Tea Party should conduct debate, would Sarah and Michele do it?

A group of 150 conservatives are meeting at a ranch in Texas to see if they can come up with a consensus conservative candidate who could win the nomination.  Once again, folks want to end the primary season before it even starts!  This is kind of like deciding you want to end a four quarter, sixty minute football game after the first two minutes.  I am not for it.

But, one thing I am for is the Tea Party sponsoring a debate!  I believe that together, Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann should be the moderators, questioners, MC’s for a debate between the GOP primary contestants.  And I think the debate should be done in a different way than any thus far.  Time and the ability to get your message out is the single most important thing.  America is in real trouble.  Instead of doing one debate with half a dozen candidates, do several interview type debates, where two candidates face off against each other. And maybe you have to do a series of these, to allow candidates to match up with several opponents, and address a wide array of issues. 

We face real challenges. We face 17 trillion in debt.  We face a world of 200 nations who no longer look to the US for leadership, but instead we are in a world competitive to us.  We look at Radical Islam as a possible threat, but we dont look at the invasion of twenty million illegal immigrants as a threat to our national security in terms of cultural division, militant Latino anti Americanism, or the costs of the social services which must be provided to the poorest of people.  The American people need to learn how to shop for a leader! 

Americans need to learn citizenship.  We need to realize that we have now is what we picked.  Our government is failing because our people are failing as citizens.  We have allowed diversity to devalue citizenship. Heck we have a President we aren’t even sure is American.  We have foreign money in the electoral process.  We have surrendered governing ourselves. The Tea Party has seemingly disappeared, as if they are off stage until the GOP blue bloods select a RINO and then there will be an attempt to marshal grass roots support through the Tea Party.  Well I don’t know how many other former Republicans, who are now independent conservatives will rally to the Tea Party should a non-Christian be selected as the GOP candidate, but I will NOT.  Further, I am taking the next step.  If a RINO is selected, I will vote for the greater of two evils and vote for Obama.

Some are already surrendering to Romney. Callers to conservative talk shows pretend to be Tea Party people, or conservatives, but I reject this moderate effort to take away the primary process.  Tea Party, be who you said you were, us!  Do what you said you would do, represent us!  Don’t let “conservative” talk shows talk us away from conservatism and towards nominating one more McCain or one more Bob Dole. 

Think about this.  No one, not the main stream media, not the conservative talk shows, not the pundits, disagree with the reality that the Republicans are going to win both the House and the Senate.  We are going to have a Republican Congress. If we elected Romney as President, it will be the Republicans who destroy America by continuing down the neo-conservative road. Amazingly a conservative lke myself called Rush today to tell him, we will not vote for Romney, but will not vote for Romney.  For me, I would vote for Obama.  Let it burn.  Pit liberal against a Republican Congress and lock up the government ’til the conservatives can find a real candidate.

So Tea Party get a hold of Sarah and Michele and organize a debate.  Allow two very qualified, very popular conservatives to be the facilitators for the debate.  Shift this whole process to the right.  Ask, if we undo Obama Care, what will be left?  Will we revert to a pre-Obama Care health care system?  How will we separate from globalism and retake the American market?  Will God be invited to the governing table? Will we finally secure our border?  What are we going to do about our ballooning debt?

Tea Party you claimed to represent me, so get up and start representing me!  

     

 


Latest posts by Mark Vogl (see all)

Comments

  1. JCR says

    Are you one of those conservatives that believe that the Department of Defense and the overseas military expenses do not contribute to the debt?

    Frankly, the choice is really between Ron Paul and the others (Romney, Obama, Gingrich, Santorum, Palin, Jeb Bush…)

  2. Bentree says

    JCR,
    Ron Paul’s stand on the common defense is his, like it or not, Achilles heal, it is with at least this conservative anti-federalist/Randian libertarian, existentialist who believes that we have the right and responsibility to defend our nation, our state, our homes , our lives against those who would take them. While mistakes will and have been made it may be that they are mistakes to a lesser degree than those of inaction. You know the whole hindsight thing is the only way libertarians make a point. When I took my carry permit a point was made that when the day comes that you must take a life to preserve your own, it may not be as cut and dried as you would like, be that as it may, you will be forced to make a decision and it may be the most important act of your life.

    Self defense in the name of a humans rights is at best and impossible decisions that must be made. Without more explanation from Mr. Paul, he would not be on the top of my list, but honestly no one else is on top either. This is very important where conservatives are concerned. They all are very favorable towards R. Paul right up until national defense is mentioned, their eyes roll back and rightly or wrongly respond with what the “F” is that all about. This is a really “BIG” issue that must be addressed with something other than condescension and or Ad Hominem  attacks.

    No retreat has become well established in law. So where does it and where does it not apply. Is this a no brain’er or a best guess issue. I prefer best guess because if it is a no brain’er that means the gun fight will be in the house. It is counter intuitive to tell your enemy that you are going to wait until they are in the house before you defend yourself.

    • PaulBot says

      Dr. Paul firmly believes in defending ourselves. He voted for the action to retaliate against the 9/11 attackers. He is against unilateral war. His view is that Congress is the only entity able to declare war, as the Constitution states. If the people, via Congress, thought we should go to war with someone in response to an attack on us, he would order it so. This is where people get confused by his foreign policy. He isn’t trying to destroy our defense, he’s trying to stop our offense. 

      • Bentree says

        So you are telling me that as President he would have gone into Iraq as Bush did, see the Congressional vote, given that the whole world believed Iraq had WMDs, the events must be viewed in period, not  in hindsight.
        Of course the argument can be made if Ron Paul had been president he wouldn’t have pushed the issue but, what if Iraq had the WMDs after all and they used them. What if’s are mostly political spin, created to wrangle  power not to increase insight.

        What if prior to WW2 the US had had overwhelming military force and had demonstrated the willingness to use it to protect human lives and rights.

        The first Gulf war may have convinced the Russians that they were preparing for a war that they could never win. So how many lives were saved. It is not weakness whether in reality or perceived that in the end saves lives, In the James Garner  movie Support your Local Gunfighter, Bruce Dern was convince he couldn’t escape by a line drawn on the floor and a sprinkling of red paint, but the most important factor was he knew how well Garner could shoot. Same thing happened with Russia.

        I’m sorry this just isn’t rocket science.

  3. Bentree says

    JCR,
    Ron Paul’s stand on the common defense is his, like it or not, Achilles heal, it is with at least this conservative anti-federalist/Randian libertarian, existentialist who believes that we have the right and responsibility to defend our nation, our state, our homes , our lives against those who would take them. While mistakes will and have been made it may be that they are mistakes to a lesser degree than those of inaction. You know the whole hindsight thing is the only way libertarians make a point. When I took my carry permit a point was made that when the day comes that you must take a life to preserve your own, it may not be as cut and dried as you would like, be that as it may, you will be forced to make a decision and it may be the most important act of your life.

    Self defense in the name of a humans rights is at best and impossible decisions that must be made. Without more explanation from Mr. Paul, he would not be on the top of my list, but honestly no one else is on top either. This is very important where conservatives are concerned. They all are very favorable towards R. Paul right up until national defense is mentioned, their eyes roll back and rightly or wrongly respond with what the “F” is that all about. This is a really “BIG” issue that must be addressed with something other than condescension and or Ad Hominem  attacks.

    No retreat has become well established in law. So where does it and where does it not apply. Is this a no brain’er or a best guess issue. I prefer best guess because if it is a no brain’er that means the gun fight will be in the house. It is counter intuitive to tell your enemy that you are going to wait until they are in the house before you defend yourself.

  4. JCR says

    Enjoy  Obabush then!

    One thing I don’t understand with Ron Paul is why he welcomes the” conservative” label. Looking at the opinions of the real conservatives in the US, one has to wonder why someone who likes liberty would associate with such people. Ron Paul is puzzling at times.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *