>>>>>What I would really like to hear is what the Tea Partiers are FOR.
>>>>
>>>>As I understand it :
>>>>Limited government as our founders created
>>>>A more classic interpretation of the Constitution than we've had in decades
>>>>Capitalism and free enterprise as the established norm with policy to match
>>>>Restoration of a sense of personal responsibility
>>>>
>>>>As for how this translates to policy:
>>>>Less regulation in EVERY aspect of our lives
>>>>Less taxes
>>>>Less central control
>>>>Re-establishment of State's rights where the constitution ends, specifically a re-invigoration of the 10th Amendment
>>>>
>>>>As with every movement, the fringe elements will attract the press as they make for good clips and copy. However, if you think this is new you haven't been paying attention for about 20 years as this has built. libertarian (the little l is on purpose).
>>>
>>>Thank you for the comments. I have been paying attention for the past 20 years. Actually I think you mean since the rise of Ronald Reagan, right?
>>
>>No. The specific movement I'm referring to had it's roots in the election of Clinton, specifically those who opposed both Bush and Clinton in the form of Perot. They were angry at the country club Republicans mixing it up with the progressives to form a New World Order which moved decidedly away from the direction of the Reagan revolution. Which in and of itself was formed behind a man who had already come through the Democratic ranks and watched as his party left him.
>>
>>>Maybe even the cultural backlash that put a hack like Richard Nixon in the White House.
>>
>>Nixon came from the same country club circles that Reagan was against. They are the same in party name only.
>>
>>>That segment of our country has continued to be a strong influence. Which is fine, even though I don't agree with them about much. We do live in a democracy, after all. We are allowed to disagree. (And thank goodness for that. I love this country as much as anyone else).
>>
>>>All that said, I disagree with the Tea Party and with what you say. It's not enough to be against everything that even smells like government.
>>
>>Statements like this suggest you either do not read or understand what I say. The straw man of being against all government is just that. Fake. Repeatedly putting it up in order to smash it does not make the statement in any way representative of my beliefs.
>>I want a very limited central government primarily focused on protecting our liberty. Further I want local government to re-establish their long lost power from the federal and state level.
>>
>>>The principles you assert exist only in a very narrow reading of the Constitution as originally written.
>>
>>In fact those founding principals served us quite well until FDR threatened to stack the Supreme Court if they did not follow his directives. The commerce clause has been decidedly trampled since, to say nothing of the bill of rights.
>>
>>>It was never intended to be set in stone. Times change.
>>
>>Actually it was designed to be set in stone, as in VERY difficult to modify. It was never intended to be overrun by the courts or sidestepped through procedure. The courts were to use it as a guide as opposed to guiding it through the courts as so many amendments recently have been.
>>
>>>The world we live in is probably beyond the imaginations of our founders, as smart as they were. I see some of the attempts to lock it down as thinly disguised self-interest.
>>
>>Our founders had great insight into the nature of man, the history of nations and the devastation of tyranny. Their framework was designed with those lessons in mind. Their work set forth the most prosperous, most powerful, most generous and single greatest beacon of freedom the world has even known. I'd say we'd be wise to once again learn those lessons.
>
>Consider me straightened out re local government vs. national government. I misstated your POV there.
>
>I used to believe in the United States you describe, the beacon of freedom. We certainly still are compared to many countries but I have become a lot more cynical about it. Our actions have too often shown otherwise. What really rankles me -- and I know you don't agree -- is the sense that we are not ruled by government so much as huge corporations. Not much happens any more that they don't like.
>
>Maybe I'm just having a cynical day. And no, not in response specifically to the election in Massachusetts. Free elections are one of the ideals we both admire and the people of Massachusetts have spoken.

And not even by those nasty Republicans you are always insulting :o) 51% of Massachusetts is INDEPENDENT. Imagine that :o) Only 12% Republican. Gosh, some of those 51% couldn't have been in that far right fringe group called the Tea Party do you think? :o)