Return to the Free Liberal Homepage

April 17, 2009

They Just Don't Get the Tea Parties

The tea parties are now the issue of the day. What do they mean? Were they a true grassroots efforts or simply top-down "astroturf" as Nancy Pelosi said? For my part, what I saw in Albuquerque was a group of people organizing from the grassroots, with housewives who had never done anything political before leading the charge.

This is why neither side (neither Republican nor Democrat) understands what the tea parties mean. For starters, there is Eugene Robinson whose column appears in both the Washington Post and the Albuquerque Journal. Robinson leans to the left and denigrated the rallies, claiming they were "generally small, and the only thing they proved conclusively is that that some Americans don't much enjoy paying taxes."

Then there is former Bush right-hand-man Karl Rove who wondered in his column how Republicans can harness the movement. At the same time, Rove didn't attempt to explain and never really questioned why the tea party movement has arisen at this moment since we hadn't seen a federal tax hike for 15 years until Obama's tax hike on tobacco recently.

First and foremost, both writers miss the point. The rallies, while they did take place on tax day, were not really about taxes. Rather, they were, I believe, an expression of frustration at Republicans and Democrats, both of whom have supported out-of-control spending, bailouts, government takeovers and subsidies of private business, and unbelievable increases in indebtedness levels for the better part of the last decade. The unfortunate truth is that the Obama Administration has simply continued and expanded upon many of Bush's policies and the people who work every day and make this country great are not happy. That is the message I got from the tea parties (at least in Albuquerque where politicians were specifically kept out of the limelight).

I wasn't able to go to other tea parties because I did four hours of live radio (available here) from Albuquerque, but if the other tea parties had anywhere near the grassroots leadership that Albuquerque's had, April 15 was the start of something big.

Posted by PaulGessing at 12:32 PM | Comments (1)

January 11, 2008

Mob Mentality in the Ron Paul Revolution?

One wonders about the reading skills of some the commenters at our website. Repeatedly, it has been asserted that I want to hurt Ron Paul.

Your attempts to slander Dr. Paul are sophmoric at best, and abhorrent at worst.

Any serious review of our site would lead to conclusion that The Free Liberal has been supportive of Dr. Paul over the years. Remember, I defended Ron Paul when the racist articles were thrust into the spotlight.

Tom Knapp has a very amusing satire of Ron Paul supporters' willingness to shout "smear" at anyone who doesn't worship at the alter of Ron Paul's immaculate conception.

While I consider Ron Paul to be an honorable man, with a great record of standing up for liberty in the Congress where he often must rise alone against the steamroller of statism, there are many things about the Ron Paul movement which we could do without: including the racism, anti-semitism, conspiracy theorizing, and threatening violence against Ron Paul critics such as Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.

This behavior smacks of partisan hackery, and people interested in liberty should not be partisan hacks. They should not engage in a mob mentality. They should think for themselves and recognize that teamism and mass hatred are the tools used to undermine liberty and respect for others.

To paraphrase the wisdom of JRR Tolkien, we cannot use the tools of the "enemy" without becoming that which we abhor.

/KDR

Posted by KevinRollins at 01:16 PM | Comments (14)

August 11, 2007

Agreeing with Jonah Goldberg -- Twice!

I normally don't like Jonah Goldberg. He is a National Review neocon who cheered long and hard for the Iraq War.

That said, I actually agree with the guy on a few recent topics. One issue is the evolving use of the words "liberal" and "progressive." As Goldberg points out, conservatives have so vilified the term "liberal" that left-wing Democrats are now embracing the term "progressive." Whether socialism is really progressive is a story for a different day, but perhaps the hard-core left's abandonment of "liberal" will allow centrist and freedom-embracing political movements to re-take the term. Only time will tell, but I say let the statists have"progressive."

Another recent Goldberg column makes sense as well, specifically this one in which he makes the case that voters' lack of basic information about the US system of government devalues the entire system. As Goldberg accurately notes, there are no easy solutions to the problem, but I think it points strongly to the Founding Fathers' wisdom in setting up a "Republic" and not a "Democracy."

While I wouldn't necessarily embrace any particular system of testing or property ownership, we have certainly gotten out of whack in placing the ability to vote on a pedestal as far as our rights are concerned. The rights outlined in the US Constitution are far more important than the mere ability to punch a ballot.

Posted by PaulGessing at 01:52 PM | Comments (0)

August 10, 2007

Ron Paul supporter spreading democracy from Iraq

Here's the news item from Iowa:

This weekend's Republican Straw poll is being challenged.

That comes from a national group that is threatening legal action over the voting machines that the Republican Party of Iowa is using.

A supporter of Republican candidate Ron Paul, who is not connected to the campaign, made the legal threat, NewsChannel 8 reported.

The Iowa GOP said the straw poll is fraud-proof [editorial note: As the inside-the-campaign guy who counseled Michael Badnarik to challenge 2004 election results in Ohio and New Mexico, you will not find me accepting the word of GOP officials without question. Because of this and many other election place irregularities, Ken Blackwell is now politically unemployed.]

At a Creston restaurant, Paul greeted people Wednesday and hoped some of them would vote for him at the Ames straw poll.

"It's pretty important and if we do well, we'll certainly send a strong signal, but I have no idea how well I'll do. We're doing our very best," Paul said.

Paul campaign staffers acknowledge asking Iowa Republican leaders to count paper ballots in the straw poll as well as using voting machines.

They said the Diebold machines to be used have been decertified in other states.

Michelle had a valid point:

Could they have planned anything more insulting than purple ink? Iowa is not Iraq. And, to complicate matters, there’s a little conflict of interest in the Diebold certification. A member of Mitt Romney’s Leadership Team is the auditor.

Some are saying that it isn’t a big deal because it’s not a “real” election; it is a basically an opinion poll. That’s a crock of horseshit. We all know that Ames is a decider of who moves forward in the race. If it is flawed, it will affect what happens next.

If you really want to certify the Diebold machines, use them in Iowa while also using a paper ballot system as Ron Paul’s team suggested. Then count the paper ballots under the watchful eyes of all candidates. Compare the end totals. It would certainly be an easier test this weekend than November ‘08. If the numbers add up, fabulous. If they don’t, we might have a shot at fixing the problem without screwing up another real election.

I'll add the following. If they are going to use purple thumbs in Iowa, why not import democracy to most of our other states, as well. After all, if the Iraqi citizens could figure out how to vote for just one of over 100 candidates, surely we could figure out how to vote more more than two candidates on our political tickets.

Posted by StephenGordon at 06:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 18, 2007

Polarized Too Extreme

At a recent rally, Isis caught this image of non-transpartisan signage:

This is quite apparently the wrong message for anyone who wants Israel to withdraw from Palestine because the ultimate audience is Israel -- which has the power to implement the policy the protesters desire. This sign articulates an "us vs. them" mindset which is not at all useful if the purpose of the rally is to win hearts and minds. The willingness to be offensive and to immediately compare the opposing side to mass-murderers is reckless. This further cements my view that protest marches and rallies in general are tribal and non-rational.

Question for Free Liberal editors and bloggers: Does activism itself, by the nature of the discipline, tend toward an illiberal, partisan worldview?

Posted by KevinRollins at 12:26 PM | Comments (0)

Free-for-all (frfr-ôl) -- n. A disorderly fight, argument, or competition in which everyone present participates.

from Dictionary.com



Advertisement
Free For All -- The Free Liberal Blog