Sunday, August 8, 2010

Am I Missing Something...

...isn't the Tea Party a "movement"? There should not be a third party called the Tea Party. And HERE IS WHY. I don't like the idea of "Tea Party Leaders" and official "Tea Party endorsements."

I don't mind groups organizing and calling themselves the Tea Party - but it should be a protest, of high taxes, of big government, of people in DC trying to control people far away.

Third parties don't work, ask Teddy Roosevelt or Howard Taft. What do you get when you cross Roosevelt and Taft? A rift. In the Republican party. Which gave us (drum roll please) Woodrow Wilson, progressives (the lefty ones) and ultimately the UN. Wilson was only the second Democrat elected President between 1860 and 1932.

Taft received 3.4 million votes
Roosevelt received 4.1 million votes
Wilson received 6.2 million votes

Do the math, people on the right received 7.5 million votes - how would WWI and the aftermath have gone had Taft or Roosevelt been President? How would the 20's have started?

...or ask George H. W. Bush. In 1992:

Bush received 39.1 million votes
Clinton received 44.9 million votes
Perot received 19.7 million votes

(Perot received Tea Party type votes, people fed up with Bush's non-conservative administration)

How would things have been without Clinton? One can only dream.

Now, does anybody think the Tea Party should be an actual party?

No comments: