More on the Tea Party: Not Radicals

I am frankly surprised at the misconceptions and total lack of knowledge that New Jerseyans have of the Tea Party. It is clear the media, journalists, and others have successfully written them off as radicals, racists, and revolutionaries. And you have bought it.

The Tea Party Platform
The Tea Party is a loose confederation of conservatives, libertarians, concerned citizens, unaffiliated voters, conservative democrats, and independents. These groups may have their own top issues or most important agenda items but there are three main common themes:

1. Limited Government (in both power and dollars)
2. Individual Freedom (protections for religion, speech, right to bare arms, states' rights)
3. Free markets (strong rejection of socialism)

Gallup surveys showed the Tea Party's demographics are fairly mainstream. In other words, they are not All-White, All-rich, All-Christian, All-Republican, or All anything.

So really what makes them tick? The massive growth in government spending, the national debt, the increase in government power in areas of the banking sector, finance, healthcare, student loans, and automobiles. This political event alone is what awakened them. And I say awakened for a reason.

Gallup has also consistently shown this is a center-right country, 40% identify themselves as conservatives and other polls show that 50% or more have fiscally conservative views. Only about 26-29% of people identify themselves as liberal. And yet the Democrats won 255 of 435 seats in the House, and 60 of the 100 seats of the Senate. Obama won with 53% of the vote. How is this possible? Why is it that the Republicans don't dominate American politics???

The Awakening of the Right Wing
Like I said, this conservative side has only recently awakened. There is a segment of conservatives that don't vote because they regard both parties as essentially the same (and have a good case for it). However, the political battles and divergence of policies between the two parties in the last year and a half has changed that sentiment and "awakened" this segment. In other words, Obama's left-wing agenda awakened them. Had he practiced some moderation in his policy proposals, this movement might've remained asleep.

Another segment of the Tea Partiers simply don't vote because they don't feel their vote really makes a difference. Most of this type are not politically active at all. They have these beliefs but would rather keep to themselves and keep their beliefs to themselves. They have been convinced by televisions, movies, and other media that their beliefs are radical fringe right-wing ideas and that they would be ridiculed if they got more vocal of them.

Another segment is the far-right wing. They are a very small group, probably about 5-8% of the total population. They are militias, Christian Fundamentalists, most of them probably racist, and are in many respects anarchists. They may align themselves with the Tea Party, but a vast majority of the other groups in the Tea Party regard these people as crazy, just like the rest of the country.

The final segment, the largest, are disenchanted Republicans and fiscal conservatives that felt their party failed them and did not vote in 2008. This group is the most politically active in general, vote often, but this changed due to Republican failures in 2005-2007. They stopped identifying themselves as Republicans and expressed utter frustration with their party and the country as a whole. this segment was likely to awaken regardless of how leftist Obama's agenda was. It is the combination of this group with the others that give the Tea Party tremendous potential. They are reaching into populations of non-voters and even unregistered voters. Not to mention the fact that Independents are steadily realizing that the Tea Party reflects their ideas in regards to the deficit and government spending.

So, are they racist? Maybe 1 in 20 has white supremacist beliefs, AT THE MOST.
Are they anarchists? No, not even close.
Do they advocate overthrow of the government? No
Are they Christian Evangelicals or Fundamentalists? Many of them are, but none of the issues they are demonstrating for are related to religious or social issues. Sometimes yes, but like I said government power and spending are at the top of the list.

And it is important to note, the Tea Party is steadily growing. Gallup and other surveys show that more Americans consider themselves part of the movement in comparison to three months ago.

So what is their objective?
The slogan most often heard at Tea Parties is "Remember in November". A political protest and demonstration that wants to increase energy AND VOTE. What a bunch of psychos right? They are supporting candidates, donating money, hell they are voting in record numbers! MY GOD, they are going to tear this country down!!! They are critical of a Black President! Surely they are racists!!! By that logic, a Black President is infallible.

A Cautionary Note for Northeasterners
Most Americans do not live within 100 miles of New York or Washington. Most Americans do not get their news from the Big 3, or CNN, or MSNBC. Most Americans are not afraid of guns. Most Americans are not afraid of God or Christians. Whatever sophistication or education level you have achieved, remember you are in the minority and if you fail to take movements like the Tea Party seriously, you will remain in the minority in a sort of hyper-urbanized bubble of the East Coast from DC up to Boston. You are a minority and I think its time you do a MUCH better job understanding the rest of the country and their beliefs because in my experience in New Jersey there is a poor level of understanding.

Self-identified Republicans and moderate conservatives in the Northeast seem to be somewhat elitist and arrogant similar to liberal democrats. That must change. Not only Republicans but Northeasterners in general because last I checked the Census projects Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania will be losing electoral votes to Texas, Utah, and Georgia.

Its time to make a better effort to understand the rest of the country. Because there are more of them than you, and in November, more of them will win election to the House and Senate while Democrats will likely still dominate the Northeast.

Interesting Week: Tea Party and Steve Forbes

It was an interesting week. Tea Party protests went on in every city and some in the media decided the story was that some of them were not as big as last year. Nevermind the fact that there were probably more protests than last year. I got to attend the Chicago Protest in Daley Plaza the epicenter of the Democratic Party Machine.

It was a group that likely exceeded one thousand, filling most, if not all of the plaza. All this in probably one of the five most liberal democratic cities in the country. There were tons of posters, flags, colonial hats, and of course a couple party crashers. An anti-war protest tried to butt in with a banner indicating war is the biggest wasteful spending. In another oddity, a professionally printed and distributed sign said war makes up 57% of the budget, something that is VERY off. Defense spending is roughly $600 billion (less than 20% of the budget). Just goes to show that liberal protestors feel that any and all strategms, including blatant lies, are morally justified as long as the ends are just. It includes infiltrating non-liberal protests with inflammatory and idiotic signs and chants. The ends justify the means. Truly sad.

Others said No to war, and there were a couple signs that were anti-semitic, blaming Israel for all the problems of the world. Tea Party organizers and fellow protestors confronted these people asking them why they were there and arguing that the protest had nothing to do with either issue. Instead of physical confrontation, which is a common result of battles with left wing protestors and "anti-war" activists, a couple of people made signs indicating "plant" or "liberal" or "NOT part of the Tea Party". They stood next to these infiltrators with their own signs so that any idiot CNN or MSNBC camera would catch both the silly sign and the sign indicating the Tea Party Movement has nothing to do with it.

Earlier, a man was walking around with a giant swastika on a poster. The sight disgusted many, Chicago Police asked him to leave, at least I believe that is what happened. I had to leave to meet friends at the train station and bring them back to the Plaza. Either way, that guy was not there when we returned.

The speakers included a former gubanatorial candidate, five candidates for Congress, a couple activists, a doctor, a health insurance salesman, and the two individuals that were accosted by a CNN reporter over a year ago at a similar protest. That incident probably did more for the Tea Party than any other of these major BS media stories.

There were posters responding "we are NOT racist" or "I don't give a ___ that Obama is Black, it scares me to death that he is RED". The speeches were about government spending, taxes, corruption, greed, and the various offenses to the Constitution that President Obama and other Democratic leaders are responsible for.

There were no Neo-Nazis, no Klan members, no one advocating that all illegals should be rounded up and kicked out, no one calling Obama a fascist but plenty calling him a socialist, this was a regular political protest with nothing radical to speak of. No one called for revolution or violent overthrow of the government, much to the disappointment of Bill Clinton. His "fear" of these anti-government protests is really just fear that Democrats will lose power in November.

One of the speakers had an interesting comment: When asked by a reporter what the Tea Party was, where is its website, and who is its' leader, this woman laughed answering "we are not some top-down movement with some sort of demi-god at its head. This is as grassroots as you can get, decentralized, spread out, and very large. No professionally made signs, no corporate or political money bringing us together. In fact, if any insurance companies were paying these protestors, she feinted anger that she didn't get a check."

Later in the week, I attended the Republican Association of Princeton's Lincoln Day Dinner, rescheduled due to a snow storm in early March. The lead speaker was Steve Forbes. Forbes, a former Presidential candidate, and CEO of Forbes Inc. and Forbes Magazine, spoke strongly against the constant painting of corporations, corporate leaders, and the free market as evil, fat, greedy, with hands rubbing-together trying to kill puppies and destroy the environment. Capitalism seems to get rewarded in some areas but blamed in others.

