Would the Tea Party embrace Reagan?

No. No. No. No. No.

Every couple years, I get roped into debates with tea partiers who aren’t old enough to remember Jersey Shore who try to convince me that if candidates were “libertarian like Reagan” all would be right with the world.

And I laugh and tell them if Reagan was President right now, the tea party would be protesting, blogging, and whining against him, and probably wanting him impeached.

It’s easy to prove.

I pull this quote out from 1988.

”I listened to Ronald Reagan in the ’70’s. He told me that he would balance the budget, cut back and get the Government off my back. They are not off our backs, they are in our wallets and into our bedrooms and into our private lives more than ever before.”

Yikes! Who is that attacking Reagan with such furor?

Ron Paul.

Or I can show this quote after Reagan’s first year in office, and he was getting reamed for his performance.

“Today, in a report assessing the President’s first year in office, the foundation criticized the Administration for decisions concerning personnel that it asserted had hindered efforts to carry out many of those recommendations.

In almost every Federal agency, it said, ”delayed appointments, unqualified or misqualified appointments, or the appointment of individuals who are not committed to the President’s goals and policies” had delayed or thwarted policy changes. Problems Caused by ‘Failures’

What Foundation went after Reagan with such fire?

The Heritage Foundation

Or the absolute excoriating he got from this magazine:


“Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan’s 3%—in the government’s take of “national income”…

The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, has more than doubled to $22.7 billion, Social Security spending has risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986…

It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.


If we look at government revenues as a percentage of “national income,” we find little change from the Carter days…


For all the administration’s talk about deregulation , it has done little.


Today, there are 230,000 more civilian government workers than in 1980, bringing the total to almost three million.

That’s from conservative periodical “The Free Market” who laced into Reagan’s conservative performance.

You can even read this piece where conservatives in 1987 were attacking Reagan for not being anti-communist enough. Really! The man who won the Cold War wasn’t anti-communist enough?

So don’t tell me now that Tea Party conservatives would be praising Ronald Reagan if he was in office today. Ronald Reagan who raised taxes, increased the debt, approved amnesty and preserved social security.

I lived through the way ultra-conservatives attacked Reagan. People older than I am did too. And none of you would so much as wear a Reagan sticker if he was in office today.

But I sure would.

  • Independence1

    Wow, spot on. I can’t even tell you how much I enjoyed reading that, just a great piece of writing. I would wear a sticker too, and have one on the bumper.

    • Independence1

      The silence is deafening.

  • Turbocohen

    Brian, Ronald Reagan was the anti establishment candidate that fought the faction you stand with today that supports big government among other big ideas. Reagan was “tea party” before we needed one as was Ed Gillespies former boss Newt Gingrich.. All 3 way ahead of their time, so far ahead that many now lump all of them in with todays “establishment” despite their relatively conservative accomplishments in a sea of liberal/moderate Republicans. And Brian, the sick faction that waged war on conservatives by slating them off are the same ilk of big government dixiecrats whose bad behavior harms the party today who were at war with Reagan in the 70’s.

    • BrianKirwin

      Read the article, Turbo. I’m sure you would’ve loved Reagan the candidate. Reagan the President is another story. You’d be bashing him in office like you bash most Republicans in office.

      • Turbocohen

        Brian, Reagan was the first president I voted for after reaching the age of 18. I never regretted casting that vote.. as a democrat at the time.

    • Independence1

      I am not suggesting anyone on the Republican side work with Obama, but it is well documented that Newt and Pres. Clinton worked together and compromised on several issues. Newt even admitted in an interview that he would often allow Clinton to take credit for some of these successes to boost his public opinion which also allowed Clinton to save face among Democrats. That is how politics works. I know you know that, however some do not.
      I feel that we have 3 types of Tea Partiers. 1.The person that sits at home and watches Sean Hannity having no idea the real divide between factions of the party (for the record I like Hannity). This person probably is just a regular old Republican that thinks they are a part of the Movement. 2. The activist, part of the original movement, involved but civil and can discuss differences reasonably without compromising principles (I believe you are here). 3.The ultra-conservative (to use Brian’s wording) that is just plain crazy, and has only been following politics since Obama took office, or the person that is so angry about something else in their life that they project that into politics. The 3rd is the most dangerous because they get 1 and 2 worked up about issues that should be put on the back burner until we get Obamacare and the economy fixed. They have also turned “compromise” into a bad word which is how Reagan and Gingrich built their legacies. Where am I wrong?

      • Turbocohen

        I’ll take number 2 and call you in the morning.

        • Independence1

          Nice. I’m glad you were not offended. It was meant as a compliment.

          • Turbocohen

            I feel as if we have met somewhere.. Thanks friend.

  • Darth_Inedible

    Would Reagan embrace the current arch-moderate GOP establishment?

    The Tea Party is actually the modern equivalent of the mixed coalition that elected Reagan. Many are former dems fed up with the rot.

    It’s so sad listening to ‘republicans’ parrot OFA talking points about who exactly the tea party are… What’s next, complaining about how ‘old and white’ they are?

  • Nick Bukowski

    I will remind you Brian that Ron Paul was one of only 4 Republican Congressmen to endorse Reagan for President in 1976. I do mostly agree with your article though. Reagan did not accomplish a lot of the things he campaigned on and at the end of the day (and he regrets this in his memoirs) govt grew too big when he was in office. They spent too much and taxed too much. I believe Reagan is mostly admired by Republicans today because he was a much better president than Carter, Bush1, Clinton, Bush2 and Obama and he had a bit of a rockstar personality and was an effective commander in chief. Ron Paul criticized him for not doing what he campaigned he would do. He didn’t shut down the dept of education or energy. He didn’t cut spending. These are valid points and they come from a principled stance on issues. If Reagan were President today, would I speak out against bad policies he supports? Absolutely. But would I prefer him over the last several presidents we’ve had in recent history? ABSOLUTELY.

    • Independence1

      I would like to add, that Pres. Reagan did raise taxes several times, but achieved an overall net tax cut at the end of his Presidency. Also, Reaganomics completely turn the economy around after the 2nd worst President of the United States destroyed it.

  • Jerel C. Wilmore

    And don’t forget the Beirut Marine Barracks Bombing that was 60 times worse than Benghazi.


    • Warmac9999

      So what your saying is Reagan’s policy error justifies Obama sitting around for hours watching drone feed and doing nothing.

      • Jerel C. Wilmore

        What I’m saying is that Ronald Reagan made a far more egregious error than Barack Obama that cost the lives of 241 Americans and the fact that the Republican Party has conveniently forgotten that fact makes them all hypocrites.

        • Warmac9999

          Nobody who was an adult at the time has forgotten the horrors of that incident. The difference between the incidents is obvious. While both were mistakes, only Obama watched his mistake play out and did nothing. Reagan’s mistake, as well as obama’s, was not providing sufficient protection for the compounds involved. But once the attacks were underway, Obama had hours to act while Reagan didn’t even know what happened until after the fact. And, apparently, Obama learned nothing from either the Lebanon or 9/11 events.

          Maybe you should criticize Bush for 9/11 except Clinton never took any action against bin Laden when he had him in his sites on at least three occasions.

          This attempt to excuse inaction with false equivalencies is really pretty foolish. Each incident is unique and has to be judge on its own merits.

  • Timothy

    Well, I haven’t praised him since I was eighteen. Reagan was all rhetoric, the pedestal he sits on today among Republicans is far too high.

    • Independence1

      Nahhh. It’s not like the man took a bullet, survived, and continued serving his country. That’s nothing.

    • MD Russ

      Really? Reagan reformed our tax code to make it more fair (reforms that most economists attribute to the prosperity of the 90s), re-built our military after the Carter post-Vietnam abandonment, secured nuclear arms reductions, and ended the Cold War by destroying the Soviet Empire. Yeah, Reagan was all rhetoric.

      Your comment is like saying that Lincoln was all rhetoric and that the pedestal that he sits on today among Republicans is far too high.

      • Timothy

        Really. Yes, Reagan was good on economics and I won’t draw back from him there. The Soviet Union wasn’t “destroyed” by Reagan. Do you think he’s Optimus Prime or something? The Soviet Union came down because it ran itself into bankruptcy and economic collapse. Now, yes Reagan helped by initiating a massive increase in our military spending, but as I just said, Reagan massively increased spending. The Soviets were also in a long drawn out war in Afghanistan against the mujaheddin that we are essentially fighting today. So good for us then, but instead of the Soviet Union we now have radical Islamists throughout the world who want to kill us… Good on him with the nuclear arms reduction, and I won’t attempt to take away from him there. However, he also increased the war on drugs dramatically which has resulted in the United States having the largest prison population in the world and simultaneously has lead to a more dangerous drug situation. Now we essentially have a war going on south of our border between Mexican cartels which has resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent lives.

        Oh, I don’t like Lincoln either. He’s up there with FDR in my list of favorites, (aka, at the bottom.)

        • MD Russ

          I see very little daylight between Reagan starting a military spending race that bankrupted the Soviet Union and Reagan destroying the Soviet Union. The end result was the same. As for the US prison population and the war on drugs, over 75% of incarcerated felons were convicted of violent crimes, property crimes, or public order crimes. About 20% were convicted of drug offenses, more often than not sale and distribution rather than simple possession. Anyone who is a first offender for simple possession does not go to prison. It takes multiple offenses or associated behavior such as burglary or larceny to earn time in jail. The canard that the war on drugs has significantly increased the US prison population is a fiction invented by those who want the possession and use of recreational drugs decriminalized.

          As to the Mexican drug cartels, the reason there is a war going on south of our border is because the Mexican government finally took action to end the cartels’ free reign. The resulting competition for limited distribution and smuggling opportunities is what is fueling the violence. Claiming that US consumption is causing the violence is as ridiculous as Eric Holder’s contention that all of the illegal weapons in Mexico come from the US. In 2008, before Obama was elected and appointed Holder as Gun-Grabber-In-Chief, the ATF reported to Congress that the vast majority of illegal weapons in Mexico were coming from China, not the US. You can look it up.

          • Timothy

            The result was the fall of a “communist” government (despite everything, those people didn’t adhere to communistic beliefs at all, it was more of an oligarchy meets totalitarian dictatorship, depending on who held the reigns of power) and dissolution of the empire, but it certainly wasn’t “destroyed.” The military race wasn’t the only downfall. The Soviet empire had stretched itself far too thin with regards to it’s military capability in controlling it’s vast stretches, and it’s war in Afghanistan (against Islamists we bankrolled and armed) drove it to it’s limits. This, added to it’s outgoing funding to prop up other Communist dictators, it’s race for military supremacy against the United States, and the inefficiencies obvious in a state controlled economy brought it down. Not just Reagan. I can see a strong difference between the two statements. Regardless, that’s just splitting hairs I suppose right?

            As to the war on drugs, I’m not just referring to possession. We have created a black market for drugs and in so doing we have created a prime opportunity for people to become criminals. Aside from that, I’m not sure where your statistics are coming from but according to the Congressional Reseach Service, “Of the inmates
            residing in federal prisons as of July 2013, and for whom offense data are known, nearly half (89,669 or 46.8%) are serving sentences for federal drug offenses. And of the 25,367 federal drug offenders known to have been sentenced for drug-related offenses, 6,134 were sentenced for marijuana-related offenses and 4,936 were sentenced for methamphetamine-related offenses in FY2012.” So, I guess the CRS is pushing forward this myth so that they can use drugs.

            And why did the cartels have free reign over Mexico? They had money and power. Where was that money coming from? Drugs. Who buys the drugs? Americans. So, to sum it all up, we illegalize drugs because of the inherent dangers (though keep alcohol legalized because it’s really safe), create a black market, sustain said black market because Americans really like to get messed up, and then spend millions more to fight that war. Mexico problems are certainly related to our drug problem.

