If the stakes weren’t so high, this would be laughable.  The GOP leadership can’t control the Tea Party movement and seem to be scared to death.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) simply doesn’t know what to do.  Commenting after the first meeting of the House Tea Party Caucus, organized by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN):

Mr. Boehner, who said he has attended several tea party events throughout the country, acknowledged the gatherings typically include smatterings of "disaffected Republicans," Democrats and "a couple of anarchists who want to kill all of us in public office."

But "75 percent of these people who show up at these events are the most average, everyday Americans you’ve ever met," he said. "None of them have ever been involved in the political process, and I would guess half of them have never voted."

Mr. Boehner added that tea party activists represent "the tip of the iceberg" of Americans disenchanted with their government.

"They represent the same values, concerns, frustration, anger and fear that you see from tens of millions of other Americans who aren’t in the streets yet," he said. "They should not be dismissed, they shouldn’t be mocked."

75%?  The Tea Party movement is far more independent than Boehner believes.  Sure, the vast majority will vote for Republicans this fall, but that has nothing to do with the GOP’s lack of a genuine conservative message and everything to do with what they’ve witnessed since Barack Obama was sworn in.

Boehner and his buddies better understand that this fall is like a free pass.  If the GOP can’t show that they can actually lead, it’s game over.  Either it’s back to the minority or conservatives and libertarians in the GOP will be demanding that Republican candidates pledge to purge themselves of a leadership that simply cares more about power than philosophy and policy.

The time for pandering is over John.

Tuesday, Libertarian cum Republican Brent Wangen filed for the GOP primary to replace Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE).  Wednesday, the Delaware Board of Elections appears to have kicked Wangen out.

This isn’t unique.  Delaware House candidate Will McVay also has been dropped after filing.  Celia Cohen also provides some background on this issue.

Attacking the grassroots conservative / libertarian coalition of Tea Party activists hasn’t worked after a year.  Calling us names or claiming that we’re bigots hasn’t worked.  Ridiculing us hasn’t worked.  So, the left (through their allies in the mainstream media) have found a new tactic – let us destroy ourselves.  Shamefully, the tactic just might work.

Can Tea Party activists band together around the issues which they agree on AND agree to disagree on others?  That is the core question facing us as the media attempts to prod Tea Partiers into an internecine war.  Their first target – former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, his FreedomWorks group, and the issue of immigration.

The success of the Tea Party movement has been that it is a loose coalition of individuals and groups focused around economic and tax issues.  We opposed the stimulus.  We opposed TARP.  We opposed “cap and trade”; not because we support pollution, but because we question the science upon which “climate change” is based and we are worried about the economic impact of such a measure.  We opposed ObamaCare.  Some of us opposed the measure solely because of its probable negative impact on the world’s greatest health care system and on our economy..  Others opposed it because of its assault on our individual and corporate liberty.  Many of us fought the measure for both of these reasons; and a few more.

To date, the Tea Party movement has not come together around social issues or other issues that don’t have a direct economic impact on our nation.  However, there is one issue which has an economic impact AND on which many of us within the Tea Party movement disagree.  That issue is ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

I, for one, oppose ANY immigration reform which provides amnesty or a “path to legalization” for aliens in this country who did not enter legally.  My reasons are simple – these people have BROKEN THE LAW and history (1986) has taught us that providing amnesty exacerbates the problem rather than fixes it.  If they want to live here, they need to GO BACK HOME and get at the back of the line.  I also believe that we should expand LEGAL immigration and make provisions for a “guest worker” program.

I understand the arguments of many who support immigration reform that includes some form of amnesty (although many refuse to accept that term).  It’s an economic argument.  It’s a “justice” argument.  However, just because I understand (and even respect) their arguments does not mean that I will agree with them.  Some of these people are folk who I genuinely respect.  These include Dick Armey and Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform.

SETTING US UP FOR FAILURE?

FreedomWorks has taken a leading role in sponsoring the Tea Party movement.  Since 1984, the group has focused on issues relating to fiscal policy and limited government.  This morning I came across a post by Richard Falknor, who chairs the Maryland Thursday Meeting, questioning Armey’s role in the Tea Party movement BECAUSE of his views on immigration reform.

Falknor appears to oppose amnesty.  However, he holds (at least some of) the same view towards the relationship of FreedomWorks to the Tea Party movement as I do:

Tea Partiers need to know exactly the policy priorities and advocacy records – - such as amnesty for illegals – - of people who, like Dick Armey,  are playing a visible role in the movement.  Then local, state, and regional Tea Partiers can make their own decisions on their agendas – - taking or leaving “guidance” from their “Beltway Betters” as they choose.

On this, we are in complete agreement.  I also support Falknor’s belief that “social, immigration, and national security concerns are a seamless web”.  However, Tea Party activists need to be politically savvy enough to understand that we are NEVER going to succeed on ANY issue if we will only ally ourselves with those that we are in 100% agreement.

