Tea partiers circulating “declaration of independence” from GOP

posted at 6:00 pm on February 24, 2010 by Allahpundit

Not just from the GOP. They’re also declaring independence from Democrats, self-styled tea-party “leaders,” and the “ENE-media” (not to be confused with “friendly media”). This is not, I should note up front, an indication that they’re going third-party, just a reservation of their right to do so — or to stay home, of course — if Republicans don’t cater to them. Which makes it not so much a rejection of Sarahcuda’s advice as, shall we say, a response to it.

Here’s the PDF. If there’s one thing conservatives need right now, it’s another manifesto.

We insist that the Tea Party Movement does NOT consider the election of Republicans in and of itself to be necessarily beneficial to our goals.

We demand the Republican Party understand that we reject its attempts to co-opt us…

We reject RINO money; we reject RINO “advice”; we reject RINO “professional experience”; we reject RINO “progressivism”; we reject RINO support of Big Government; we reject RINO back room deal making; we reject RINO pork spending; we reject false RINO professions of Conservative views and we reject the RINO’s statist subversion of the principles of small government for which the Republican Party is supposed to stand…

We demand the Republican Party recognize that while the Tea Party Movement cannot guarantee their aid will help them win elections, it is very likely WE CAN MAKE THEM LOSE if they are disdainful of our goals.

Compare that to what Limbaugh said yesterday about being disappointed in Scott Brown’s vote on the jobs bill. (“I’m not spruced by it. He’s from Massachusetts. Folks, he is not a down-the-line conservative, and nobody ever said that he was. He’s a far sight better than Ted Kennedy. He’s a far sight better than having a Democrat in there.”) Actually, though, the section on independence from Republicans is less interesting than the section on Democrats. Quote:

We reject a foreign policy which bows and scrapes and apologizes before the world for America.

We reject an Attorney General of the United States who offers succor and rights to vicious terrorist murderers and seeks to protect them with a mock civilian trial when such enemy combatants, captured on the field of battle, should be tried in secure military courts.

We reject the claims of an un-elected Federal Judiciary to violate the separation of powers by demanding its decisions be enforced by the other coequal branches of government, regardless of how unconstitutional the other branches of government may think those decisions are.

On those first two points, was there some purge of Paulnuts from the movement that I’m not aware of? These are not consensus libertarian positions; to incorporate them into a statement of grand principles is a form of cooptation in its own right. As for the third point, what exactly are they suggesting? That they want to overturn … Marbury v. Madison? I missed the memo about that being some core tea-party plank, but I guess if you’re going to fantasize, there’s no sense in holding back.

But read the whole thing and decide for yourself. The good news is, if you don’t like what you see, another manifesto will be along in a minute or two that you might like better. Why, here’s one now…


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I’m a little disappointed; I realize we are all old jaded political cynics but it resonated with me. There was definitely a litle tin phrasing and it’s not exactly how I would have written it, but IMO it is much, much better than, for example, the Mt. Vernon Statement. I would say the problems and grievances discussed in the document are mainstream Tea Party Movement issues.

motionview on February 24, 2010 at 7:40 PM

A movement that demands transparency refuses to identify the authors of its own manifesto?

John Hancock would be so proud.

notropis on February 24, 2010 at 6:08 PM

Cut them some slack; thuggery towards supporters of a particular movement is becoming routine by the lefties.

Dark-Star on February 24, 2010 at 7:55 PM

It certainly won’t win any style awards, but the ideas expressed are fine, IMO.

Bugler on February 24, 2010 at 7:57 PM

So a bunch /two or three/one person decides to speak for the entire Tea Party movement? And I hate to break it to AP but these people/men/women/whatever have no clout compared to Palin. They really don’t speak for anyone other than themselves. I am a Tea Party actvisit and even though I do agree with many of the things in this ‘manifesto.’ I also resent it. One of the reasons for creating the movement is to get away from people telling us what to believe. Go ahead and write something like this but first claim ownership and second don’t claim to speak for others.

Deanna on February 24, 2010 at 8:17 PM

lol.

NoStoppingUs on February 24, 2010 at 8:19 PM

A movement that demands transparency refuses to identify the authors of its own manifesto?

John Hancock would be so proud.

notropis on February 24, 2010 at 6:08 PM

Hmmmm…. didn’t Ben Franklin write under false names? Even to the point of debating with himself?

Romeo13 on February 24, 2010 at 8:22 PM

We demand the Republican Party recognize that while the Tea Party Movement cannot guarantee their aid will help them win elections, it is very likely WE CAN MAKE THEM LOSE if they are disdainful of our goals.

Translation: We’re so upset at the direction of our country, we’re willing to let the Democrats keep running it into the ground.

Yeah, great plan.

CP on February 24, 2010 at 8:26 PM

Hey, the left doesn’t need Carville and Clinton to attack and discourage the tea party bunch. We have plenty of bloggers and pundits on our side that will do it for them.

conservnut on February 24, 2010 at 8:27 PM

Translation: We’re so upset at the direction of our country, we’re willing to let the Democrats keep running it into the ground.

Yeah, great plan.

CP on February 24, 2010 at 8:26 PM

Keep winning hearts and minds, hoss.

misterpeasea on February 24, 2010 at 8:36 PM

ernesto on February 24, 2010 at 6:48 PM

I think you misunderstood me. I was suggesting that your desire to have more power at the local level is putting the the lion’s share of power with “just folks”. I am using the term “folks” to be a synonym for locals who would control the local government that you would prefer. Don’t worry I am not trying to make your home like anything other then the home you love. Try not to take every comment as an attack.

Cindy Munford on February 24, 2010 at 8:37 PM

Hey, the left doesn’t need Carville and Clinton to attack and discourage the tea party bunch. We have plenty of bloggers and pundits on our side that will do it for them.

conservnut on February 24, 2010 at 8:27 PM

The opposite of “attack and discourage” in the case of this “declaration” would be what? “Uncritically cheer on”? “Unquestionably defend”?

Honest critique from those on the right not named Brooks, Frum, Buckley, et al is a good thing.

darii on February 24, 2010 at 8:37 PM

ernesto on February 24, 2010 at 6:48 PM

I think you misunderstood me. I was suggesting that your desire to have more power at the local level is putting the the lion’s share of power with “just folks”. I am using the term “folks” to be a synonym for locals who would control the local government that you would prefer. Don’t worry I am not trying to make your home like anything other then the home you love. Try not to take every comment as an attack.

Cindy Munford on February 24, 2010 at 8:37 PM

Cindy Munford on February 24, 2010 at 8:37 PM

Loud and clear, over.

misterpeasea on February 24, 2010 at 8:40 PM

Jeff2161 on February 24, 2010 at 6:50 PM

Sorry, that a bit hard core for me.

Cindy Munford on February 24, 2010 at 8:42 PM

misterpeasea on February 24, 2010 at 8:40 PM

I am a wiz with the icons, am I not? Sorry.

Cindy Munford on February 24, 2010 at 8:43 PM

Jeff2161 on February 24, 2010 at 6:50 PM

Wait, I thought the Tea Party movement was channeling the American Revolution, not the French Revolution.

darii on February 24, 2010 at 8:44 PM

The opposite of “attack and discourage” in the case of this “declaration” would be what? “Uncritically cheer on”? “Unquestionably defend”?

Honest critique from those on the right not named Brooks, Frum, Buckley, et al is a good thing.

darii on February 24, 2010 at 8:37 PM

How about “Embrace” the conservative values that these voters are demanding. The way I read this “declaration” all they are saying is we will not support you just because you have an R after your name. I expect that the bulk of this is aimed at the primaries and putting incumbents on the spot as their opponents get the opportunity to ask them “do you or do you not support the goals of the tea party movement”

An effective tool that can shape the direction of the republican party. I think in a good way.

What is bothering me right now is that we are spending more time fretting about whether the tea partiers will “stay true” to republicans or not, instead of asking our representatives “do you agree with them or not”?

conservnut on February 24, 2010 at 8:47 PM

I am a wiz with the icons, am I not? Sorry.

Cindy Munford on February 24, 2010 at 8:43 PM

Teasing.

misterpeasea on February 24, 2010 at 8:49 PM

I might also add, that as engaged as the tea party crowd is right now. There is no way they will stay home out of protest in November. And there is no way they will pull the lever for a liberal democrat.

conservnut on February 24, 2010 at 8:50 PM

Keep winning hearts and minds, hoss.

misterpeasea on February 24, 2010 at 8:36 PM

Is that not the default result of what they’re saying though? I’ve been pissed at the GOP too, I’ve been to multiple tea parties. But, I’m also realistic. There is no other entity that is going to be on the ballot come November other than the GOP and the Dems. The parties are not the same. I understand the pushback to move conservatism, but this declaring independence stuff just doesn’t make sense to me.

CP on February 24, 2010 at 8:51 PM

Not trying to be Little Johnny Raincloud here, but didn’t some of the more notably notorious cult movements of our day start off kind of like this?

pilamaye on February 24, 2010 at 7:01 PM

Like which ones?

