Yes, to much of the still clear-thinking rest of the world, the tea-baggers are freaks, and rightfully so.  Yet these are the most easily manipulated of the American electorate, and naturally they are the reactionary heirs of Newt Gingrich and Ronald Reagan.

When Reagan came to power in 1980, the United States was still fiscally sound and had a Democratic Congress to counter his more loony ideas, from the overhaul (read gutting) of Social Security and Medicaire to his lofty "Star Wars" Strategic Defense Initiative.  Of course Gingrich's "Contract with (read on) America" thought to finish the Reagan plan in 1994.  But of course over-reach and a Democratic President in Bill Clinton (whom the GOP then spent taxpayer megamillions to remove from office) again foiled the full reactionary plan.

Of course, the reactionaries ultimately had their way.  Having complete power over the Presidency, the Congress, and the Courts from 2001 through January 2007, with less than 50% of the electorate behind them (and a highly dubious 2000 election which was then, and still is, very much in play), by virtue of the fear machine instituted by the 9/11 mnemonic trumpeters, the Reagan Revolution came to full fruition.

The result was a multi-trillion dollar deficit spent on unnecessary tax cuts for the super wealthy, an unregulated banking system that permitted usurious credit card interest rates (but then denied fresh start bankruptcy to millions who desperately needed to file; thus ensuring a permanently indentured working class like the worst days of feudal feifdoms), an unchecked military squandering trllions on unknown enemies in never winnable wars, and an infrastructure and health care system long neglected and all but in tatters.

Thus, the return to power of a Democratic Congress in 2007, and the mandated, sweeping victory of now President Obama in the general election of 2008 meant the clear refutation of Reaganomics.  It meant that the country had clearly had enough of the reactionaries.

But that would also have necessitated that both the Democratic President and Congress act quickly, steam-rolling through legislation to counter and indeed crush Reagonomics so that it could not destroy the Ship of State, as close to imment collapse as was the Soviet Union twenty years earlier. 

It would have required the long-overdue villification of Reaganomics and that actor-clown character once at its helm.  It would have required a ceaseless drum-beat from the newly empowered Democrats of just how bad things become when the nation follows the Reagan/Gingrich/Dubya-Cheney plan.

And it would have required that our newly-empowered and reinvigorated Democrats define the nation's dormant but still lethal enemies before permitting them to newly define the Democrats. 

Using the bully pulpit, President Obama might have daily revealed just how horrible Reaganomics and Gingrich's "Contract on America" were.  President Obama should have, by virtue of his brilliant rhetoric and profound effect particularly on newly enfranchised young voters, persistently pushed through radical FDR and LBJ style legislation--even, if necessary, going himself to House and Senate chambers on a weekly basis.

At best, Democratic initiatives, whether on jobs creation, infrastructure, health care or banking reform, the reigning in of the foreign war machine, and various long neglected social issues, would have had only six months before the Right Wing propaganda machine could newly attack and awaken the slumbering reactionaries.

Instead, an entire year was used up in attempting some sort of patchwork comprehensive health care reform package.  Banking institutions were again granted carte blanche discretion, freely given trillions of taxpayers dollars to forgive their debt, with no relief however for the millions of citizens they had pilified in usurious interest rate fees and abused mortgages.  The foreign war machine kept its imaginary enemies front and center, and not any of their Jingoist policies were reigned in.  And all the while, the reactionary forces, who should have been vanquished much as FDR did for at least a generation, were only growing louder and stronger.

The tragedy is that unlike 1980 and 1994, and when reactionary forces came to full power by stealth and subterfuge in 2000, the State of the Union is 2010 is in tatters.  Our nation can only survive if Radical Left Wing change buttresses the lethal effects of the Radical Right Wing programs long ago instituted and left unchecked.

The United States is on the brink of collapse and extinction.  For that, we must blame of course the reactionaries, ever and always living in denial, even though the Ship of State struck an iceberg under their watch and the USS Titanic is now steadfastly sinking. 

We must blame the media, who, while still largely enamoured of President Obama, simply adore controversy and political turbulance, and are happy, whistling past the grave while with us on this Titanic Ship of State, because, alas, they had rather have good press than make it clear to their fellow passengers that the ship is truly sinking.

We must blame our fellow Democrats, no longer the ferocious progressives of the years of FDR and LBJ, but rather themselves easily afraid of even the shadows of reactionary "tea-baggers" they had all too recently routed only fifteen months ago.  (From the current news, a visitor to this country would never know that the Democrats still control the Presidency, and with large majorities in both the House and Senate.  One would assume that the nude-posing and empty-headed Massachusetts Senator Elect Scott Brown and Tea-bagger conventioneers are fully in charge.).