          • MD Russ

            As they say, “there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” Your statistic of incarceration rates from the CRS includes people who were sentenced to one year or less, usually for possessing felony amounts of drugs or for multiple offenses. Here are the real numbers:


            And, BTW, having met a couple of people working for the CRS, I do believe that they would cook the numbers so that they could use drugs. There was no other plausible explanation for their short attention spans and illogical conclusions concerning the facts presented to them.

            As to whether Reagan bankrupted the Soviet Union or destroyed it, I must agree with you completely–you are splitting hairs.

          • Timothy

            The CRS statistic came originally from the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2012 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics. And the discrepancy in numbers must come from (I assume) your numbers including state and federal numbers whereas I’m citing the federal government’s numbers. Regardless, 20-40% is still a significant portion of the prison population. The War on Drugs is certainly hurting our society, just as Prohibition did. Once again, you’re attributing it all directly to Reagan when it was clearly poor decision making for decades prior to Reagan coming from the Kremlin itself. Reagan had a role, however he is not solely responsible for the end of the Cold War.

          • MD Russ

            Just as Obama is not solely responsible for the unemployment rate in this country for the past five years and the lowest workforce participation rate since the Great Depression. But responsibility comes with the job. Once you sit down at the big desk in the Oval Office, then you own everything that happens, good or bad.

            As to the percentage of the prison population that is incarcerated for drug dealing (as I mentioned earlier, simple possession won’t get you jail time), I’m quite happy that we have that many societal parasites behind bars. I wish that more of them were locked up. They are hurting our society far more than any “war on drugs.” BTW, have you seen the statistics on heroin abuse among high school kids since we cracked down on dealing in Oxycodone and Pseudoephedrine, the critical ingredient in crystal meth?

            Legalizing recreational drugs makes about as much sense as legalizing car theft. After all, the insurance covers the car owner’s losses and catching car thieves just increases the prison population without solving the problem. Right.

    • Turbocohen

      Timothy, that is the dumbest comment I hope you ever make man.

      • Timothy

        Well Turbo we can’t agree on everything. I’m not a huge fan of Reagan, as I told you on your wall I would’ve vote for him in 80 but not 84. His rhetoric was that of smaller government and less spending yet government grew and spending increased under his watch. I’m not denying Reagan was a better president than most of our presidents have been in history, but I also don’t believe that Reagan is the god among men that so many Republicans look at him as. Great on taxes and easing regulation, terrible when it came to the war on drugs, government spending, and his actions in places like Grenada take. We can agree to disagree on how amazing Reagan was or would be today.

        • Turbocohen

          Superstars need only bat .400.. Strive for perfection, accept excellent except with government knock it down a few notches. I hope Rand can be at least as good as Reagan was..

          • MD Russ

            Rand wouldn’t be a pimple on Reagan’s butt. All hat and no cattle.

  • Antoninus

    I’m old enough to remember Reagan well, and I supported him even back in 1976 when he ran against Ford for the nomination. And guess what? I’m a fervent TEA Party conservative.

    No president EVER gets done what he wants because he has to convince 535 other elected officials to buy into his vision while setting aside their own agendas. Fraud, waste, and abuse will be with us always, and anyone promising to rid us of these evils is a naive fool deluding himself and attempting to delude us. Reagan articulated a vision for America of lower taxes. less spending, and fewer regulations, all of which translated into greater freedom and less government interference. Did he get everything he wanted? No, of course not. Like I said, no president ever does. But Reagan aimed high working for these things and got a great deal more accomplished than anyone imagined. Jimmy Carter floundered about without a clear-eyed vision and let problems paralyze his actions and consume his presidency!

    Yes, there’s a portion of the TEA Party that would not support Reagan today as there are always groups from both sides who lack the ability to see into the future and imagine what it could be like under someone’s vision. There are a great many Democrats who supported Obama unable to see that his totalitarian policies would be directed at them, and they are suffering from buyer’s remorse having discovered the NSA programs spying on them expanded under Obama along with the drone programs they railed against under Bush. Yes, there are many from all sides lacking the ability to see what life will be like if we follow a particular road.

    Articles like this that purport to contrast TEA Party conservatism with Reagan’s presidency intentionally obscure points such as that these are two entirely different eras, the establishment GOP leadership did not support the destructive progressive agenda under Reagan, Part of Reagan’s agenda was to defeat the Soviet Union and end the Cold War (which he did), and it was still inconceivable back in the ’80s that a president would come to power with the goal of intentionally destroying this country! This article is yet another in the establishment Bearing Drift mode of attempting to convince us TEA Party conservatives that we are extremist and unelectable, while only they and their moderation are the only winning strategy, despite having lost so often in the past.

    Sorry. No deal! You establishment Republicans are still a bunch of whining losers in bed with the hard left progressives destroying America!

    • Independence1

      A portion of the Tea Party is Extreme just like any group would have. They are unable to separate emotion from analytical thought when it comes to policy.

      I don’t think Brian was trying to convince anyone of anything. No Deal? That is nothing new, what deal would you ever accept from anyone? Do you have a phone and a pen too?

      • Antoninus

        You blithering idiot, you know damn well that no deal meant that I was not accepting the argument put forth by this establishment hit piece on the TEA Party! You can believe what you want, but Brian was very much trying to convince everyone that the TEA Party is extremist in comparison to the establishment GOP leadership in bed with the progressives! Standing up for conservative values has become extremism in the Republican Party because the establishment has moved so far to the left as to be unrecognizable to someone such as Reagan! I’m damn sure not going to accept the deal you establishment Republicans have made with the progressives to protect your access to power in exchange for the continued enlargement of government! To hell with your boy Obama’s phone and pen, I’ve got a brain and I know how to use it! The progressives are the poster children for emotional thinking applied to public policy and myriad times more extremist than any TEA Party conservative ever thought about being!

        • Independence1

          That was an emotional outburst.

          • Antoninus

            No, that was an analytical response delivered with emotion. There’s a difference, and apparently you’re not able to discern between the two.

          • Independence1

            Ok please listen, we agree on about 85% of your original post. I described the Tea Party into 3 groups not as an insult, but a attempt to make sense of the movement. It has changed since 2010. The 3rd group I mentioned is going way far right; further then Rush or Beck. That is what’s costing us elections, coupled with clearly describing the RPV creed to the masses. My issue is with the Todd Akins, and yours is with the Mitt Romney’s. In a nut shell; somewhere in the middle is victory. Thoughts?

          • Antoninus

            Okay. I will grant you that there is a militant strain of uberconservatives who wouldn’t be happy if you hung them with a new rope. I don’t think they alone are responsible for costing Republicans elections because I don’t see them as more than a sliver of the movement. The establishment GOP leadership has treated conservatives pretty shabbily in the last two election cycles, and this, coupled with the tendency of RINOs to sell out on amnesty and other issues vehemently at odds with conservatism and the conservative base, is what is costing Republicans elections. Bob Dole proved back in the ’90s that not being something (in this case, Bill Clinton) is not a winning strategy. To win, Republicans have to articulate a positive vision, and they have to be willing to fight tenaciously to defend that vision while not allowing the progressives to redefine it.

            As for Todd Akin, he was the candidate favored by the establishment to face Clair McCaskill. Akin served six terms in the House as a solid conservative before running for the Senate. He was one of those conservative candidates with a proven win record both the establishment and the TEA Party could support. He was NOT an untested TEA Party candidate, but an establishment candidate with TEA Party support. When he allowed himself to be trapped by the left’s gotcha abortion question, the establishment disowned him and began to paint him as an unelectable TEA Party candidate. Akin should have been seasoned enough not to fall into the left’s trap on abortion, but his reluctance to take a definite stand for fear of offending some voters led him directly into this trap. That reluctance was bred into him by the establishment GOP reluctance to differentiate itself from the progressive Democrats for the same fear of alienating voters.

