Great Recession”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt

            • Bill, I knew we’d argue over my post.

              I agree, compromise isn’t necessarily bad. It’s often required to get some of what you want. However, what I fear is compromise of principles by elected officials on our side. They’re compromising away our financial future one deal at a time. That kind of compromise is killing this country. We know where it leads, look at Greece, look at other Euro countries so far in debt they’re crippled. We have a larger economy so it will take us longer, but we’re heading there in the next 10, 20, 30 years.

      • Bill Hedges

        Nate set me back when he wrote:

        “May I ask about the success of the “electable” establishment-backed candidates for President in 2008 and 2012? How did that work out? Romney was THE establishment choice. The “most electable” Republican and he failed. Why? Don’t hang the failure on the Tea Party, Romney was not their man. He lost to Obama just like McCain did in 2008 due to poor campaigning, poor messaging, and poor technology.”

        Sure you can say “poor campaigning, poor messaging, and poor technology”. MINOR SETBACKS. REAL REASON we expressed back when buma first started running for President RIGHT HERE ON THIS SITE._____ Messiah_____. The anointed one. Had ACORN doing its voting THING. Had College students flocking to his feet. Blacks in near 100% block casting their vote in harmony. MORE (Ds) voting and less staying home. Slogan “WAS BUSH’S FAULT”. Better than the phases “Remember the Main”, “Alamo”, or “Perl Harbor”. As harmful as “READ MY LIPS”.

        Hey, did I upset Nate presenting case Tea was submarine in approximate 10% dive with no noticeable sign of rising according to Gallup graph:

        “Tea Party Favorability Falls to Lowest Yet”

        http://www.gallup.com/poll/166217/tea-party-favorability-falls-lowest-yet.aspx

        BY FAR the BEST BUDDY Tea has is badmouthed STRONGLY on this site___ Republicans. Karl R. is demonized along with Chamber of Commerce because, silly them, they want sane electable candidates. Does Nate think that applies ONLY TO TEA CANDIDATES ??? Karl R. wants us controlling both sides of Congress. DON’T YOU ???

        To the nitty-gritty:

        Nate completely took out of context. Todd Akin WAS unelectable because of claim women can not get pregnant when raped. Todd was shoe in TO WIN BEFORE THAT. McCain & Romney WERE NOT shoe in. Nate was comparing APPLES to ORANGES…

  • Bill Hedges

    A friend of my Dad COULD have been VP:

    “The Thomas Eagleton Affair Haunts Candidates Today”

    http://www.npr.org/2012/08/04/157670201/the-thomas-eagleton-affair-haunts-candidates-today

    Nate wrote:

    “I’d be more willing to listen to the criticisms of Karl Rove and others within the establishment if they were to take an equally reasonable position with candidates they see as flawed or too conservative. Think of it as a quid pro quo for candidates. I accept some of your “bad” candidates if you accept some of my “bad” candidates”

    Connecting the two dots, Thomas Eagleton had a critical flaw diminishing his serviceability of his ticket to be electable. A few second delay caused Texas Gov. to lose big as President candidate (was not just). These THINGS HAPPENED. A LITTLE make up on JFK & lack of on Nixon’s face MAY HAVE elected JFK.

    Karl’s concept IS SOUND. ACCEPTING “some of your “bad” candidates if you accept some of my “bad” candidates” is IRRESPONSIBLE. Lady from Alaska kicked BAD (R) out of their State government. Keeping bad OF EITHER PARTY did not give her better than 90% approval.

  • Bill Hedges

    Nate

    I am not indifferent to your flight. I have the same/similar fears. I ever so often use Reagan’s COMPROMISE quote to stay focused & NOT drown in my own tears of discouragement. However without strength in Congress OR outrage of voters which surely are tied to one another in at least a delayed action, our goals will go the way of horse drawn carriages as means of mass transient.

    One birthday of Ronny, far, far away on a liberal blog long ago, a liberal proudly announced Reagan increased taxes. I set the stage BY TOTALLY agreeing with him BUT, but, but; added the _ pre·ver·bal _ ‘HOWEVER’. BY FAR taxes were lowered MORE I BLURTED out. Then provided link so proving.

    Now Newt was a scholar of his personal acquaintance Reagan if not friend. Newt as previously noted, DID good that Tea should aspire to _ em·u·late _. The HARD SELL of compromise across DC political boarders.

    Tea brand GOOD intentions is being consumed without much fanfare and accomplishments. I can only speculate that the FALL OF Tea Party caucuses WAS internal disagreement over way to proceed from position of the weakest General Custer last stand battle perhaps disharmony.

    Newt IS, is the fog tower leading ships at sea away from the rocks. Without ownership of BOTH HOUSES success is possible. As Reagan preached, must at times take the baby steps & slowly move to the objective. Nobody said life was EASY.

    We need ALL the conservative seats we can get with electable candidates. I found the hang-up against Karl & Chamber of Commerce unproductive as well as refusing SOUND advise. Is there a danger involved of misuse ? Of course. But check out the alternative of NO SUCH check & balance. Costing highly probably much needed WINS.

    Cruz stood on his principle and delivered WHAT ??? Even lower Gallup polls with Tea AT THE BOTTOM of the well. Todd and like, that Karl & Chamber want Personality Disorder Test administered, of sorts, to weed out, seems reasonable. OF COURSE anything can be misused. SO IS the NATURE OF THE BEAST. Politics is NOT for the faint of heart.

    As I proclaimed earlier:

    Compromised IS NOT necessarily negative. In fact is usually _ con·tin·gent _ in getting ANYTHING accomplished. Because of Newt’s actions DEBT was reduced as well as LESS SPENDING.

    To get bumcare passed PORK was handed out like $$$’s were rain drops. In last hour small group of (Ds) insisted on Presidential degree of NO government funds being used for abortion. With ownership of House & Senate STILL compromise WAS Devil’s DUE for passage.

    Is disingenuous to think otherwise. The seed of discontent has been planted, watered, and germinated. bumcare IS CLEARLY sole property of (D). IF our words ARE TRUE, A great rumbling of scorn should election day multiply our seats in the imagine of 2010. Was THIS the lesson the elderly Statement McCain was preaching the newbie newcomer Cruz ???

    In my mind’s eye I so envision…

  • Bill Hedges

    Statesman McCain_ correction…

  • Bill Hedges

    In $$$ billions, list of tax cuts & tax increases under Reagan:

    “Total cumulative tax cuts -275.3”

    “Total cumulative tax increases +132.7”

    http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/09/reagan-tax-increases/

  • Bob

    Nate:

    Now we have Karl Rove’s “Compassionate Conservatives” aiming to undo the Tea Party. As the article states their isn’t much difference between what they espouse and the “Living Constitution” the Progressives want. I wonder if Tokyo Rove has them under one of his umbrella groups?

    From an article entitled: ” Compassionate Conservatives Strike Back Against The Tea Party”

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/compassionate-conservatives-strike-back-against-tea-party/article/2541901

    • Bill Hedges

      One has to look to the DETAILS to find the TRUTH of the matter.

      In bob’s link it says:

      “With Bush at the helm from 2001 to 2008, and compassionate conservatism on the march, federal spending soared 60 percent”

      There is NO notation placing evidence in hand to verify %. Thus I MUST look up one AT RANDOM:

      Now EVERY SINGLE INCOME TAX CUT FOR RICH increased government revenue, HOWEVER, link shows LOSS. The wars are “compassionate conservatism on the march” AS WELL AS Homeland Security ? Really bizarre “compassionate conservatism on the march” misrepresentation.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-reality-behind-obama-and-bushs-spending-binge/2012/05/25/gJQAK8ItpU_blog.html

      bob’s link concluded:

      “Compassionate conservatism may have been discredited, but it isn’t dead. That’s why it’s imperative for Tea Party leaders to learn to balance principles with prudence and rally around a positive governing agenda. Otherwise, big government conservatism will rise again to fill the vacuum”

      http://washingtonexaminer.com/compassionate-conservatives-strike-back-against-tea-party/article/2541901

      Where is THE BEEF in bob’s link statements. Have discredited. Seems to be a soy substitute.