Forbes continued: No one seems to mind the development of laptop computers, the internet, iPods, the iPad, and cellular phones - even when prices are quite high. People pay ridiculous amounts of money for designer jeans as well. These products all exist because someone somewhere saw a need or a market and made something people wanted, then brought it to the marketplace where people bought it! MY GOD THOSE EVIL BASTARDS!

Yet, when it comes to electricity, gas, oil, or health insurance - we expect it to be almost free. When prices go up or some new treatment comes around, we expect to be available immediately at no additional cost. When rent goes up, the tenant is very angry, yet when a new computer or Ipod has a similar high cost, they gladly pay it.

Capitalism and free market principles is about turning scarcity into abundance, according to Forbes. Scarcity is not something to be feared or bring us to rationing, it is opportunity. In almost every other area of the economy, scarcity brings opportunity for innovators to find something that can fill the void, provide a product or service, and essentially create new wealth and jobs in the process. Yet, when it comes to healthcare, that same scarcity has pushed us to horde what little we have and ration it out, completely controlling the marketplace, discouraging innovation, and eliminating opportunity for anyone to make money by filling that void.

A smart man, a funny man, Forbes is truly a gem. When asked who were his heroes or exemplary public figures, he shamelessly listed his wife first. Being single myself, it seems like a cheap brown-nosing compliment, but what do I know. :)

Scott Sipprelle also gave a speech about Lincoln's role during a period of economic crisis, political division, and deep national debt (sound familiar?). Sipprelle is an excellent speaker, even if mechanical and dry at times, but clearly has energy and determination. After he is done, you begin to believe he can and will win in November against the heavily favored Rush Holt.

Overall, interesting week that makes me feel more hopeful about November and later 2012.

When the situation is dire, do not fear change

The situation in the United States is becoming apparent to all Americans. Polls and surveys show a growing fear and apprehension of the direction of this country and a dim view of the future. Well, the next logical step is to decide what to do about the situation. How do we change course? How do we get pointed in the right direction?

I have noticed a pattern among Northeasterners. Actually, this is something I have noticed in plenty of areas but seems to be prevalent among Northeastern media personalities, commentators, politicians, bloggers and regular people. In their minds, the political spectrum has two distinct fields, the reasonable/mainstream and the radical. There are radical left wingers and radical right wingers but it is in the center is where they always want to be. They may in fact not hold moderate or "centrist" beliefs, but they don't want to be identified as being on the fringe.

In conversation, many people feel they need to make clear their beliefs and positions are NOT extreme. They condition their discussions with "I don't think ____, but ______" and then follow it with a straw man explanation of what they think the radicals are pushing. When the discussion is over, they have effectively watered down their position or the explanation of their position to the point where it means nothing.

Why is there such a high premium on avoiding what is judged radical? It is as if many people want to be at the very top of the bell curve and are scratching and clawing their way to get to that point. But why? Are they so self-conscious about their politics? Are they really that afraid of being labeled a radical or tea bagger or a socialist/communist?

This dash to the top of the bell curve tends to halt or drawback reform in either direction. It becomes a manifestation of the fear of change. They don't want to go to far in either direction. It doesn't matter which direction, but going to far one way will be bad. Aggressive turns can cause the ship to ebb and flow, causing discomfort, even destabilization. But this makes it impossible to avoid the massive iceberg ahead. When there are serious systemic flaws in a system, when the State is on the verge of financial collapse, when the situation is dire, this fear of change can paralyze a society.

Governor Christie is one who is demanding radical reform and change in a State that is afraid of it. But the problems are real and they are large. Small, incremental steps can stave off disaster in most situations but not in this one. In the country as a whole, we are on an unsustainable path that could lead to the country's financial collapse in 8-12 years. Serious solutions implemented by serious people will be needed to stop it.

For those dying to stay within the mainstream, understand this, in a crisis such as today, prudence dictates that we introduce radical change and reform. We are way too close to the cliff to simply "slow down", "turn gently", or implement "consensus" solutions. It won't be long before the only consensus will be one of utter despair.

It has been said desperate times call for desperate measures. The mainstream believes these are desperate times but is unwilling to support desperate measures. We need to come to our senses and fast. It is time to abandon the self-conscious fear of being the "radical" in your social circle. In the end, it will be "radicals" that will save this country from ruin.

