Why We Fight

Extraordinary times require extraordinary measures and lots of courage

Over the past week, the Tea Party has been impugned and maligned with more ferocity than ever before.  Amidst our push to balance the budget, downsize job-killing government agencies and programs, and preserve our AAA credit rating, we have been condemned as extremists, suicidal, and traitors.  Sadly, most of these acrimonious ad hominem attacks were propagated by those who purport to share the aforementioned goals, but feel repulsed by our “intransigent” sense of urgency.  Some have even regurgitated Democrat talking points suggesting that Reagan would be labeled a RINO by the Tea Party.

These writers and commentators who supposedly share our ultimate goals for limited government, yet condemn our tactics and sense of urgency, are lacking a sober understanding of the severity of our current predicament in relation to Reagan’s era.

As grim as the situation was at the time of Reagan’s inauguration in 1981, it simply doesn’t compare to the magnitude of our problems precipitated by the growth of the federal government, the insolvent debt, and rampant government dependency.  Reagan came to power and fought for limited government in order to preclude the very eventuality that we are experiencing today.  Today, in 2011, we are suffering under every pernicious effect of a tyrannical government; the magnitude to which Reagan did not experience, but presciently attempted to avert.

Although Reagan succeeded in his fundamental goals of stalling the inexorable growth of government, cutting taxes, rolling back some regulations, and winning the Cold War, he realized at the end of his presidency that those victories were not sufficient to countermand the self-perpetuating growth of government dependency and tyranny.  He knew that due to factors which were mostly beyond his control he had failed to eliminate a significant number of agencies and programs that serve as the backbone for the statist society.

Reagan had learned that liberals had insidiously co-opted so many rent-seekers in government that it was impossible to win a war of attrition by fighting agency-to-agency and program-to-program warfare.  Fifty years of steady movement toward socialism had shown that any edict promulgated by the federal government, much like the ancient Persian government described in Esther, “may not be revoked.”  He realized that something drastic had to be done to prevent the immutable growth of government that he so ominously envisioned after his departure.

Let's Not Repeat the Vicious Cycle of '94-'06 Again

OK.  Let's say we wake up the morning of November third and discover that Dick Morris was correct in his bold predictions.  The Republicans take back the Senate and not only win the House, but garner a historic mandate of 260-270 seats.  The electoral battlefield is riddled with the dead carcasses of socialist giants like Barbara Boxer, Dingy Reid, Patty Murray, Russ Feingold, Lisa Murkowski, Charlie Crist, and scores of others. In addition, we pick up a dozen governorships and state legislature chambers in key battleground states that provides us with an unprecedented opportunity to control the redistricting process.  This places the Republican Party in a strong position to maintain their control over key house seats and have the upper hand over the battleground states during the Presidential election of 2012.

However, after the dust settles from the election,the million dollar question will be, then what?  How do we turn a Republican victory into a conservative triumph?  How do we ensure that it will be the DeMints, Millers, Bucks, and other tea party members in the House who will control the legislative process and the ensuing political narrative, and not the antiquated RINO dinosaurs of the land of Mitch McConnell?  How do we ensure that we don't repeat the same disastrous cycle of '94-'06, when the Republican brand tarnished the value of conservatism and set us up for the socialist takeover of the radical left?

One of the few tangible benefits of taking control of the Senate without obtaining 60 seats is the right to control the confirmation process of Supreme Court nominees.  It is very likely that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg will retire before Obama gets canned in 2012 and many would argue that Republican control of the Senate would ensure that we won't get another Elana Kagen.  The problem with that optimistic prediction is that we won't have anywhere near 51 votes against any nominee whom Obama picks.  In fact, aside for the plethora of RINOs in the Senate who will vote to confirm anyone, even a conservative like Pat Toomey expressed his principled support for any qualified nominee, irrespective of their perverted jurisprudence.  Also, we can't count on blocking a nominee in the Judiciary Committee (even one that is run by Jeff Sessions) because of Lindsey Graham.  So again, if nothing is done to hold their feet to the fire, how would a Republican-held Senate benefit us once we already have control of the House?

Losing a Primary the Tea Party Way: A Study in Contrasts

Ovide Lamontagne, the tea party candidate who lost a close primary for Senate in New Hampshire, is speaking out today about the contrast between the way we lose and the way RINO's lose.  In his guest editorial for the American Thinker, Ovide confirms that he waived the right to a recount in his 1,600 vote loss to Kelly Ayotte for the purpose of party unity.  Even though he worked so hard and was outspend 6-1 by Ayotte, he declined to push forward because it was a late September primary and he knew that such a fiasco would only benefit the Democrat.  Lamontagne explains,

"My foremost concern is defeating Paul Hodes and his liberal agenda, and I feared that the delay in unifying our party would negatively affect our ability to win in November. Accordingly, when Kelly Ayotte was declared the primary winner in a very close race, I waived our right to a recount and committed my support to her campaign, asking my supporters to do the same."