      When time permits Bush’s prescription plan can be discussed. $$$ trillions in debt would take how many years ? Check out my link and debt shown. A little on Bush’s plan to wet the whistle. During GAP stage my insulin I must pay a reduced charge FROM full price. There is no cost to medicare. Company provides saving from full charge for this product NOT GOVERNMENT. GOVERNMENT, like private sector, MARKS UP COST.

      As in the previous two article written around the beginning of the year, Tea is NOT GROWING as link provided by bob CLAIMED BUT according to Gallup is AT LOWEST point. Below (D) & below (R)

    • Bill Hedges

      Bigger government was inflicted upon Bush due to minor & major recessions, Wall Street mess, two wars, & 911 leading to Homeland Security.

      October 19, 2008

      “Big government gets bigger”

      “And now comes the Next Deal — the rapid-fire series of programs announced in recent weeks to deal with a global financial crisis that few Americans even understand. It has begun with a decision to use $700 billion in taxpayer money to buy up financial assets and take an ownership stake in the nation’s largest banks and could be followed by a stimulus program of up to $300 billion driven by congressional Democrats.”

      Subtract TARP repaid with high interest.

      “As a result, Mr. Bush already is the first president in history to implement budgets that crossed the $2 trillion a year and $3 trillion a year marks. His final budget, which comes to an end Sept. 30, conceivably could near $4 trillion, depending on the final tab for the financial rescue.”

      “Mr. Bush campaigned in 2000 on a pledge to reduce the size of government, continuing a trend that had been under way since the end of the Cold War. But since terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, he has done what he thought was necessary to keep the country safe. That commitment became a centerpiece of his 2004 convention speech: “Whatever it takes.”

      “The White House does not contest the numbers showing near-record growth in the size of government on its watch, but says it has no regrets about the president’s decision to eschew a limited government agenda in favor of homeland security and defense spending.”

      “What we have presided over is the security of the nation — the creation of the Homeland Security Department and the fighting of two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We don’t apologize for the spending needed to protect Americans,” White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said.

      “If somebody wants to be critical of those efforts, go for it. Have fun. It’s a silly point to make,” Mr. Fratto said. “America would not be better off had this president not decided to greatly expand the protection of the homeland and to take the fight to the enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Period.”

      “There has been no repeat of a Sept. 11-style attack on U.S. soil, a fact that may turn out to be one of this president’s enduring legacies.”
      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/19/big-government-gets-bigger/#ixzz2q2WZAdvS

  • Bill Hedges

    Tea Party is based upon “constitutionally limited government”:

    http://www.redstate.com/brian_d/2011/01/28/senate-tea-party-caucus-meets-washington-post-mocks/

    “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    http://constitutionus.com/

    SORRY, but to “provide for the common defence”, guarding America from foreign terrorist, REQIRED $$$ expenditure.

    SORRY, but to “promote the general Welfare”, averting immediate collapse of our financial infrastructure, REQIRED $$$ expenditure. Time was OF THE essence.

    ETC…

    To shrink government IS IDEAL. IDEAL IS prevalent mainly in a vacuum. If Tea REQUIRES only FIXATION to GOAL regardless of circumstance, Tea is destined to fail. As is HAPPENING.

    bob referred to Bush’s prescription plan D. Was actually far more called Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act. Educate yourself to:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,_Improvement,_and_Modernization_Act

    Constitution deems “promote the general Welfare” essential. Improving Bush promoted. BOTH admirable traits exhibited by Bush. Bush warned of approaching recession storm, ignored by his distractors. To DATE those wishing to humble Bush will deny the truth that Bush’s tax cuts INCREASED government revenue & healed the middle class & poor MORE than the rich.

