As would become a pattern in elections to come, the Tea Party movement "nationalized" this election. Activists from all over N.Y. were getting involved in Hoffman's underdog bid.
[Third in the polls], Scozzafava, the Republican, endorsed the Democrat, Bill Owens. "Since beginning my campaign, I have told you that this election is not about me; it's about the people of this district," she claimed. "It is in this spirit that I am supporting Bill Owens for Congress and urge you to do the same."
Owens ended up winning by capturing 48% of the vote, with the Hoffman receiving 46%. Everyone agreed that Scozzafava's decision to team with the Democratic Party had been the margin of difference in Hoffman's defeat.
But I believe Americans are genetically opposed to big government. They won't accept it, and they have been joining with their fellow citizens in the streets to take America back. I believe this movement, the Tea Party movement, has the opportunity to break the boom-and-bust cycle and restore a constitutionally limited government and bring fiscal sanity to Washington.
By the 1910s, progressives had become a substantial force. They made a critical mistake that the Tea Party movement must avoid. Rather than taking over one of the two major parties, they decided to form a new party to run their own candidate: Teddy Roosevelt in 1912.
The Progressive Party faded away, but its ideas did not. By the 1930s, legendary progressive leader Saul Alinsky began organizing and training activists to be more effective. Rather than spend time creating a new political party, he was going to spend his time more effectively and take over the existing structure. Alinsky's guide to being an effective activist is called "Rules for Radicals". We've all read it a FreedomWorks and suggest you do, too.
Rubio became a welcome guest at Tea Party events across the state. At their urging, Dick Armey endorsed Rubio on July 4, 2009, describing Rubio as "an inspiring leader for the next generation of the conservative movement."
Yet despite the obvious advantages these fiscal conservatives found in Rubio, Crist enjoyed an enormous lead in the first polls. But the Tea Party had a champion and got to work. Slowly, the Tea Party movement's support helped bring Rubio to the public eye.
Bennett was widely considered to be a "good guy" who was mostly reliable on Republican issues. Most notably for the delegates from Utah, he had voted for the Wall Street bailout. As Bennett spoke to the gathering, the chant of "TARP, TARP, TARP" echoed across Convention Hall. Bennett was ultimately replaced by the Tea Party underdog candidate Mike Lee, a staunch supporter of limited government and the very first signer of the Contract from America.
One pundit fumed, "It is a damn outrage." Another wailed, "It's almost a nonviolent coup." Get used to it, guys.
One week before the election, an e-mail entitled "warning to Tea Party activists: don't even think about voting for Scott Brown!" was sent from Carla Howell and Michael Cloud, two prominent Libertarian members of the Tea Party movement.
In part, their e-mail read, "You have a radically better choice. A choice that will advance the Tea Party Cause. A choice that will give us REAL Tea Party candidates and allies in November."
This, of course, is the constant tension in politics--deciding whether or not to let the unelectable "perfect" be the enemy of the electable "good."
most activists realized what was at stake and accepted the current reality of our system. Many of the Tea Party citizens preferred the libertarian Joe Kennedy, but Scott Brown had the best chance to win, and the Tea Party people solidified their support behind Scott. The libertarians may generally be counted among the Tea Partiers.
On Feb. 18, CNBC's Rick Santelli listened to news coverage of Obama's proposal for yet another housing bailout. Santelli unexpectedly unleashed an impassioned rant: "The government is promoting bad behavior! This is America! How many people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgages that have an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills? Pres. Obama, are you listening? It's time for another Tea Party. We're thinking of having a Chicago Tea Party in July, all you capitalists. I'm organizing."
Within hours, Santelli's rant had gone viral, earning more than a millions views on YouTube and countless discussions across the country. The frustration that had been building, and which had begun to turn into street action, now had a name. The Tea Party was ready for the national stage.
This body of work has created the basis for a political framework for a new limited-government movement. The Left figured this out a long time ago. Theirs is not an idea-based movement; instead, they focus on organization and power.
As Saul Alinsky teaches, "change comes from power, and power comes from organization. In order to act, people must get together." Today, the Tea Party has the power to change America for the better.
Conservatively, you can say that at least one million people showed up for the Taxpayer March on Washington on Sep. 12 2009
The sole purpose of a political party is to get candidates elected. Principles, on the other hand, are different. Good ideas stand up to scrutiny. The right principles and the best ideas pass the test of time.
The principle of individual freedom, fiscal responsibility, and constitutionally limited government are what define the Tea Party ethos. They bind us as a social movement. And that marked the Tea Party better than a political party--something that can sustain itself the day after the first Tuesday in November. The Tea Party is a far more potent force for social change in America because it will sustain itself beyond the next candidate's election.
Notice that we call for a hostile takeover. We didn't say "join th Republican Party." We need to take it over. The commonsense values that define the Tea Party movement, like the belief that government should not spend money it does not have, puts us in the broad middle of American politics. That means the existing parties, if they covet the votes of this broad constituency, need to gravitate toward our values and our issues to get elected.
One week before the election, an e-mail entitled "warning to Tea Party activists: don't even think about voting for Scott Brown!" was sent from Carla Howell and Michael Cloud, two prominent Libertarian members of the Tea Party movement.
In part, their e-mail read, "You have a radically better choice. A choice that will advance the Tea Party Cause. A choice that will give us REAL Tea Party candidates and allies in November."
This, of course, is the constant tension in politics--deciding whether or not to let the unelectable "perfect" be the enemy of the electable "good."
most activists realized what was at stake and accepted the current reality of our system. Many of the Tea Party citizens preferred the libertarian Joe Kennedy, but Scott Brown had the best chance to win, and the Tea Party people solidified their support behind Scott. The libertarians may generally be counted among the Tea Partiers.
Rubio became a welcome guest at Tea Party events across the state. At their urging, Dick Armey endorsed Rubio on July 4, 2009, describing Rubio as "an inspiring leader for the next generation of the conservative movement."
Yet despite the obvious advantages these fiscal conservatives found in Rubio, Crist enjoyed an enormous lead in the first polls. But the Tea Party had a champion and got to work. Slowly, the Tea Party movement's support helped bring Rubio to the public eye.
Bennett was widely considered to be a "good guy" who was mostly reliable on Republican issues. Most notably for the delegates from Utah, he had voted for the Wall Street bailout. As Bennett spoke to the gathering, the chant of "TARP, TARP, TARP" echoed across Convention Hall. Bennett was ultimately replaced by the Tea Party underdog candidate Mike Lee, a staunch supporter of limited government and the very first signer of the Contract from America.
One pundit fumed, "It is a damn outrage." Another wailed, "It's almost a nonviolent coup." Get used to it, guys.
| |||
| Candidates and political leaders on Principles & Values: | |||
|
2010 Retiring Democratic Senators:
CT:Dodd DE:Kaufman IL:Burris IN:Bayh ND:Dorgan WV:Byrd WV:Goodwin |
<2010 Retiring Republican Senators:
FL:Martinez FL:LeMieux KS:Brownback KY:Bunning MO:Bond NH:Gregg OH:Voinovich PA:Specter UT:Bennett |
Newly appointed/elected Senators, 2009-2010:
DE:Kaufman (D) CO:Bennet (D) IL:Burris (D) MA:Brown (R) NY:Gillibrand (D) | |
|
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org!
Click for details -- or send donations to: 1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140 E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org (We rely on your support!) | |||