What caused me great concern in Falknor’s post was a reference to an article in Politico:

Critics ranging from prominent conservatives to bloggers to grass-roots tea party activists have called into question whether Armey’s stances on illegal immigration and social issues, his candidate endorsements and his past lobbying work are fundamentally inconsistent with the tea party movement. They also have suggested he raised the white flag too early in the fight over the Democratic health care overhaul and is beholden to corporate benefactors, and have accused him of trying to hijack the tea parties to serve those benefactors or his own personal political ambitions.

Armey and FreedomWorks have been very helpful in assisting Tea Party activists.  Given the loose knit structure of the movement, this support is VERY HELPFUL and we should all be grateful.  Just because I disagree with Armey on the immigration issue does not mean that I shouldn’t want to work with him on others.  Yet, that is just what some activists are urging; with the helpful prodding of those in the media.

Some are asking the question, “Do we need to be organized by FreedomWorks?”.  No, but I don’t believe that is what is happening.  EVERYONE in the Tea Party movement has an agenda.  Some are just truly concerned about the direction our nation is moving.  Others may want to tap the grassroots fervor of the movement for specific electoral or policy purposes.  It is up to EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US to educate ourselves and then decide to what extent we wish to accept assistance (or take direction) from others.

If we can agree to support each other on certain issues, respectfully oppose our allies on other, AND decide not to argue over issues that may be important to some but not ourselves (but on which we have an opinion), THEN we can succeed.  IF we choose to take the path of some (such as ALIPAC, a group that I agree with on many things), we are doomed to divide just at the time when we need to come together on those issues which are most important to us:

Dick Armey of Freedomworks (The group trying to take control of the Tea Party Movement) supports AMNESTY for illegal aliens and Armey says the Tea Party movement is about "Free Markets" aka NAFTA and CAFTA.

Obviously he believes in free labor and consumer markets across OPEN BORDERS.

Do you agree with Dick Armey of Freedomworks? Does this explain why the DC insiders are trying to keep the illegal immigration issue out of the Tea Party movement?

I happen to think that Armey is wrong about immigration.  I do agree with him that free markets are key to our economic survival and that this is one of the core issues of the Tea Party movement.  However, because I believe he is wrong on immigration, does that mean that I should spurn Armey and refuse to work with FreedomWorks on issues involving free markets, lower taxes and limited government?

Ironically, many of the same activists attacking Armey have agendas of their own and wish to diminish whatever Armey and FreedomWorks may enjoy within the Tea Party movement:

Fire-breathing conservative blogger Michelle Malkin last week blasted Armey as an “amnesty stooge” and “a clueless promoter of bailout-happy, big government Republican Sen. John McCain.”

And Tony Perkins, president of the socially conservative Family Research Council, said he has urged tea party activists to ignore FreedomWorks’ advice to minimize the profile of social and religious issues, which he charged the group was “intentionally avoiding, and that undermines the potential for success” in the tea party movement. Perkins said his staff has tried to discuss its concerns with FreedomWorks officials, but hasn’t been satisfied with their response.

This is reminiscent of problems within the GOP.  Establishment Republicans have been unwilling to reach out to the libertarian leaning supporters of Ron Paul just as they spurned and ridiculed social conservatives for many years; and the Goldwater / Reagan conservatives before that.

If they aren’t successful over the issue of immigration, expect them to start prodding us over social / religious issues such as abortion and marriage.  The left FEARS the Tea Party movement and grassroots groups such as AFP and the Club for Growth.  They realize that they can’t defeat our ideas.  Their best hope is to push us into destroying ourselves.

Devotees of Republitarian congressman Ron Paul aren’t planning on sitting out the 2012 election without running a candidate.  Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson appears to be that candidate:

While highly unlikely that Paul (or another libertarian) can win, the GOP needs learn to court these voters.  In 2008, the Paulistas were young and ACTIVE.  No boots on ground, NO WIN!  That means addressing some of the key issues held dear by the Paulistas.  Sure, we may not agree with them all.  We may believe that some are a bit impractical even if we do agree in principle.  Perhaps we can work together by agreeing on a Burkean line.  We have to deal with reality, and change must be gradual rather than radical.

Dismissing this growing body of activists – go to a Tea Party or AFP meeting – means tough sledding.

Whether at Q&O or The Next Right, we at Delmarva Dealings have always been a fan of Jon Henke.  Unfortunately, today’s piece over at The Next Right forces us to examine several factors in evaluating future Henke commentary on the future direction of the GOP and the conservative movement.  Perhaps:

• I’m simply too old (I was born in 1960).

• Henke is too young to adequately grasp the history of the modern conservative movement (Jon was in kindergarten when I was knocking on doors for Reagan in 1976).

• Henke has swallowed the foolishness of political “branding” and abandoned his (former?) libertarian philosophy.

I always considered Henke to be a better student of history:

The conservative movement that arose in the 60′s and 70′s reached maturity in the 1980′s.  That period became the conservative movement’s frame of reference; the experiences, lessons and skills learned up to that point became the Republican Party’s hammer, and when all you have is a hammer…

The conservative movement has reached maturity?  I’ve been re-reading Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France recently.  Many of the ideas which Reagan and Goldwater espoused in the 1950′s, ’60′s, ’70′s, and ’80′s were seen as problems by Burke in the late eighteenth century; namely that individual liberty is protected by the rule of law and limited government.  If one reads Goldwater’s Conscience of a Conservative and simply substitutes “Islamic extremist” for “communist” or the Soviet Union it holds up pretty well.  Truth is timeless.

Henke is correct that simply harping about tax cuts will not lead to a permanent (or even long lasting) conservative majority in this country.  What he fails to acknowledge is that the faux cons who claim the mantle of Reagan are not of the same philosophical heritage as Locke, Burke, Bastiat, Goldwater, or Reagan.  I can only conclude that Henke believes that Mark Levin’s recent book, Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto, is simply not relevant to today’s politics.

Have future leaders, like Henke, grown up in an atmosphere were philosophy (and the ideas of how to implement that philosophy) are now superceded by a “win at all costs” mentality?  Perhaps.  The GOP ceased to be motivated by philosophy when Newt Gingrich was driven from the Speaker’s chair.

We all need to realize that victory, at the cost of our beliefs, is simply not worth the cost.  However, as Reagan proved, victory can be attained with those beliefs intact.

Is making a requirement of “public service” really service … or is it servitude?  This is a question posed by many; particularly those of us who live in states where our children are required to “do good to graduate”.

Thomas Sowell presents a typically articulate argument against such requirements.

“What lessons do students get from this, except submission to arbitrary power?”

It’s no secret that the left have learned how to win, have been winning, and will continue to do so unless properly challenged. I saw first hand why this happening at it’s starting point, college campuses. The largest farm system for political engagement.

All over college campuses the tradition has been between College Republicans up against the College Democrats. Now single issue groups and specific philosophical groups, such as libertarian groups, have been popping up on both sides of the aisle.  Obama clearly won this year, but by how much and how big?

Team Obama wiped the right on campuses this year. Why? The left took the initiative to win.  Students for Obama groups popped up everywhere simply to fight for and elect Barack Obama. They advertised, signed up voters, held events, organized and involved

Delaware Curmudgeon informs us that PennDOT, and Pennsylvania Ed Rendell have instituted a biometric drivers license under the guise of the federal Real ID program. Pennsylvanians are evidently in a snit. Class action suit to follow.

While I don’t consider my self a libertarian to the point of being paranoid, I say go get ‘em guys. In my view this isn’t so much a civil liberties issue as the fact that the law did not permit Rendell to allow the collection of biometric data. Of course, Ed Rendell is your typical Democrat. The rules only matter when it suits.

Amen Bruce! QandO‘s Bruce McQuain gives his take on Melanie Scarborough’s excellent piece in the Examiner. I threw in the “Libertarian” because that what the great guys at QandO are. As far as I’m concerned, it’s pure Goldwater.

The Club for Growth, a leading fiscal conservative national organization committed to economic freedom through lower taxes and less wasteful government spending, endorsed Andy Harris’ bid to unseat Wayne Gilchrest  The Club for Growth press release stated: “Wayne Gilchrest, has accumulated a definitively anti-growth record during his sixteen years in Congress. Gilchrest is clearly one of the most economically liberal Republicans in the House of Representatives.”

In the last election cycle, the Club for Growth endorsed the primary challenger, Tim Walberg, to liberal Republican incumbent Joe Schwartz.  Tim Walberg defeated Joe Schwartz in the primary and went on to win the general election.

“I am thankful to have the endorsement of a group committed to economic freedom. I share their vision for lower taxes and less wasteful government spending.” said Andy Harris. “Maryland’s taxpayers sent Wayne to change Washington, sadly Washington changed Wayne. As a member of the United States Congress, I will consistently oppose all tax increases and will fight to eliminate wasteful government spending just as I have for the last nine years in Annapolis.”

In their press release, the Club for Growth listed some of the liberal tax-and-spend votes Congressman Gilchrest has cast. In the last month alone, Gilchrest has voted for over $20 billion in new taxes and against cutting spending and wasteful earmarks. “The people of the first congressional district will not tolerate Gilchrest’s attack on their wallets. Gilchrest’s liberal fiscal voting record will be his downfall.” said Chris Meekins, Political
Director for the Andy Harris campaign.

Technorati Tags: 2008, Maryland, politics, marylandpolitics, libertariansim, fiscalpolicy, economics, economicgrowth, AndyHarris, WayneGilchrest, ClubforGrowth

Powered by ScribeFire.