Withdraw Mr. Halfacre

Mr. Halfacre,

With your defeat with the Monmouth County Screening Committee, I think it is clear your campaign for the Republican nomination is a lost cause. You failed to secure the backing of a single county committee, you lack the grassroots support many have been touting, and its becoming more clear in panels, debates, and speeches that Sipprelle is simply the better candidate.

From what I can tell you have been a quality mayor, a solid conservative, and a decent guy. Your campaign manager is clearly a tool that gave you horrible advice concerning the constant barrage of attacks against Sipprelle and the outright lie regarding his party registration. I think you can go a long way by ending your bid for the Republican nomination and chalking the whole thing up to being overly competitive, or whatever. Besides, there are plenty of political positions you can still seek in the future. But U.S. Congress appears to be a bit over your head.

You don't need to endorse or back Sipprelle, in fact you can probably back out with a quick press release indicating you simply could not raise sufficient funds to continue the campaign, or compete, etc., etc.

Whatever path you choose, it must be abundantly clear you will NOT win the Republican primary. Drawing this out any longer exposes you to potential damage to your reputation, something that is extremely important to you I am sure. There is nothing to be gained by remaining in the race.

Defeating Rush Holt in the general election is a long shot at best. To do it will require a top-notch campaign and plenty of financial resources. It is going to take a ton of effort on the part of Sipprelle to build up name-recognition, meet Republicans and independents in the district, and convince them he is the man for the job. It will be difficult. The District is fairly liberal and Democrats outnumber Republicans here about 2-to-1.

However, it is possible. Christie defeated Corzine in this district just six months ago. The key is to drive down Holt's approval numbers to where Corzine's were. Democratic enthusiasm must also be pushed down which won't be too hard considering the horrible economy. You also need very high turnout from Republicans, in fact that is likely a necessary condition for victory.

So, in order to get high Republican turnout, the Party must be undivided, enthusiastic, and strongly behind the candidate. This is made very difficult if a primary challenger is still hanging around making all sorts of attacks. We all want Rush Holt out. Lets give it our best shot.

Withdraw Mr. Halfacre.

Middlesex County Republican Convention: A Zoo

I attended the Middlesex County Republican and had a couple observations. I have never gone to a political convention of any kind. The organization was a little iffy, with a supposed scheduling conflict with a school play in the auditorium early on but that was settled. The actual votes took far too long, testing everyone's patience. Being involved in the political process should not be such a hassle. In the future, the Republican Party of Middlesex should try to make the process more delegate-friendly. There were also sound and lighting issues, which I guess are not really big deal.

Speeches from Anna Little and Shannon Wright for the 6th Congressional District were strong. Unfortunately Republicans don't have much hope at defeating Pallone in the 6th. Diane Gooch was energetic in her speech but it was not very smooth. I Forget the other guy's name, he sounded like a quality guy but not a Congressman. Wright is a great speaker but I don't think she is qualified to be a Representative either. State Legislature would be a good place for her perhaps or maybe private sector for a while.

Sam Thompson's defense of Scott Sipprelle was inappropriate and a buzzkill. He sounded angry and bitter. He does not inspire much enthusiasm, only frustration. Scott Sipprelle and Mike Halfacre gave good speeches. Halfacre repeated himself on his record as Mayor but other than that he was strong. He paused for applause a bit too much. Sipprelle used his serious tone, with a steady buildup to a strong finish. He did not deliver a speech to get get loud applause. He had a message he wanted to deliver. He has more qualities of an executive/leader type, not a politician. A quality I highly value and would be a great change of pace against Holt. He also stated he would challenge Holt to a debate. If Holt refused (which he obviously would), Sipprelle promised to saturate the airwaves and TV with campaign ads.

Leonard Lance is unimpressive. His odd hand and arm motions, strange pitch changes, and smug look on his face after the speech was troublesome. He seemed to be manufacturing the enthusiasm and trying to illicit applause rather than actually say anything substantive. His vote for cap-and-trade was not addressed.

The master of ceremonies was a sleepy old man that did not seem aware of what was going on in the auditorium at times. In the future, The Republicans of Middlesex ought to pick a person with a bit more wit, energy, and voice for that role. Overall a fun time. An interesting process.

