If the "teaparty" is a political party, it is losing ground. If it is a movement, it has already taken back the GOP and is the strongest political influence in the nation.

278 share
“Everybody runs like a tea party candidate now.  Everybody is running against Obamacare and against overspending in Washington. It wasn’t always like that with the Republican establishment. I don’t even recognize McConnell from where he was a few years ago.”  ~  Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks

Editor's notes:  I know this is not accepted "teaparty language,"  but I have always been a qualified fan of Mitch McConnell.  Making note of McConnell's more conservative stance,  as did Matt Kibbe (above),   is more the consequence of giving Senator McConnell a larger conservative base  (Cruz, Mike Lee,  Rubio,  Paul, etc.,) than before.  

I understand that my opinion is not the popular "teaparty" point of view.  But,  I am "teaparty" and  participate in our local,  600 member,  teaparty association.  What gets lost in all the talk about party reformation (from the Right) is that McConnell ranks in the top 10% of all Congressional Conservatives,  when his views and legislative efforts are scored for conservative bias  . . . . . . .  top 10%.  
What lost me to the cause of hyper-critical, GOP,  review (emphasis on "hyper"),  were the attacks,  from the Right,  of Orrin Hatch,  Senator from Utah.  Me?  

To be clear,  I would vote for Senator Hatch as president,  in a heartbeat.  His conservative scores put him in the top 5% of  GOP leadership.  To brand this man a "progressive,"  is short sighted and the product of confusion,  plain and simple.  More than this,  such trash talk is an assault on trust,  an absolute necessity when it comes to the political/party process and party leadership. 

The Conservative Revolution absolutely must come to appreciate that election politics are duplicitous in nature and demanding of compromise at some level.  When it comes to the political/legislative process,  very little is straight-forward or linear in scope.  In the convoluted world of opposition politics,  nothing gets done without compromise.   But,  smart compromise is the talking point,  here.  

For example,  the nation is not ready for a ban on all abortions.  What do we do,  as "the party of life?”  Abandon the cause?  Or carry on the battle for the right to infant life,  on a state to state basis and the use of regulations?   We should make it some kind of  rule that a number of social/domestic issues are best served by state and local politics.  The reader should look to Texas as evidence of how this works,  emphasis on how the Texas battle against abortion WORKS.   At last news,  only 6 abortion clinics in that state,  remain "open for business."   The pro-life contingency in that state,  is making serious inroads against the criminality of abortion,  and doing so without going “national.”   

Another example of "smart compromise,"  can be found in the wedding cake industry.  Christian cake makers, to be specific,   should have an across the board policy  against lettering a cake with anything other than general,  wedding messages, thus avoiding references to homo or hetero messaging – but, especially, homo references.  And Christian cake makers should not sell figurines with their cakes, hetero or homo,  thus avoiding a male on male fantasy display.  Cakes are made,  protocol is followed,  consciences are clear and all are happy,  happy,  happy. 

I could go on,  but you get the message, hopefully.  

When we cannot win battles that need to be fought,  education is the best starting point.  Democrats call this process, "social conditioning."  But, the better term and best intellectual process,  is education.    

Education has worked with regard to late-term abortions.  More than 75% of Americans do not support such abortions.  That is a battle we can win,  therefore,  on a national level.  80% of Americans see the need for health regulations as to abortion clinic service.  They see the need for doctors to be certified as abortion trained professionals and accepted into local hospitals,  upon demand,   should an abortion procedure become a survival issue for the abortion minded patient.  Again,  these are issues we can win,  in a national election.

But when we "stand on principle," and take an "all or nothing" position,  we lose even the battles that could have been successfully fought.  The Rick Santorum,  principled "all or nothing" stance against abortion,  has actually cost millions of unborn lives,  if you accept that education coupled with incremental legislation,  makes perfect sense.   There is no advantage to an "all or nothing" political agenda,  when that leads to consistent defeat.    

Strategy is strategy.  Personal assaults and destructive inter-party quarreling are not necessary strategies,  they are party suicide. 

We need to stop branding all Party conservatives with whom we disagree,  as evil "progressives" and,  therefore,  unqualified to represent conservative politics.  Heck,  under the present Conservative Rules for Radicals,  Ron Reagan would not survive a primary bid,  if his legislative record was made an issue  . . . . . .  and Reagan is or was the heir-apparent to Goldwater and the modern day,  Conservative Revolution.  Reagan's First Rule of (GOP) party politics was called "The 11th Commandment."  It’s  cautionary proclamation, "Thou shalt not speak evil an fellow Republicans,"  is a critical aspect to the  theme of this post.     

We need to recognize the fact that teaparty values  -  balancing the budget,  pushing a profound regard for Constitutional law, states rights, the need for personal responsibility and an allowance for traditional/populus family values -  are at the heart of teaparty "politics."  Couple these values with the  Reagan Rule,  and we have a winning platform for party unity and,  just as importantly,  winning national elections. 


  1. Teabaggers are CLEARLY on the wrong side of history. They are essentially the white teavangelical party - not representative of today's America.

  2. Reagan wouldn't make it in todays teaparty. He would be considered a progressive by today's radical right. i.e.... Federal government expanded on his watch. The conservative desire to outlaw abortion was never seriously pursued. Reagan broke with the hardliners in his administration and compromised with the Soviets on arms control. His assault on entitlements never materialized; instead he saved Social Security in 1983. And he repeatedly ignored the fundamental conservative dogma that taxes should never be raised. He raised taxes 11 times and nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants. In a way, he was to blame for 9/11 - Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden by fighting a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan.

  3. The readership should understand that the above comment, written by the "opposition" who believes - as a matter of rhetorical policy - that one is most responsible when she lies and offer misinformation. This is the accepted theme of Saul Alinsky in his 1978 book, Rules for Radicals and is the first of several "rules for radical reform."

    The notion that Reagan helped create the Taliban and was responsible for 9/11, gives the reader perspective into the twisted mind of a disciple of Saul Alinsky. "They" will simply say anything to further their "cause," without regard for the truth. The author of the above comment, pretends that Reagan acted alone in offering amnesty, and never bothers to mention the fact that Reagan regretted his trust in the opposition (Democrat) party and their promises to seal the border as a first step to immigration reform. He cut taxes from 70% to 28%, increasing tax revenues from around 400 billion to more than 900 billion and indexed the tax code to the inflation rate. He did raise some taxes. For example, the Dems promised $3 in spending cuts for every dollar riased in taxes, and legislation was created in 1982 to raise taxes. The Dems never got around to honoring their promises to Reagan for tax cuts, and, now, pretend, that it was Reagan who created a net tax increase, at that time, when nothing could be further from the truth. The Carter Recession continued two years into Reagan's first term, but, Reagan's policies increased the labor force to 66% if the population. Obama, by contrast, has a labor force of 63.5% of the population, with 11 million fewer Americans working than at the beginning of his 2009 term. While Reagan raised some taxes and cut others, Obama has raised taxes more than 140 times, has installed the highest corporate rates in the world, and is the cause for the slowest recovery in our history. Lets not forget that ObamaCAre is a tax, and, as such, is the most regressive tax system in our history. As far as "recovery" is concerned, Reagan's recover began it in his third year while Obama has yet to see a jobs recovery, going into his 6th year. GDP has averaged less than 2%, under Obama, and the first quarter of this year, saw recession like numbers.of 0.01% growth. A second such quarter, and we are, officially, back in a recession. Let's not forget that Obama has spent more money that all previous presidents, combined.

  4. I am under the impression that "teabag . . . . . .r" was a word first used by teaparty folks. I would love to see how you justify your hypocricy on this subjet.

  5. Not sure why or how this comment "got through." But I will answer the question since you made an effort, meager as it is, to agree with my rule.

    My answer is short and sweet: I have NEVER condoned the use of the "bagger" word to describe teaparty folks AND, it my definition you have to deal with. Who defines the word? Answer: the Left. Again, my definition of " . . . bagger" comes from the Left Wing. Understand this: I do not have to justify anything. For whatever reason, the "bagger" word is off limits because . . . . . . . . . . . . . I SAY SO. You should know that I do not allow the word or allusions to the word, except for this moment. To think that you want to have an intelligent discussion over the use of this word, demonstrates just how "meatless" is your sense of the "intellectual."

  6. You, sir, are nothing but a hypocritical dictator. I have a right to say what I want to say, how I want to say it.

  7. No hypocrite here. I don't use the word, as you and your President have, and, "no," you have no rights to filthy, profane speech. Go back and look at the nonsense written to this blog - you have a lot of freedom to write as you wish.

    I am tired of defending my position. Live with it. We are done with this idiot's subject.

  8. I wrote the above comment on Reagan and the facts are the facts. I do not know anything about Alinsky, who he is or what he stands for. It is a common tactic of Smithson. He invents a monster ( Alinsky, etc... ) and tries to discredit by his method of guilt by association. This demonstrates 3 logical fallacies in one... strawman (Alinsky), red herring (distracting from issue), and guilt by association (classic ad hominem attack). This is why Smithson has no credibility.

  9. Your leadership, and by that I mean to say, all of your progressive leadership, is fully aware of Saul Alinsky. Obama taught Alinsky while teaching summer school at Columbia, and Hillary was an intern of Alinsky and wrote a rather interest college paper on the man. Your comment is simply an admission of your ignorance when it comes to the background academics of those who are the Progressive leadership. today, "Progressive" is just another word for "Marxism as a collective social view" and a copy of the borderless world of the EU.

    You should know that a given rhetorical moment cannot be "ad hominem" if it is on subject, and uses terms that are founded in reality. To brand a communist, a communist, is hardly "ad hom" unless one has changed the subject of the debate to make that observation. If Alinsky is the political guru of the Progressive Reform Movement of this day, your "strawdog" is most illogical. A "red herring" as you define that word, is ad hom precisely because it moves people off subject. You use this in most of your debate with me. If I write that "Obama has done thus and so," and you respond with "Bush did more," you have changed the subject and have used ad hom to "further" your discussion, avoiding the actual debate point, altogether. "Guilt by association" works for me, when you support the antics of the communist/Marxist/rank socialist leadership of your party. The GOP has failed the conservative cause, in the near past. As a consequence, I do not support party politics. I neither make donations to the GOP or am a registered Republican.