    Uncovering the TRUTTH Al Gore’s home was on grid NIGHTMARE of energy non-energy efficiency WHILE Bush’s home was energy conservation BEFORE AL’S HOME WAS ever conceived OF BEING.

    In retirement, Bush still draws FIRE. DOING SO will not mask Tea is heading to SELF DESTRUCTION:

    1. 2010 was doomed to be (D) Waterloo regardless of Tea, Gallup polls forecast that in so many non-specific slush pile words.

    2. Tea Party caucuses on its death bed sign all is not well

    3. Gallup has Tea FALLING over extended time to it lowest level. Below (D) and below (R.)

    Constructive criticism is meet with resistance. Degrading their biggest supporters (R) who are called “Compassionate Conservatives”. Is Tea opposite of “compassionate” ___ HEARTLESS…

    ‘JUST EVERYBODY’ is OUT TO GET tea unjustly.

    Just as bombing of Pearl Harbor placed FDR into Al Capone’s armored car ENROUTE to Congress requesting they declare WAR, so circumstance required Bush to step up and enlarge government.

    “Posterity” protected in many figurative _ di·a·lects _…

  • Bob

    We have covered President Bush’s “BIG GOVERNMENT CONSERVATISM a thousand times before with links and more links. The trouble is you don’t believe any links but your own. When one does prove you wrong you go into your dog chasing his tail tactic to create confusion.

    I’m sure Nate appreciates you answering mail ADDRESSED TO HIM AND HE’S PROBABLY EVEN HAPPIER YOU USE MORE CIVILITY WITH HIM THAN YOU DO WITH ME. Nate can say “Call me a wacko bird.I’ll wear it on my sleeve”(9th January @3”:11PM) and you don’t go into one of your incoherent tirades like you do with me. I KNOW !!! Maybe you can start one of your childish “naughty” list for him……….LMAO !

  • Bill Hedges

    Not that long ago I went to similar site as this where Nate was doing the article writings. So happens that day someone said he was going to communicate with bob NO MORE. bob does agitate sensitive skin areas.

    One can read bob’s last comment here AND understand REASON WHY. REMINDS ME of losers in cases heard by Judge Judy. Judy will give law in area where the case occurred, but still, loser gives SAME REASONS why they thought they would win after case is settled as when they entered court room for trial. Case law flying far OVER the head of loser.

    I noticed Nate stayed away from REASONS WHY Bush spent SO MUCH that I sighted. bob did AS WELL but thrown around INSULTS. BUT in Nate’s case I expect sound, logical response. With that in mind HOW WAS NATE going to work out Tea answer of not spending goops of $$$. Nate reached COMPROMISE of silence. Actually A GOOD CHOICE to NOT BUCKLY ones politically standpoint as a Tea _ a·fi·ci·o·na·do _:

    Bigger government was inflicted upon Bush due to minor & major recessions, Wall Street mess, two wars, & 911 leading to Homeland Security.

  • Bill Hedges

    George

    Nate wrote:

    Key here is “equally reasonable position”. AS IF it isn’t… Did Utah give up practice of polygamy to become a State ??? Things ARE RARELY ‘cut & dry’ my friend as any married man is AWARE. MORE SO when family is added. Why is politics LESS so ???

    “I’d be more willing to listen to the criticisms of Karl Rove and others within the establishment if they were to take an equally reasonable position with candidates they see as flawed or too conservative. Think of it as a quid pro quo for candidates. I accept some of your “bad” candidates if you accept some of my “bad” candidates.”

    Candidates who are divorced GET ELECTED. Newt was newly elected when he resigned. Bad feeling inside the Republican Party over betting out previous Speaker & attempt to cast Bill Clinton out of WH lead Newt down the road of normal citizen.