            The establishment GOP leadership wrongly concludes that voters prefer progressive Democrats and runs from conservatism to appear more progressive. Reagan once famously said “you can’t out Democrat a Democrat” and he was correct. Given the choice, voters will select the genuine article over a johnny-come-lately like the establishment GOP.

            My problem is not just with Mitt Romney. It is with Bush 41, Bob Dole, Bush 43, McCain, and Romney – all mushy moderates trying to be all things to all voters and never taking a clear stand. I thought Romney was a much better choice because he had been a successful businessman and knew how to get things done. What I couldn’t swallow, and I was not alone in this as the outpouring of conservatives demonstrated, was Romney’s egotistical reluctance to disavow the RomneyCare disaster which Obama was able to campaign upon as the model for ObamaCare. Romney’s pride would not allow him to say it was a disaster that never should have passed. Conservatives would have flocked to Romney had he done that one thing, but he couldn’t! Therefore, Obama was able to use his own RomneyCare achievement against him by declaring that Romney couldn’t be against ObamaCare because he’s not against RomneyCare and my plan is based on his!

            The progressives Democrats and establishment Republicans are both occupying the same portion of the political spectrum on the great issue of the day which is continued government expansion. The progressives support government expansion and the establishment Republicans see it as inevitable, so they merely protest the rate of expansion. Americans are frustrated and tuning out of politics through low voter turnout and tuning out political shows because they very correctly see there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the GOP and the Democrats. They want a real choice and only the TEA Party is attempting to offer that choice, but it has to become a party and offer a conservative platform.

            The reason the TEA Party is hardening is because of this frustration and the fact that establishment Republicans such as Boehner, Rubio, and McCain do boneheaded things like support amnesty when the conservative base is screaming H E L L NO! They see Boehner not going after Obama after we conservatives handed him the House. We see him cutting deals with the administration and watering down legislation to make it less conservative. In short, we see him abandoning conservatism and we get even madder and more indignant towards the establishment GOP leadership we see selling us out and abandoning conservatism. Then we see Karl Rove and Tom Donohue from the big business Chamber of Commerce declaring war on us TEA Party conservatives and calling our candidates “unelectable.” This is supposed to make us like the establishment more?

            The progressive want amnesty for the votes, while the big business Chamber wants cheap labor. Obama has created a crony capitalist system under which big business has learned to be profitable. Big business likes Obama because they’ve figured out he is protecting them from their smaller competition through additional regulation and taxes which they can afford and their smaller competitors can’t.

            The thing that is costing Republican electoral victory is their movement away from their conservative base to tacitly support the progressive agenda. One of the symptoms of this movement has been the rise of the TEA Party. The TEA Party is a symptom of this movement and not a cause of Republican defeat!

          • The length of a message is directly proportional to the probability that the writer is a nutball.

          • MD Russ

            And I was thinking that only I made that assumption.

          • Antoninus

            No, you’re not the only knee-jerk establishment Republican out there by a long shot!

          • Antoninus

            If you had bothered to read the email string, you would have seen that I was replying to someone who asked for detailed information which I provided. That thinking of yours right there is why we TEA Party conservatives are abandoning you establishment Republicans. You guys can’t resist belittling us in a vain effort to keep us attached to your losing party. Friend, my eyes are wide open, and you’re the one perpetuating the idiocy of the establishment GOP!

          • …When he allowed himself to be trapped by the left’s gotcha abortion
            question, the establishment disowned him and began to paint him as an
            unelectable TEA Party candidate. Akin should have been seasoned enough
            not to fall into the left’s trap on abortion, but his reluctance to take
            a definite stand for fear of offending some voters led him directly
            into this trap…

            If you blame anybody else except Todd Akin for his idiotic statement, then you are a complete idiot. It’s time to quit blaming the “mainstream media” and assorted other Krazy Konspiracy Krap for stupid and idiotic things that people do to themselves. Responsibility for your own actions is a good thing for everybody.

