Dubya Tries to Hop on Tea Party Bandwagon

2 12 2010

As the Tea Party has been gathering steam, people from all over are cramming in to see if they can catch a piece of the pie.  And the pie gets bigger by the minute – with four Senate seats – those of Rand Paul (KY), Pat Toomey (PE), Marc Rubio (FL) and Mike Lee (UT) – being claimed by the Tea Party movement.  There is even talk of a Tea Party Caucus in the Senate and House during the next congressional cycle.  Former President George W. Bush has been trying to capitalize on the political success of the movement like any other.  It may seem odd that he would do that, given that his two constitutionally legal terms of office are over and he cannot rise any farther than he has been in the past.  But his brother Jeb is now being speculated about as a potential Republican candidate for the 2012 presidential election.  Now George seems to be trying to mobilize Tea Party support for his Jeb’s run to follow in his footsteps.

The Tea Party movement and its members would have to have really short memories if they were to follow the former president’s lead and throw their support behind another Bush.  It is important to remember that the Tea Party originally rose in response to cronyism overspending by the BUSH Administration which has been expanded and continued by the Obama Administration.  It is easy to forget – with all the attention centered around Obama – that Bush was the original target of the movement.  The Tea Party will only get behind candidates true to their values and RINOs like Bush will not qualify.  Sure, the Tea Party was largely behind Scott Brown here in Massachusetts and he’s a centrist on fiscal issues, but he was the best the Tea Party could settle for in the bluest state in the nation.  Let’s not forget that George Bush snubbed now Senator-Elect Marc Rubio when he was running in the primary against establishment candidate Charlie Crist.  Now Bush is playing like he knew the Tea Party was the real deal all along.

Read the rest of this entry »





The Ideological Evolution of the Republican Party

15 02 2010

Politics can be an immensely complicated subject and in the American political system there is only room for two parties to exist in the long-run.  Therefore, each of the two parties is highly factionalized, with each individual member agreeing with anywhere from fifty-one to ninety-nine percent of the party platform.  The Republican Party has had the dominant school of thought within itself shift so many times that the old school adherents may barely recognize it anymore.  Republican politicians can be identified by their place on the political spectrum as “Rockefeller Republicans,” neoconservatives, theoconservatives, paleoconservatives, libertarians, neolibertarians, paleolibertarians, Independent Republicans, etc.  From the 1930s to the 1970s the country as a whole was largely Democratic and the moderate wing of the party had the most sway.  These are known as liberal/moderate Republicans or the more old-fashioned name:  Rockefeller Republicans after Nelson Rockefeller.

The Rockefeller Republicans had been the preferred faction of the party for many years – in every presidential election from 1928 to 1976 with the sole exception of 1964, the party nominated a moderate-to-liberal candidate.  With Ronald Reagan’s ascent in 1980, that began to change.  Slowly new political forces came forward and the ideology of the party became less rigid.  In 1994 Republican Minority Whip Newt Gingrich unveiled the famous Contract with America, which reflected the sentiment of the election season which gave the party both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years.  The 1994 “Republican Revolution” was largely led by younger members of the party.  Many old timers who served during the Rockefeller Era were critical, believing the Contract to be too ambitious.  That may seem ironic since a lot of conservatives today view the Contract as a failure.  I can understand such arguments – a lot of the promises were broken and starting in the early 2000s the Republicans started growing the size of government, with the original sentiment of the Contract in the past.  However, the Contract was not a failure from the very beginning. Read the rest of this entry »








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.