    Newt was heavily fined. Mostly for teaching when he HAD APPROVAL to do so. A few MINOR ISSUES he was guilty of, but Courts ruled NO TAX LAWS were broken. Consider Newt the Republican _ e·quiv·a·lent _ to a “Teflon Don” BUT WITHOUT ANY legitimist illegal acts to speak of.

    Gunfire against Newt was a circumstance that was a mirage. Thomas Eagleton was well qualified for VP, but seeking mental health aid SHOT HIS WADE for higher office.

    For 9 years United States refused to allow Texas to become a State. For such reasons as Texas debt. Texas mass was SOLD to reduce. Slavery line shortened height of Texas to follow Federal mandate that above a line slavery WAS NOT allowed.

    RULES OF ENGAGEMENT exist. A few second delay in answering COST a Texas governor HIS CHANCE of potentially becoming (R) choice for President. As reasonable as electing JFK because he wore make-up while “I am not a thief” had sweat on his lip.

    Perception is NOT limited to spoiling ONLY Tea candidates. What planet in WHAT universe is this TRUE. Nate wrote AS IF THIS BE A GOOD IDEA:

    “Think of it as a quid pro quo for candidates. I accept some of your “bad” candidates if you accept some of my “bad” candidates.”

    Some Tea may have stayed home because THEIR CANDIDATE Ron Paul didn’t pass the mustard. “Quid pro quo” IN YOUR DREAMS. Some MISTAKES ARE FORGIVABLE others NOT. One of life’s peculiarities.

    Someone tell Nate NOT TO TAKE IT SO personal…
    _____

    I previous wrote:

    Bigger government was inflicted upon Bush due to minor & major recessions, Wall Street mess, two wars, & 911 leading to Homeland Security

    Bush warned of recession year he was first elected. Barney Frank said “NO PROBLEM” with Fanny & Freddy. Bush tried to get HIS VERSION of home loans TO REPLACE the faulty sub prime American ‘HOME LOANS FROM HELL’.

    Before Bush HOT SHOT (D) KING PINS warned of WMD. Bush took the bull by the horn & performed NATIONAL SECURITY. Homeland Security & two wars.

    Took Pear Harbor to kick us into WW 2. Bush had a BASKET FULL of Pear Harbors.

    Someone tell Nate NOT TO TAKE IT SO personal…
    _____

    Thomas Jefferson was forced to bind his ‘integrity’ to enlarge America with the Louisiana Purchase:

    “As the area was being gradually settled by United States migrants, many Americans, including Jefferson, assumed that it would be acquired “piece by piece.” The risk of another power taking it from a weakened Spain would make “profound reconsideration” of this policy necessary.[3″

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase

    “Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase”

    “Jefferson Compromises His Beliefs for a Huge Achievement”

    http://americanhistory.about.com/od/thomasjefferson/a/tj_lapurchase.htm

    “This land deal was arguably the greatest achievement of Thomas Jefferson’s presidency but also posed a major philosophical problem for Jefferson”, for he was a “Anti-Federalist”

    http://americanhistory.about.com/od/thomasjefferson/a/tj_lapurchase.htm

    The comparison of Thomas Jefferson to Bush from my scenario is undeniable HEY GEORGE ??? WITHOUT CIRCUMSTANCE the great achievement of Thomas Jefferson would NEVER HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY HIM. Same holds true for Bush.

    Someone tell Nate NOT TO TAKE IT SO personal…
    _____

    100% compliant AGANST bumcare. Little support for Cruz. Polls show Tea, like hair IN THE BATHROOM SINK, clogging up water flow down the pipes. Tea as popular in the polls as stopped up pipes when plunger fails to work & rotor router breaks entering the clog…

  • Bill Hedges

    January 13, 2014 at 3:13 pm bob wrote:

    1. “We have covered President Bush’s “BIG GOVERNMENT CONSERVATISM a thousand times before with links and more links. The trouble is you don’t believe any links but your own. When one does prove you wrong you go into your dog chasing his tail tactic to create confusion.”

    Once again I give answer. bob gives NON-RESPONSE.

    2. “I’m sure Nate appreciates you answering mail ADDRESSED TO HIM AND HE’S PROBABLY EVEN HAPPIER YOU USE MORE CIVILITY WITH HIM THAN YOU DO WITH ME.”

    Checked site & no rule given concerning comments addressed to specific person that ONLY HE can respond. Have NO IDEA IF “Nate appreciates you (BEING ME) answering mail ADDRESSED TO HIM ” OR not. I don’t speak for Nate and until I see a power of attorney giving you the right to speak for Nate I shall ignore such malarkey. Nate is of legal age and can speak for himself. Therefore you can not be his guardian either.

    3. “Nate can say “Call me a wacko bird.I’ll wear it on my sleeve”(9th January @3?:11PM) and you don’t go into one of your incoherent tirades like you do with me. I KNOW !!!”

    I don’t call people “wacho birds” until they admit to being one AS YOU DID.

    YOU ARE A ‘SPECIAL PERSON’, you see things in a different light.

    4. “Maybe you can start one of your childish “naughty” list for him.”

    First naughty list was list of you writing things such as this latest example being “incoherent tirades like you do with me” in point 3. I reframed from such insulting remarks for A TIME until following in your DIRTY SHOES. If MANGEMENT finds such behavior acceptable who am I to argue. Of course LATTER ON management put us both in same boat for doing so. Ironic.

    Second threat of naughty list for you was improper quoting me. Leaving out pertinent portion of my quote & changing meaning (out of context). Since my treat you have ‘cease and desist’ your literary _ mal·fea·sance _ of honest copy/paste of my quote IN CONTEXT. THEREFORE no list on that.

    NATE does neither things. No insults nor quoting me OUT OF CONTEXT.Why would I start a list on Nate ???

    5. “……….LMAO !”

    Definition:

    “lmao”

    “Laughing My Ass Off. Used online only.”

    “Matt: Bill fell off the horse and injured his pelvis in 6 different places.”

    “Joe: LMAO!”

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lmao

    For some people a high pressure hose can not clean up THEIR act WITH all the water in THE GREAT LAKES…

  • Bill Hedges

    For Nate’s personal edification. Self destructive message after reading:

    Surprised bob’s “you don’t go into one of your incoherent tirades like you do with me” isn’t found in the roll call WAY UP YONDER but is inhibited here in Nate’s home page bosom.

    Very well, thou will be done inside these pages. I don’t think you THE FOOL to believe bob’s self protection mechanism. That’s all his “incoherent tirades” IS. bob’s attempt at defending himself. My comments speak volumes NO NEED to toot my own horn.

    No matter the source of your _ kin·dred·ship _ you have towards bob, familiarity will surely lead to blossoming contempt.

    Enjoy…

  • Bill Hedges

    Nate wrote:

    “His prediction will be a self-fulfilling prophecy while he supplies the media with talking points and reasons to write stories about how a particular candidate is so out of the mainstream, even bigwigs in his/her own party think he/she is unfit to hold the office.”

    I have SO MANY PROBLEMS with what Nate wrote.

    1. Is Karl suppose to be silent ?

    2. Stick up for Todd Akins & agree women can not get pregnant from RAPE ?

    3. Does your suggestions for Karl UPHOLD his integrity ? How valuable would his analysis be if he was a proxy for the Tea Party ?

    4. Fox News got to be #1 on cable with “FAIR & balanced”. Nate wants WHAT___ a BLIND EYE ??? YOU THINK Fox HATERS wouldn’t JUMP on such outlandish _ preferential treatment for Tea ???

    I say let Tea stand for HONESTY not deceit. Missourians knew of Todd Akins FOOLISH remark. You want Tea TO BE KNOW for cover-up and/or accepting of HIS CRAZINESS ?

    Keep watching polls for Tea to sink to further lows if this be future action. Take a hint from Charles Dickens & mend ones way. Tea can be a hated or LOVED Ebenezer Scrooge…