Palin: Tea Party Members Must Pick Between The Two Major Parties

If you wanted further evidence of the self-perpetuating work of the duopoly, Sarah Palin (after wooing the Tea Party) has told Tea Party members that they have no choice but to side with one of the two major political parties — presumably the Republicans.

In a prior column, I described how the two parties offer voters the same limited choice of change as Henry Ford’s offer to customers: you can have any color car as long as it is black. Palin voices the same monopoly on power as a fact in speaking to her supporters: “Now the smart thing will be for independents who are such a part of this Tea Party movement to, I guess, kind of start picking a party,. Which party reflects how that smaller, smarter government steps to be taken? Which party will best fit you? And then because the Tea Party movement is not a party, and we have a two-party system, they’re going to have to pick a party and run one or the other: ‘R’ or ‘D’.”

This is further evidence of how calcified and corrupted our system has become. Anyone unhappy with the current political system is told that “change” can go no further than switching between R and D. Until we break the hold of the two parties and incumbents, we will continue this mindless downward spiral in our system.

For the full story, click here

55 thoughts on “Palin: Tea Party Members Must Pick Between The Two Major Parties”

  1. I am an ObGyn. Women have rights? Not in my country. They are Chattel. What gives you the right to say they have some say over the body.

  2. Smom,

    I do not disagree it is a more important issue to women in re reproductive freedom. My argument is that since corporations are making the calls for both team, reproductive rights remain “on the table” only so long as one side can exploit it for economic reasons. The instant there is no profit or excessive profit in having unwanted/unplanned/etc children, the fascists will have no problem saying your wombs are company property. See Margret Atwood’s wonderfully dark novel The Handmaiden’s Tale for a picture of such a dystopian future. Also the Alfonso Cuarón’s film Children of Men. In a way, reproductive freedom is a freedom dependent upon a key feature of our government as envisioned by our Founding Fathers to make sure women are heard on the issue (instead of a company). That key feature is equal representation and the right to petition. And equal representation is exactly what fascism supplants in a democracy, republican or otherwise. It replaces We the People with We the Corporate. That reproductive rights are not a given legally (like racial equality) at this time and still under attack is causally connected to corruption that is undermining our system of representation.

  3. FFLEO said “It is emphatically impossible to reason with anyone who *believes* in “divine intervention” to solve any of life’s problems or questions, especially involving politics, finance, international relations, and war.”

    I would agree, but you and I seem to have the same beliefs with regard to intervention from God. The difference between us is that I don’t think less of the person who does believe that God exerts some influence, at least not until they point a gun at their head and pull the trigger while believing that God will save them (if that’s God’s desire).

    Palin’s belief in God’s intervention is irrational to you and I. Could you and I be wrong? Sure. As long as I remember that I am fallible, I don’t call people stupid because they don’t agree with me. It sure isn’t Palin’s religious beliefs that make me think she’s not ready to be POTUS.

    Many evil things have been done in this world, and many of them have been justified by religious beliefs. There are also a lot of very good things that have been done because of those same beliefs.

  4. VT,

    You noted three excellent exceptions to the rule that I cannot dispute. On average—and most certainly since the Johnson Administration—my generalization holds. I will further admit that your grasp of History is such that any adversary must review his extensive virtual and/or real libraries in attempts to rebut/refute your positions.

  5. FL: If that was your point, fine. I did not see it in your post.

    You might want to take a look at history. The Wilson, Roosevelt and Johnson administrations put through a tremendous amount of legislation. Most of it is still in effect.

    So how did they fall apart and fail?

  6. Duh,

    It is emphatically impossible to reason with anyone who *believes* in “divine intervention” to solve any of life’s problems or questions, especially involving politics, finance, international relations, and war.

  7. rcampbell said “The teabaggers whose only real issue is Obama’s birth certificate aren’t Republicans or fiscal conservatives, they’re simply nuts.”

    Just how uninformed are you? The Tea Party Movement has stayed clear of the Birther issue. In fact, Joseph Farah took a lot of heat for even bringing it up when he was an invited speaker.

    Most hate is based on ignorance.

    “Some are just plain racists.”

    Some of those who voted for Obama are racists too. I know some who voted for him that will call him a “N” at the drop of a hat, and I know some who voted for him just because of the color of his skin. I’m gonna bet that you couldn’t name 10 racists who are involved in the Tea Party Movement.

    “There are also those who so stupid that must actually enjoy being duped and used by the GOP to vote consistently against their own better interests…”

    It’s nice to know that YOU know better than THEY about what is good for THEM. How dare they disaagree with you?

    When it comes to the Tea Party Movement, you’ve got to realize that only the nut-cases are going to get the press. The majority (those that only want less government spending, and less taxation) will never be heard on the MSM.

  8. My point is, VT, the Democrats always fall apart and cannot pass their legislation in any majority coalition while Republicans have and can do so while in power; and while in the minority they are able to stop Democrats’ agendas.

  9. FFLEO,

    I would have expected a more well-reasoned determination from you.