          • Antoninus

            A careful reading of my comment clearly demonstrates that I place the blame for Akin’s faux pas entirely on his shoulders and not anyone else. I was pointing out that Akin was the establishment GOP preferred candidate, but once he blundered, the establishment immediately disowned him and began painting him as a TEA Party conservative! Once again, you establishment Republicans display a knee-jerk reaction to anyone critical of your losing party. If it wasn’t for TEA Party conservatives, Nancy Pelosi would still be Speaker of the House and you establishment Republicans would still be the minority party of victims you allow the Democrats to define you as. So, stop putting words in my mouth and finding implications in my comments that were never there in the first place. You knee-jerk establishment Republicans have been hanging around the progressive Democrats too long and picked up most of their bad habits!

          • I shall repeat…

            …trapped by the left’s gotcha abortion question…

            That’s passing the buck to “the left”. He wasn’t painted as a tea party conservative, he was rightfully painted as a dumbass.

          • Antoninus

            Not at all. The left was doing what it does, posing a gotcha question. Akin flubbed it all on his own. He was then abandoned by the establishment GOP leadership, and went on to lose the election. After the election cycle, when the results were being dissected for trends, the establishment began painting Akin as a TEA Party candidate and attempting to blame the TEA party for another loss. They damn sure did and don’t try to deny it! In three comments, I have squarely placed the blame for Akin’s flub and loss clearly on Akin’s shoulders and no one else, but that’s not good enough for you. You keep coming back to claim I’m blaming someone else. I’m not and you are the only one who can’t see that!

          • Antoninus

            As proof of my point that the establishment GOP leadership is still casting Todd Akin as an unelectable TEA Party candidate, refer to today’s NewsMax article on GOP efforts to keep unelectable TEA Party candidates from running where they have this to say:

            “In past elections, the tea party’s decision to run unelectable
            candidates, such as Christine O’Donnell in Delaware and Todd Akin in
            Missouri, negatively affected the party, the Journal reports.”

            The party line is still that Akin was an unelectable TEA Party candidate despite the truth of the situation. The article link is: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/2014-Mississippi-Colorado-North-Carolina/2014/04/15/id/565631/#CommentSection.

          • Independence1

            Seriously, thank you very much for the detailed post. This helps me better understand what is going on within the TEA Party. I can say that I better understand your point of view; however I cannot say I agree with much of it.

            You guys may have to start your own party if you represent the majority; just speaking analytically here. Trying to convince mainstream Republicans of what you described in your post is not going to happen. That will just frustrate both sides and mainly the TEA Party due to the current numbers of mainstream Republicans in office.

            Long story short, I mostly agree with Sean’s (Sowell: Rule-Or-Ruin Republicans article).

          • Turbocohen

            Whoa there hossy.. “You guys may have to start your own party…” No, we want our seats back and all of us can fire all of our guns at once in the same direction across the aisle..

          • Independence1

            Haha..hossy..you are funny. That is NOT what I would prefer; separate parties. Not at all, but Antoninus suggested it “They want a real choice and only the TEA Party is attempting to offer that choice, but it has to become a party and offer a conservative platform.”

            Trying to convince a nice chunk of the American population that they have to go from government dependent to Conservative in one election is very difficult, if not impossible.

          • Antoninus

            No no, Antoninus didn’t suggest it. I am but one of a movement of conservatives disgusted at the establishment GOP leadership who has left the Republican Party! I carefully surveyed the political landscape, weighed the issues, and came to the conclusion that remaining in the establishment GOP was a losing proposition, so I left back in 2009! I wasn’t the only one either!

          • Independence1

            I guess that I misinterpreted that sentence. Do you consider yourself a member of any political party now?

          • Antoninus

            Yes, I am a TEA Party conservative.

            I was making the point that I was not the first to suggest conservatives should leave the Republican Party and form the TEA Party, but I heartily endorse the idea. I’m not surprised that this sends shivers done the spine of establishment Republicans since they absolutely cannot win without us conservatives. For historical precedence, study up on the formation of the Republican Party in 1856 from the remnants of the Whig Party. By the way, they won the White House in 1860 under Abraham Lincoln, a former Whig.

