Posts Tagged ‘porkbusters’

I’m very hard on Joe Scarborough mostly because I like him (I’m always harder on people I like because I expect more from them) but today he said something that is incredibly important.

He was going on about the hypocrisy of both right and left on deficits and said this:

“There are a couple of tea partiers who care about this (the deficit) Rand Paul and Jim DeMint,that’s it!”

Although Joe likely doesn’t know Porkbusters he has a point. The Tea Party crowd doesn’t actually trust the republicans. I could not find a single person in the crowd at the Washington Freedom Works rally who would say they trusted republicans.

A lot of the newly elected republicans in congress got little or no help from the national GOP. This was due to several factors, they were not professional pols, the party didn’t expect them to win, but also because they are committed controlling spending.

Trent Lott gave the game away in July:

the last thing Lott needs is a bunch of unwashed, Tea-Partying right-wingers coming to Washington on a wave of anti-establishment, free-market populism, and messing up the good thing he has going.

“We don’t need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples,” Lott told the Washington Post, referring to the conservative South Carolina senator who has been a gadfly for party leadership and a champion for upstart conservative candidates. “As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them.”

But Lott is no longer in the Republican leadership — he resigned from the Senate in December 2007, mid-term, just before a law kicked in that would have required him to wait two years before lobbying the Senate. So who is he talking about when he says “we need to co-opt them”?

“We” means the K Street wing of the Republican Party.

There are an awful lot of republicans who are more interested in chairmanships and favors than controlling spending and lowering taxes (and yes they are connected). That group needs to keep the good will of the Tea Party voters who brought them over the top for now so they will play ball, but if they get the chance they will try to turn the newly elected reps.

This is going to be the fight that will dominate Washington over the next 2 years and will determine the party and the country’s future longterm and will actually have a lot to do with both the presidential elections in 2012 and if we have a tea party 3rd party in 2014.

If Morning Joe follows this story, they will have a jump on the rest of the MSM.

My latest column for the examiner is up an excerpt:

…with the April meeting pending; organizer Justin Brooks started contacting democrats either in office or running for office. He left messages or talked to a half dozen different candidates eager to get another perspective, without success. Most office holders and candidates never got back to him, others had conflicts but when the April 26th meeting came around only a single candidate republican Mary Connaughton spoke to the 46 people assembled at the Border Grille & Bar in Leominster.

More details on the meeting are available here.

Remember hits on my examiner articles are the next best thing to hits on the DaTipJar.

Update: Instalanche on the Examiner article. Thanks muchly Glenn! Hits there are a lot more valuable to me than hits here.

Apparently not because he makes the following statement:

They weren’t around protesting during the Bush years BECAUSE THE TEA PARTY IS REPUBLICANS. They don’t care about the deficit. They care that a Democrat (and a black “Muslim,” to boot), is in the White House. They don’t care about fiscal restraint, they care that a Democrat is in the White House.

Now I’ve attended a few tea parties and talked to people there. The trust level for republicans is not very high. If you had interviewed these people you would know this. As for the suggestion that people who support the tea parties care only that a Democrat is in the White House well, let me make the introductions…

John Cole…meet Glenn Reynolds. You might have heard of the man, he was writing about something you might recalled known as porkbusters. The earliest entry in the 3 pages of archives when you search for “Porkbusters” is May 16 2006. There is actually a blog entry from Sept 18th of 2005 as well available.

John Cole…Michelle Malkin. You might know the lady. (I’ve met her very gracious and did a kind deed for my older brother) I took the liberty of searching her archive for “porkbusters” and lo and behold it goes back to Sept 19th 2005.

Now I don’t claim to have a photographic memory but I seem to recall that there was no democrat, black or otherwise in the White House at the time nor was there a republican majority in the house where spending originates.

If you want to pretend that it’s all about President Obama’s pigmentation you go on ahead. It will earn you hits from the left and love from the media. Just don’t expect people who know how to use a search engine to take you seriously.

Update: Bad link, Thanks to Patrick for spotting it.

Update 2: Patrick does more than correct my bad link:

The reason I raised a stink about this, is because John Cole is doing two things; first of all, he is doing something that I feel is just wrong — but is what the liberal left is known for and that is collectivism. Blaming an entire group for the actions of a few. Which, I feel, is wrong. Secondly, Cole is playing fast and loose with the facts and with pinning blame, which I think he knows; but because he hopped the fence, because Bush did not do things, like he thought they ought to be done, he bailed on the right — he feels that he has to recite the talking points of the left, in order to remain in their good graces. Although, I could be wrong on that one.