    Most people are religious because that was the way they were raised. It provide them with a comfort zone, and lets them explain what cannot be explained or comprehended. I know some very good people that hang on tightly to their faith. I also know some very good people that are atheists.

    Please tell me; How many people, that are currently raising children, have abandoned their faith? How many people are willing to remove themselves from that comfort zone?

    Do you personally know anyone involved in the Tea Party Movement? I do. The people that I know are good people. They’re not pushing their religion on anyone. They’re involved because they’re sick and tired of wastefull government spending, and they think they already pay enough taxes. If those are things that you consider evil, or to be the downfall of our country, we just disagree.

  10. “That is consistently characteristic of Democrats, as further evidenced today—149+ years later.”

    The parties are a lot different today. The Republicans are no longer the Party of Lincoln since Goldwater welcomed Thurmond and Nixon did his southern strategy.

    So that remark has no validity. I was talking of 1860, not 2010.

  11. jonolan

    “She is essentially correct as anyone who wasn’t totally blinded by their hatred of her would see”.

    I recognize that Palin is correct and there’s no end to my hatred of this bimbo. My point is that I’m not so sure the teabaggers are going to be all that happy. The teabaggers whose only real issue is Obama’s birth certificate aren’t Republicans or fiscal conservatives, they’re simply nuts. Those who want to return to gold as spending money are even to the right of Rush Limberger and hardly rank and file Republicans. Others are so ego absorbed they actually believe they can create a third party.

    Some are just plain racists (they, of course, have always had a comfortable spot in the GOP and gun nuts (also quite homey with the GOP), so they’ll fall in line easily.

    There are also those who so stupid that must actually enjoy being duped and used by the GOP to vote consistently against their own better interests like the ones that carry signs like “Keep your government hands off my Medicare”. And then there are those receiving Social Security benefits who stand there and decry as socialism Obama using private, for-profit insurance companies in his health care insurance reform. The majority of teabaggers are so brain dead only 13% are aware they got a tax break in 2009.

    “The Tea Party, if they wish to influence the government and be an effective part of saving America…”

    The saving of America began on Jan 20, 2009. The GOP did plenty enough damage to America, thank you very much, we can’t afford any more of their saving. What preceded it was 30 years of the failures of the conservatism movement. The teabaggers wouldn’t be participating in saving America by suggesting the return of the failed policies of Reagan, two Bushes and the Republican-lite Bill Clinton. Calling the utterly failed economic, tax, domestic and foreign policies of the previous administrations “saving America…” begs the question of “Saving it for whom”? Bankers, Wall Street, insurance execs?

  12. Duh wrote,

    “Exactly what is it about the Tea Party Movement that you find so objectionable?”

    Principally, the insane *belief* in an anthropomorphic man-god to which Palin and the Tea Baggers would defer “divine intervention”.

    If that does not answer your question, I can posit no more.

  13. Duh, I think its more of the ‘lunatic’ effect that most of the Tea Party folks seem to share.

    You know, the screaming at townhall meetings, the death panel stuff and other irrational misinformation, the “we’re REAL American” attitude, anyone not with us is a socialist and, well, Palin.

    We’re all very frustrated with gov’t and hoping to find new ways of bringing something positive or productive to our country but teabaggers, frankly, scare the hell out of me.

    Not because of the formal, policy talking points, though. If that was the appearance of the Tea party then we’d be having a different discussion, I think.

  14. Duh,

    FFLEO’s objections to the Tea Party Movement, judging from his previous comments here, are that: they don’t hate Palin, are largely White, and that they are in opposition to a Black POTUS.

  15. The problem being, the Democrats had no one better candidates to offer than Gore (who would have won the election if he had won his *own* state of TN) and Joe Lieberman, who many Democrats now despise as a turncoat.

    The Democrats in 2000 did not give rationally thinking Republicans and Independents any reasonable, viable alternatives to Bush/Cheney.

  16. FFLEO,

    Exactly what is it about the Tea Party Movement that you find so objectionable? Is it the push to decrease taxes? The emphasis on lowering the national debt? Their objection to the stimulus package? Or that they want to see the size of the government decreased?

    I’ve never been involved with the movement, but I do agree with them on the above-mentioned topics.

  17. We need campaign finance reform even more than we need a third political party. Following the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, I thinks things will get much worse–even though that seems impossible to imagine.

    ************
    Swarthmore mom–

    “The 2000 election changed this country. We probably would not be having this discussion about torture if Gore had been president.”

    And if Gore had been president, it’s unlikely our country would have launched a preemptive war against Iraq!

  18. VT wrote:

    “The Democrats, in their folly, split as a party…”
    _________________________________

    That is consistently characteristic of Democrats, as further evidenced today—149+ years later.

  19. If people want to end the two party system, they have to support a constitutional amendment (or convention) to replace majority and plurality representation with proportional representation.

    This is elementary comparative political science. Study the legislatures in Ireland, Israel, Romania and many more countries. Look it up on wiki. Pick a system and propose it.

    Instead of wringing hands about the two party system, draft a different system.

    It is sure to get the support of a rock-solid two-percent of the voters.

    Even Nader would get more votes.

Comments are closed.