Itchee Dryback on February 24, 2010 at 8:51 PM

What is bothering me right now is that we are spending more time fretting about whether the tea partiers will “stay true” to republicans or not, instead of asking our representatives “do you agree with them or not”?

conservnut on February 24, 2010 at 8:47 PM

Would you say, apart from the blustery style and hyperbolic statements, that this “declaration” accurately encapsulates the tea party movement and should be the standard referenced when asking incumbents if they agree with the tea party movement?

darii on February 24, 2010 at 8:52 PM

misterpeasea on February 24, 2010 at 8:49 PM

Thank, that’s what I thought you meant.

Cindy Munford on February 24, 2010 at 8:52 PM

I might also add, that as engaged as the tea party crowd is right now. There is no way they will stay home out of protest in November. And there is no way they will pull the lever for a liberal democrat.

conservnut on February 24, 2010 at 8:50 PM

If enough tea partiers pull the lever (do any precincts still use that technology?) for third party candidates in protest, they will end up squandering their hard earned advantage.

darii on February 24, 2010 at 8:55 PM

Would you say, apart from the blustery style and hyperbolic statements, that this “declaration” accurately encapsulates the tea party movement and should be the standard referenced when asking incumbents if they agree with the tea party movement?

darii on February 24, 2010 at 8:52 PM

I don’t know if I would go so far as to say this one does for me. Personally I prefer the Mount Vernon Statement.

But that is just me, and let us not forget, many on the right hyperventilated over that one too.

conservnut on February 24, 2010 at 8:57 PM

(do any precincts still use that technology?)
darii on February 24, 2010 at 8:55 PM

Ha, not many I bet, just a figure of speech. The last time I “pulled a lever” was when I voted for Ronnie in 80.

conservnut on February 24, 2010 at 8:59 PM

I like it…pulls no punches…casts a very realistic view of the Democrats and the RINOs.

Go get ‘em !

daytrader on February 24, 2010 at 9:14 PM

Ha, not many I bet, just a figure of speech. The last time I “pulled a lever” was when I voted for Ronnie in 80.

conservnut on February 24, 2010 at 8:59 PM

I always “draw the black line connecting the parts of the arrow.” Just doesn’t have the same ring to it, eh?

darii on February 24, 2010 at 9:24 PM

I always “draw the black line connecting the parts of the arrow.” Just doesn’t have the same ring to it, eh?

darii on February 24, 2010 at 9:24 PM

Yeah, I really dislike the electronic version we use in my county now. The lever was cool, something about flipping all the little switches and then pulling the big lever was cool.

conservnut on February 24, 2010 at 9:37 PM

Damn … First Sarah Palin and now the Tea Baggers.

Allah don’t like none of ‘em.

I think his dream candidate might be Arlen Specter.

HondaV65 on February 24, 2010 at 9:44 PM

If enough tea partiers pull the lever (do any precincts still use that technology?) for third party candidates in protest, they will end up squandering their hard earned advantage.

darii on February 24, 2010 at 8:55 PM

Well it’s OURS to squander now … isn’t it?

What I don’t like is Republican fatties sitting around doing nothing while we march in the streets and then they try to tell us how to vote.

Put the bag of potato chips down and get out in the streets – we’ll listen to you there.

HondaV65 on February 24, 2010 at 9:46 PM

Put the bag of potato chips down and get out in the streets – we’ll listen to you there.

HondaV65 on February 24, 2010 at 9:46 PM

Does AP need to put on his pants too?

conservnut on February 24, 2010 at 10:00 PM

We are on our way to being the next Venezuela and the Tea Partiers are ensuring that it will happen.

The Republicans are the problem! Get your heads out of your asses.

Pcoop on February 24, 2010 at 10:21 PM

sorry, the Republicans AREN’T the problem.

Pcoop on February 24, 2010 at 10:22 PM

The Tea Parties had a purpose before but now their anger is getting misdirected to include everyone in Washington and whether they want to admit it or not, we will need some of those people in Washington who are on the right side of this battle in our country.

We need to come together as one voice to defeat Obama and the Democrat. We need to be “we the people” not “We the people over here and the rest over there.

The one problem I’m starting to ave with the Tea Partiers is that they are making demands as to what they want and expect, but other than that, they aren’t supplying any solutions. It’s getting to be “if you don’t do what we want, we will pack up and leave.” It’s starting to be counterproductive and it’s playing into the left’s hands.

