I feel your frustration, twini. Sometimes we do get lucky and end up with really good leadership at the economic/governmental intersection. Theodore Roosevelt comes to mind....
Tea Party I have to admit having an initial bias against the "Tea Party". Firstly because they were so touted by Fox News. Fox, above all others, has such an blatant political agenda that almost anything they "report on" in a positive way is suspect to me. Secondly, because Sarah Palin for a while became somewhat of a spokesperson for them, speaking at a number of rallies. Thirdly, because other new organizations, like CNN, showed clips of the most radical and undesirable factions of the movement. Members who are good candidates for the Jerry Springer show. It's a reminder to me, that even though I try my best to keep an open mind, I slip from time to time. I'll try to learn more about the movement.
The Tea Party Ed When I google tea party and do some minimal research on it, Tea Party protests - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I find that it has it has predominant ties to Freedomworks and appears to be a thinly disguised arm of the Republican Party. It was started by a Republican, it never saw the light of day until Obama's inaugeration, some of it's biggest supporters are people like good old Rush. Rather than being a voice for change, The Tea Party and Freedomworks appear more to be chinks in the armour of the current government. They appear to be very partisan and their main preoccupation is not change but rather throwing mud at the democrats in the hope that if you throw enough mud at a wall some of it will stick. From new reports and media coverage that I have seen, their sole preoccupation seems to be attending town hall meetings and disrupting the current government. We have had enough debates that I know where everyone stands. My point is that these people don't seem to be working for change, but rather to get the Republicans back in power. Is there somewhere that I can look where there is not pictures of people in hats with tea bags hanging down off the RIM, or without blatant associations to the Republican Party.
Bob, Let me see if there is something I can find for you that will give a little bit better picture of what the Tea Party stands for. Sadly what has drawn the most looks from the media is the fringe element. I guess that would be interpreted as the Right's version of Nancy Pelosi.
Bob, I did some checking on line about the Tea Party and if your read the various write-ups the Tea Party does not come off well. I would think that until the movement develops some set leadership, they will continue to be tied to more of a fringe movement. That truly is a shame because so many of us are totally frustrated with the existing parties. I find it very difficult to ally myself with either the Democratic Party who wants to give everything to the undeserving and the Republican Party who is looking to return us to the days of the Puritans. All most of us really want is a government that is accountable to the people. It is a simple request, but one that seems almost out of reach.
Thanks Ed, not sure how much you follow our politics north of the border, but it's pretty convoluted. In 1995, we finally elected a government that was accountable. Try to find some information on Mike Harris and his "Common Sense Revolution". When he took office, Ontario was running an annual provincial debt of 8.5 billion dollars, in his first four years of office the deficit increased 14 billion, had he done nothing it would have increased 44 billion dollars, excellent accountablity eh? Except, then the unions and school boards and everyone else started fighting him. He got re-elected in 1999, but it cost him his marriage, he resigned 2 years into his new term and his replacement went more central and now the PC's are out of office and have been ever since. He even had "balanced book legislation", which meant that the government of the day was not allowed to increase the deficit over their term. That has since gone by the wayside as well. The cost to him personally was his marriage and so much slander that people still talk down of him. Federally we are extremely screwed up. We have 4 parties, one of those parties has a mandate to break up Canada, the Bloc Quebecois, yet they are living on federal taspayers money. My tax dollars contribute to this party who want nothing more than to take Quebec and separate, in my view that is treason. We have a minority government, which means that if all the opposition party's vote to defeat a motion, then the government has recieved a "non-confidence" vote and are supposed to call an election, (we are not mandated to an election every 4 years, it can be done any time, but no more than 5 years between). Being a minority government, this means that the party in power has to provide favours to the other parties so they won't vote them out. Now we have the Conservatives making deals with the Bloc or with the NDP. We Have the Progressive Conservatives in power right now, they are considered right wing. Then there is the Liberals who are considered Central left, but in reality are opportunists, they will sway with the winds of change. We have the New Democratic Party who are way left wing, then there is the Bloc Quebecois, who I don't know which way they lean. After Brian Mulroney screwed up the Conservatives a bunch of years ago, the Liberals got in under Jean Cretien, who didn't speak English or French, he spoke Frenglish and no one understood him and to this day are not sure what happened while he was in. He was in for about 10-12 years, during this time the Conservatives split up and out west the Reform Party started, for a while they were the official opposition, but then there leader, Preston Manning got carried away with some Fundamentilism as well as too many obviously staged photo ops. He was replaced by another guy (I forget his name), but his photo ops made him pretty transparent and he quickly faded. We went through 2 or 3 elections before politicians realized that the Reform Party and The Conservatives were splitting the right wing vote. They finally decided to Amalgamate and that is when they finally got in under the stewardship of Stephen Harper. Also, Stephen Harper is the first long time politician (more than 18 months) since the 60's that is not from Quebec, we go back through Paul Martin, Jean Cretien, Brian Mulroney, Peirre Elliot Trudeau (Joe Clark and Kim somebody and Frank someone were in each for about 6 months). So yea, although your system is not perfect, to be honest, ours is also very far from perfect. I think what is needed is some Non-Partisanship politics, with some clearly stated mandates and requirements, eg,. Thou shall not spend anymore money than you recieve. A portion of collected money goes towards the deficit. etc. Just some thoughts and rambling...