And yes, we must blame our President.  President Obama was gifted with every talent a politician could hope for, with brilliance of wit, intellect and rhetoric.  And he was granted every gift a politician could hope for, from stunning and widespread victories to the imprimatur of a Nobel Peace Prize while just coming to power as Chief Executive.

But alas, one must also remember that candidate Obama often praised the "transitional figure" Ronald Reagan, and feebly attempted to show that neither the Boomer generation of Clintonites nor Dubya-ites had the correct answers.  We Clintonites repeatedly warned that this was a dangerous path to success.

There was, there always will be, a difference.  We Clintonites were moulded by the revolutionary 1960s, just as our parents were animated by the policies of FDR, whereas the Dubya-ites were moulded by their reaction to those years, and, in large measure, their own parents' reaction to FDR policies. 

It is a major, insurmountable difference in social thinking.  Candidate Obama wrongly thought to assuage both sides.  And President Obama, until it was far too late, thought to assuage both sides in the health care debate, and indeed on other pressing reform issues.

Oddly enough, the more successful the tea-baggers are, whether now with the rise of the empty-suit Senator-Elect Scott Brown, or in the fall Midterm elections, the more certain President Obama is of a second term.

After all, the reactionaries were in full power not so very long ago.  Although easily swayed, and innately dim-witted, it will not take long for American voters to learn anew just why they cast the Reagan-Gingrich-Dubya and Cheney crowd out so forcefully in November of 2008.  These masses will come to curse them all over again.

The tragedy is that the USS Ship of State cannot wait to be righted after another two years.  It is, Titanic-like, sinking badly.  The fatal iceberg has already struck, and President Obama and the newly empowered Democrats were the last hope to patch up the craft before it disappears, extinguished by foreign waters upon which China, a Communist nation (of all things!), remains fully solvent and supremely powerful.

Every empire has its historical shelf-life.  Gone are the heyday of ancient Greece and Rome, the French and British Empires, and the hegemony of the Soviet Union. 

Who would have thought that the American Republic would ultimately fail by virtue of a nude-posing Senator Elect named Scott Brown, and a scatterbrained former beauty pageant winner named Sarah Palin?  What an ignominious end to what was once a stellar nation, founded on democratic principles and nurtured upon the idealistic hopes of millions.

THE TEA PARTY CONVENTION

The highlight was to be Sarah Palin’s speech, and the highlight it was. The Alaskan Barbie was in great form and the audience loved it, handing her many ovations.

The speech itself was in no way historic or substantive. But it was a fitting keynote speech, better than one that might be given here by, say, Newt Ginrich, or at a gathering of Democrats by,say, Al Gore. Palin criticized Obama and his policies and filled her speech with platitudes and tea party beattitudes.

The conventioneers got what they paid for.

homer http://www.altara.blogspot.com

The Green Party has been around a long time, but it never caught on as a major voice in politics. My feeling is that there is not much more going on in politics today, hence the press interest in following this tiny movement, and turning it into front page news. If anything, it is the press that will determine just how large it gets relative to tiny.

And Sarah Palin is undoubtedly the Democrats best chance of repeating in 2012. IMO.

Reagan did not triple the federal deficit, as you assert; this is a fable that liberals toss around, unfortunately. It conveniently ignores the fact that President Reagan grew the economy by a third during his two terms in office.

In 1981, the federal deficit was 2.7 % of GDP; adjusted to 1988 dollars, it was $101 billion. In 1989, the deficit was $141 billion, or 2.9% of GDP.

Reagan's success in simultaneously conquering recession and inflation is pretty much unprecedented, and is one of several reasons that historians rate him as one of our greatest Presidents. It also explains a loyal following among those of us who consider ourselves "Reagan Democrats".

That Sarah Palin thinks she has a shot is a testament to her stupidity. I dont know a single republican who thinks she has a chance or would vote for her. My closest friend is a conservative and in his words she is "Dumber than dirt". The only folks who buy her crap are the way way right nuts. Mainstream republicans and most sensible conservatives I know, dont think much of her. She is viewed poorly by independents as well. She wont make it our of the early primaries if she runs, I dont care how much money she has. Once she starts hitting the trail and appearing in candidate debates, anyone who hasnt seen her will dislike her quickly. Why anyone here woudl take her potential candidacy seriously is beyond me