Tea Party Support in the 2012 Elections...Who Gets It

The political landscape in 2012 will not be very different from what was found in 2008. There is anger over the national debt and deficits, there is a President that a large percentage of the American people are unhappy with, and many believe that the actions of the current administration are “overreaching” and usurp the Constitution. However, there is one factor that exists that will influence the 2012 elections that was nonexistent in the 2008 election, the Tea Party. This large political force will undoubtedly have a major impact on the nomination of the Republican candidate that will face off with incumbent President Barack Obama in the November general election.

Many questions arise then, as to which candidate the Tea Party will actually support in the spring primaries and caucuses in 2012. I believe that the most credible candidate that the Tea Party will be able to support is former Speaker of the House (1995-1999) Newt Gingrich. Gingrich clearly stands with the Tea Party on some of the most important that will influence the outcome of this impending election. He believes that the tax system should be simplified, and that the rich should not have to pay more than anyone else just because of their success. Also, in line with the Tea Party, he believes in strong conservative family values, such as protecting the sanctity of “traditional marriage” with a Constitutional amendment and denying the same rights to domestic partnerships that are received by traditional marriages.

On one of the most contentious issues that will be debated in the 201 2 elections, healthcare, Gingrich also stands in line with the views of the Tea Party in that the government has no place in the administration of healthcare, or the government mandate that declares that individuals must purchase at the least minimum coverage to avoid fines imposed by the government. Clearly these issues are what make a candidate the most appealing to the Tea Party, and Gingrich gets high marks in all of them.

Tea Party vs. Occupy.... Partisan?

An article recently appeared on CNN.com titled Occupy Wall Street should be a moral, not political, movement. In the article, the author, Roland Martin, posits the idea that the Occupy Wall Street is different from the Tea Party movement in that it is not as partisan as the latter. In order to determine if Martin is correct in his argument, you have to answer two vital questions. Does a viable link exist between the movement and a political party, and does a variety of ideologies exist within the movement?

The Tea Party Movement was born out a renewed call for a rethinking of our current taxing system. The movement started in the spring of 2009 with a “Tea Party” in cities all over. This movement started out as very grassroots, but has since become a nationally funded, hierarchical organization that some deem as a sub-set of the national Republican Party. To answer our first question, does a viable link exist between the movement and a political party, one need only look at Congress. Of all 66 members of the two Congressional Tea Party caucuses, zero belong to the Democratic Party. Also, in response to the latter question posited above, there is very little, if any, variation of ideologies among the members of the Tea Party movement.

The Occupy Wall Street movement was sparked by anger based on corporate greed, and what some see as a very unfair distribution of wealth in America. Although it may be too early to tell with this movement, I believe that it is safe to say that no distinct link exist between the Occupy Wall Street movement and a political party. Occupy Wall Street has not made endorsements of political candidates, as its Tea Party counterpart has done numerous times, and it shows no signs of putting people up to run for these same offices. Secondly, there seems to be a great variety of ideologies among this group, with all of its members wanting the same goals, but discussing different ways to achieve them.

I believe that Martin was right in his claim that the Occupy Wall Street movement is not a partisan movement. However, only time will tell if this loose group of protestors grows into a new political force in America.

Equal Marriage for Indiana

My new website, Equal Marriage for Indiana has officially launched!

Equal Marriage for Indiana was founded with the goal of preserving equal marriage rights for all residents in the State of Indiana.

To accomplish this goal, Equal Marriage for Indiana will rely on the support of its volunteers to help lobby the Indiana General Assembly to stop the proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and to pass progressive legislation that protects equal marriage.

Equal Marriage for Indiana believes that marriage is not a privilege of heterosexual couples, but the right of all couples.

Get Informed, Get Involved at www.equalmarriageforindiana.com

My New Motto

“Being a leftist is a calling, not a career; it’s a vocation not a profession. It means you are concerned about structural violence, you are concerned about exploitation at the work place, you are concerned about institutionalized contempt against gay brothers and lesbian sisters, hatred against peoples of color, and the subordination of women. It means that you are willing to fight against, and to try to understand the sources of social misery at the structural and institutional levels, as well as at the existential and personal levels. That’s what it means to be a leftist; that’s why we choose to be certain kinds of human beings.”

—	Cornel West

Response to: "Gay Marriage....Why The Hell Not?

This response was emailed to me this morning from a friend back home, Bart Kay.

Unfortunately, politics = "the double game" so I agree whole heartedly on that issue. Getting elected in this country testifies to the fact that one is superior to their opposition in terms of the ability to speak out of both sides of their mouth. It's the easiest way to garner the most votes in a society that doesn't actively research its candidates' viewpoints/records. This is why commercial smear campaigns are so successful. So I'd just as soon remove politics from this discussion of the deeper issue.

As for the individual healthcare mandate, that's a federal policy. Auto insurance laws vary from state to state. Those mandates aren't from the federal government but rather the individual states who choose to govern that issue in such a way. Even if all states individually happened to decide on the same mandate for their auto insurance policy, that's far different from the federal government forcing them to adopt said policy. If the federal government mandated the entire country to purchase auto insurance and that was deemed constitutional, then your comparison to the individual healthcare mandate would apply. As it is, I don't believe it does.

On government intervention, every proponent of democracy is also a proponent of government intervention in the form of laws to govern. To disagree is to propose anarchy. In such a case, so be it, one is entitled to such a viewpoint if they choose it. I don't see laws against murder or theft as undue "government intervention", and I doubt anyone else that believes in a civil society would. The question then becomes, "What laws are conducive to a civil society?"
I believe any laws against gay marriage and/or abortion that you above label as "government intervention" are based on the concepts of civility and morality. A historical view of the rise and fall of empires shows that neither can exist apart from the other.

I am, however, aware that morality cannot be legislated. It must be chosen by the people. So, to answer your question, "So, with all of this talk of government not knowing what is right, what gives it the right to tell people who they cannot marry?"

For the moment, we do.

I'm excited to hear other viewpoints as well. Enlightened discourse is necessary for intellectual growth.

Love to hear what everyone else has to say. Send your responses to leftwingliberalshow@gmail.com

Gay Marriage.....Why The Hell Not?

It recently came to my attention that the conservatives in this country are playing a double game. When they campaign they preach to their base that government is bad, that government never knows what is right for the people and the government should never tell people what they can and cannot do. A prime example of this would be the upheaval over the “individual mandate” in the current health care legislation challenges. (Which by the way, is the same as states mandating car insurance, but that is another matter.) So, with all of this talk of government not knowing what is right, what gives it the right to tell people who they cannot marry?

Also, conservatives do not believe in government intervention. Well, I see laws that dictate who we can and cannot marry as government intervention. I see laws that tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body as government intervention. I see laws that determine what sexual acts are legal or illegal as government intervention.

Ideologically, conservatives believe in the principle that government intervention is bad, thus with their new found power in the House of Representatives, why shouldn’t they strike down these “big government” provisions and let the will of the people be heard!

Saturday Cartoon (1.29.2011)

*Cartoon courtesy of:

http://bltwy.msnbc.msn.com/politics/all.photos#wallState=0__%2Fpolitics%2Fthe-state-of-th-union-address-as-explained-by-cartoons-9415.gallery%3FphotoId%3D37233