I have been aware of Canadian politics for quite a while, but not in the depth to which you presented. I can remember watching TV and seeing your Parliament in action and seeing people screaming at each other and just being downright abusive. I have often thought that one of the best examples of the failure of bilingualism is non other than the Bloc Quebecois. (Didn't they used to be called Parti Quebecois?) I see the same thing happening here in the US. From my experience with clients it is easier for a non-English speaking illegal alien to get US citizenship than it is for a well educated English speaking Canadian. Why? In one word, votes. We have become a nation of special interests as has Canada. If someone wants to see what happens when the special interests control a nation they need only look at the PIGS. For those who are not familiar with the term, it is an acronym for Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain. All of which are currently facing international default on their debt. In spite of Greece's current predicament, there are demonstrations calling for no cuts in government spending. Let's see if we cut government spending the nation survives and you may still have a country or we can let government spending continue to go unchecked and you won't have a country or a job. Should be a simple choice, but one that can't seem to be made. We have an attorney here in Buffalo that is running for governor. He is a firey businessman who has gotten "mad as hell" and he wants to "run the rats out of Albany." So what happens right after he announces his candidacy? Out of nowhere comes a group called Wnymedia.net, or something like that, that says he forwarded racial and sexist e-mails and, by implication, is not fit to govern. Our options are the crooks we currently have or someone who may not have used good judgment on some e-mails. I'll opt for bad judgment over bad intentions anytime.
Tea Party I found this on what appears to be the Tea Party Patriots official website: Tea Party Patriots Mission Statement and Core Values Mission Statement The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets. Core Values Fiscal Responsibility Constitutionally Limited Government Free Markets Fiscal Responsibility: Fiscal Responsibility by government honors and respects the freedom of the individual to spend the money that is the fruit of their own labor. A constitutionally limited government, designed to protect the blessings of liberty, must be fiscally responsible or it must subject its citizenry to high levels of taxation that unjustly restrict the liberty our Constitution was designed to protect. Such runaway deficit spending as we now see in Washington D.C. compels us to take action as the increasing national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of future generations. Constitutionally Limited Government: We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states' rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law. Free Markets: A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. Our current government's interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business. Our Philosophy Tea Party Patriots, Inc. as an organization believes in the Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets. Tea Party Patriots, Inc. is a non-partisan grassroots organization of individuals united by our core values derived from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill Of Rights as explained in the Federalist Papers. We recognize and support the strength of grassroots organization powered by activism and civic responsibility at a local level. We hold that the United States is a republic conceived by its architects as a nation whose people were granted "unalienable rights" by our Creator. Chiefly among these are the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The Tea Party Patriots stand with our founders, as heirs to the republic, to claim our rights and duties which preserve their legacy and our own. We hold, as did the founders, that there exists an inherent benefit to our country when private property and prosperity are secured by natural law and the rights of the individual. I would doubt many American's would argue against this platform. But how much of it is smokescreen? Who are the leaders of this movement? Why would they invite Republican's like Sarah Palin to speak at their events? Why are their attacks on government aimed at Democrats? The Republicans have held power for many years in the last few decades. Did they bring about a dramatic reduction in government? They lessened the regulations governing the financial industry, some would say in keeping with honoring the free market, but clearly all industries require some regulation. The financial meltdown is testament to that. Would you let drug companies sell anything they want without any testing? Food suppliers without any regulated cleanliness? Airlines without regulated safety? Unions and labor laws came about because there was no regulation of labor practices. Thousands of workers died and still do because of unsafe working conditions. It is the nature of business to increase profits and not to ensure that this is done with the well being of individuals and the state in mind. Those companies that do uphold ethical business and social practices would quickly be defeated in a totally free market place. It costs money to be ethical. The national debt has sky rocketed under both parties. So my point is, why is the Tea Party so clearly aligned with the Republicans? Why does Fox News give them so much support and not liberal news organizations? I think there is a hidden agenda. I think, if the Tea Party is to be truly effective in their mission, they must divorce themselves of any existing political alignment. They need to be the voice of the people holding both major parties accountable without prejudice.