Sipprelle crushed Halfacre, which should probably lead to Halfacre's withdrawal from the race. He can't raise money, he can't campaign, and he clearly lacks grassroots support outside of his little town. Sipprelle won 10 of the 13 towns. Diane Gooch won the endorsement of the Convention, but Little took a small bite out of her dominance I think with her speech. Lance was endorsed again because his challenger did not show up, he sent an aide instead.

I think it was a good Convention overall. They have some things to work on thats for sure though. I am a supporter of Sipprelle so was glad to see the 220-134 ass-whooping he gave Halfacre. I hope Halfacre decides to withdraw gracefully rather than drag out a negative campaign for an election he cannot win. He seems better suited to the State Legislature or perhaps remain mayor of Fairhaven. He has a pretty good record there.

The New Jersey Republican Party: a flawed organization

Lately, I have learned more about the primary process for the Republican Party here in New Jersey. Counties apparently have screening committees or conventions of local Party leaders, municipal chairs and a few community delegates that choose who gets "the line" in that county's ballot. From what I am told, it means you are on a list of Republican Party candidates that I guess are preferred while the rest are just listed below that individually.

Essentially, if you are a primary voter and don't know a whole lot about the candidates, you could just pick the Party line candidates and move on. So really, it is the local party leadership that is really making the decisions.

Who are these local party leaders? From what I can tell they are municipal chairs, freeholders, mayors, county assemblymen and chairmen. Basically they are local politicians and party loyalists. They trade in clout and influence at the local level so much that they really feel it is more valuable than money. They probably trade in money and "favors" too. They have egos, special interests, and their own agendas when they make decisions on who gets the line. It is not fair and it is not open.

To sum up, Republican candidates that are mostly likely to win get the line, or they get the backing of local party leaders. Where are the people in this? Where are the Republicans out there that aren't directly involved in local party politics? The only way to break through this is to become familiar with the candidates and decide for yourself if the County "line" has the best person for the nomination or if there is someone better. How many Republicans do that? How often does the person with the County line lose, I wonder???

Here, you get nominated if you have the most buddies at the local level. Do they care if you win the general election? Maybe, maybe not. For federal elections in particular, they probably don't see much value in a Republican winning the general election. Their interests are at the state level. And it appears Republicans try to establish their own little fiefdoms within State and Local Government while Democrats have their own. They gerrymander district lines and cut deals so that incumbents and party leaders are protected, minimizing competition and minimizing the influence of the people. The people really don't have much influence unless they learn for themselves about the people on the ballot.

This is a sad state of affairs for a Party trying to make progress, regain a couple House seats, challenge for a Senate seat, or maybe even retake the State Legislature. Their strategy protects their 40 or 45% but minimizes the potential growth. Sure they are now all safe, but unless some miracle happens they aren't going to get 55% or 60% of anything.

If you want to move up to the majority and play with the big boys, I suggest the Republican Party eliminate the heavy hand of Local and County Party bosses. Get rid of "the line" and have county committees and conventions only make endorsements.

From what I have seen, I certainly understand why Republicans are demoralized and made physically ill by the process and getting involved in politics. It is why good people don't get involved in general. If you are all happy with your little fiefdoms, by all means keep hijacking the primary nomination process and protect yourselves. If you want to win, you will have to try something else.

Jon Runyan kicks off campaign in 3rd District

Former offensive tackle Jon Runyan begins his campaign against Democratic incumbent John Adler today down in the 3rd Congressional District.

The 3rd is likely one of only three potentially competitive districts in New Jersey. The voter registration count places Republicans and Democrats close to one another, which means independent votes will likely decide the outcome. Polls also show that Republicans are more enthusiastic these days and may turnout out in much higher numbers than registered democrats. That could also give Runyan the edge.

Republicans held the seat for a while with victories of 58-64% (a guy named Saxton). Bush won the district with 51% in 2004. McCain (in a bad year) lost it by only four points. Given the shift in popular opinion, I think this district is perfect for a switch.

Runyan needs to make sure he keeps the Republican base excited, and presents himself as the anti-Pelosi/Adler. So far, it appears he will do precisely that. In this area, I don't think fundraising will be a factor either. In fact, unless Runyan killed a hooker at some point in his life or there are pictures of him stealing lunch money from children, there are no other significant factors on this race.

Is Runyan the right candidate? He is still mostly an unknown so hard to tell. But if he develops into a serviceable Republican canidate, he will win. He does not need to be Scott Brown to win. Here, average is sufficient to win.