          • Warmac9999

            Prediction: if Jeb Bush somehow manages to win the Republican presidential nomination and loses the election, a third party will emerge. People don’t like associating with losers.

  • chris

    This is stupidity masked in cleverness.

  • David McKissack

    When we are only 7 months away from an election which might be our last chance to preserve the America as we know it, wouldn’t it be better to direct all rounds down-range, against Democrats? Isn’t it short-sighted and self-indulgent — especially this year — for parts of the Republican coalition to denigrate each other?

    • Independence1

      I agree completely, but some members of the coalition hurt our chances. Just a small group. #3. The emotional crazy group.

      • David McKissack

        There are “emotional crazies” in both parties, and in all factions. I’d suggest we might be more cautious about labeling people who merely disagree with our views as “emotional crazy.”

        Let’s emphasize what we agree on, not what we don’t agree on. The fate of this Republic may depend on some humility, on the part of everyone.

        • Independence1

          Point taken, but “blithering idiot” is an emotional response. Seriously, I love it when people disagree with me because I can learn from their point of view.

          Agreed. That is why Obamacare and the economy should be our focus. Do you think other issues take precedence to these?

          • David McKissack

            “…Obamacare and the economy should be our focus.”

            Bingo, Indie. That’s what we should unite around for this election. First, retake Congress, and then address our other differences.

            Gotta run…

    • Come on. America “as we know it” isn’t going anywhere.

      • Independence1

        Do you think we can still do something about Obamacare if we do not gain a majority in the Senate this year?

        • Eventually we are going to have to do something, because even the Democrats acknowledge that it isn’t working. I expect if we take the Senate back we’ll have a better chance at getting something done about it, but it’s not going to really happen until 2017.

          • Independence1

            Wow. That’s a pretty long time. The folks are going to hate Obama if it goes on that long.

            One last thing, what is the deal with Boehner’s voice vote? How does that help Republicans politically?

          • Which voice vote? The Doc Fix vote?

            Doing it by voice vote lets it get done – which it would have because there were enough Democratic votes and moderate Republican votes to get it done – without making the members take a tough roll call vote in an election year.

          • Independence1

            The “doc fix”.

          • Independence1

            Ok thank you for explaining. That makes sense.

          • Nick Bukowski

            It’s important to get politicians on recorded votes so that you can hold them accountable for what they vote on. Doing a voice vote gives them political cover and it’s a pretty dishonest way of doing things. If a politician wants to support something, let him attach his name to it.

          • It’s not a dishonest way of doing things. It’s just a procedural move. The folks on the floor should have been paying attention.

      • DaveHolden

        It is the same as 50 years ago?

        • Is the country ever static? No. Things are a lot better than they were 50 years ago for a lot of people. Some things aren’t. But one thing that is always constant is change.

  • Warmac9999

    Ronald Reagan’s unabashed love of country is the essence of the Tea Party of today. The fact that he couldn’t “Do it all” when faced with a democrat run congress for most of his two terms doesn’t change anything when it comes to his legacy. He, unlike Obama, honored the Constitution and rule of law.

    • Turbocohen

      Warmac9999 gets it. Liberty bells were ringing in that era.

    • Independence1

      Shaun is getting beat up just for telling the truth.

      • DaveHolden

        Shaun is supporting genocide and we have no obligation to accept that – even are empowered to use any means necessary to fight it.

      • What DaveHolden said. Sovereignty is no laughing matter. Especially for a nation founded on nothing but an idea. The idea is liberty and there is no liberty without the orderly rule of law – only a Hobbesian struggle between this and that faction. What’s Shaun’s problem with the rule of law, anyway?

  • DaveHolden

    Reagan also told Israel to shove it, in so many words. Reagan never visited Israel. Until the GOP puts up someone who puts America first (how telling that this even has to be said!) rather than ISRAEL then I will not vote for them or even vote Democrat to spite them. Enough with this boot-licking of Israel – they are a left wing welfare state that has attacked us – anyone supporting them is a traitor.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.