Pcoop on February 24, 2010 at 10:28 PM

The Tea party movement will just ensure democrat victory after democrat victory. Thanks.

nazo311 on February 24, 2010 at 11:00 PM

If the Republicans don’t get it then why put off the inevitable? We need to get this mess straightened out one way or another and I for one am sick and tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.

A note to the Republican Party: Bring the true conservatives with the peoples interest only and the votes will come! Don’t and there will be revolution when the Dems over reach just a bit farther.

Make some good decisions for a change and stop shoving RHINO’S up our ass saying: you better vote for him / her or else a dimocrap will get into office. We have gone back and forth on empty promises for so long now that you folks may no longer even recognize a true conservative when you see one.

Reality Checker on February 24, 2010 at 11:09 PM

Despite Andy Levy/Allahpundont’s snarky jackassery, this PDF document is the most awesome thing I have read all week. Thanks for the link snarky JA

long_cat on February 25, 2010 at 2:19 AM

long_cat on February 25, 2010 at 2:19 AM

I agree. I prefer this statement to the Mt Vernon

This PDF document is a rejection of the Tea Party as a ‘Party’, and an attempt to explain the Tea party as a reaction, or rebellion, against attacks on the basic foundation and structures that made America what it is today

IMHO semantics is being hijacked. The original Townhall protestors were happy to identify with the Boston tea party, a title used in the Revolution to flaunt an act of defiance by redefining the proper use of tea if it comes with an unjust tax.

The Mt Vernon statement is more of an attempt to take control of the movement by providing a mission statement,

This PDF fires back: who died and made you King?

I was more moved by the PDF words. They recognize the Townhallers did not gather to form a party. They gathered because they shared common rage at Parties. While the Tea Party group has many shared grievances, they have many differences, and politically belong to all three major voting blocs, DEM, GOP, IND. I doubt the individuals have given up the base values simply because they see the structure protecting their values being demolished

The group is being encouraged to form a party, and also being encouraged to surrender themselves to the failed parties or suffer.

As long as the movement runs on rage aginst the status quo, they will be at least feared and possibly courted. If they succumb to a new party or agree to be assimilated, they will be ignored.

The answer to to retain their voice as a group, but to also agressively enter the party of choice at the grassroots level, and cause havoc with their voice. It will be an ugly fight, because as we can see from the Scozzafava mess, the parties are inbred, and rigid in the precinct, but that is how the tea party will break the barriers

In other words, they will now have to suffer injuries of war, and all the beatings and bruises that come when one attacks an inbred system of favoritism.

At this stage, like the original tea party, they have little to lose, as the government has already spent their futures into oblivion

Good job to the authors

entagor on February 25, 2010 at 4:19 AM

Love the term Enemedia. First heard it at Lucianne.com, and have used it ever since. It’s so very appropriate.

davecatbone on February 25, 2010 at 8:05 AM

Tea party nutters! Sorry that I ever got involved with these self important, would be power grabbers.

jeanie on February 25, 2010 at 9:09 AM

I have a problem with using the term “RINO” in a document that is supposed to be taken seriously. It is, in effect, name calling. There is not specific “RINO”s mentioned but it is still name calling. Use real words.

Allah is write, a new manifesto will be coming soon, until there is one that is truly embraced by the tea partiers themselves. I would also argue, as someone above mentioned, it will not be accepted until someone signs their name. It will take courage and they will be attacked, probably relentlessly so. Libeled and Smeared. But the courage to stand for your convictions is one of the things the Tea Partiers are looking for, is it not?

drocity on February 25, 2010 at 9:44 AM

Laugh if you will, the GOP has a problem with their base. This is good for Obama.

Angry Dumbo on February 25, 2010 at 10:12 AM

Tea party nutters!

Hardly. The Tea Party movement gives voice to a HUGE bloc of disaffected conservative/libertarian voters who simply are unwilling continue supporting the status quo. To me, it’s the most encouraging and exciting development in national politics since Reagan. It’s not going away. I’m not fully understanding the criticisms here, but I suspect that many people haven’t listened to what the Tea Partiers are really saying.

Bugler on February 25, 2010 at 10:57 AM

On those first two points, was there some purge of Paulnuts from the movement that I’m not aware of? These are not consensus libertarian positions;

Where did you get the idea that the Paulnuts are the consensus position amongst libertarians?

MarkTheGreat on February 25, 2010 at 11:08 AM

MarkTheGreat on February 25, 2010 at 11:08 AM

Yeah, that’s an example of my point above. I’m sure there are some Paulistas in the Tea Party crowd, but they’re not even a significant minority.

Bugler on February 25, 2010 at 11:34 AM

Comment pages: 1 2