In reading local newspapers and channel surfing through TV political commentary programs, it is quite apparent that the Mainstream Media has taken on the Herculean task of trying to discredit the Tea Party movement. With the results of the recent national election in hand, media pundits try to claim every Republican loss as attributable to their meddling and every Democrat win a repudiation of their beliefs. Tea Party-supported victors are seen as an anomaly.
But nowhere is this new crusade more evident than in the Mainstream Media’s newly-concocted premise that the Tea Party was responsible for Republican losses in the Senate. Christine O’Donnell, Sharon Angle, and Ken Buck were all puppets of the Tea Party and all losers at the ballot box, so they got theirs. Ha-ha!
Nevertheless, if one swallows the Mainstream Media’s thinking, it must then follow that the Mainstream Media itself was responsible for the Democrat losses in the House. While Tea Party miscalculations might have contributed to Republican defeats, it appears that Keith Olberman’s secret Democrat donations, Chris Matthew’s thrill up his leg, and the open bias seen in the body language of news anchors of the Top Three television networks all worked together to defeat the Democrats pulling Nancy Pelosi’s rickshaw.
But what a spectacle America was treated to in the days before November 2nd and what a comparison between these two competing titans: if the Tea Party was strident, the Mainstream Media was shrill; if the Tea Party was energized, the Mainstream Media was dour; if the Tea Party looked away from the establishment, the Mainstream Media was the establishment; if the Tea Party labored for free, the Mainstream Media feasted off campaign advertising revenue; and if the Tea Party fought for the freedom inherent in capitalism and democracy, the Mainstream Media worked to enforce the enslavement built into big government and socialism.
The Tea Party represented the spirit of independence that wrested this country from wilderness and brutality, the Mainstream Media represented the sloth and oppressiveness of the British Monarchy.
Given the choice, was it really the Tea Party which lost in this election or the Mainstream Media?
Rand Paul was interviewed on ABC’s “This Week” by Christiane Amanpour. I thought it was a good interview, but of course, I’m a bit biased. One item that Paul reiterated from his campaign was that we have “to look everything” for cutting government spending. Check it out below.
John Browne, Senior Market Strategist at Euro Pacific Capital
This week, desperation became palpable at the Fed. In both the formulaic statement that accompanied its FOMC policy decision and Chairman Ben Bernanke’s unusual (and clumsy) Washington Post op-ed follow up, the guardians of our currency expressed grave disappointment at the slow pace of US economic recovery and emphasized the continued threat of deflation. The Fed is now pledging to defeat this recession using any monetary means necessary. Unfortunately, their embrace threatens to smother our economy.Despite its paternalistic rhetoric, the Fed really has just a few simple goals: allow for the perpetual expansion of the federal deficit, push up stock prices to create the illusion of wealth, and stimulate consumer spending. To do this, the Fed will hold interest rates near zero for the foreseeable future, and will buy some $600 billion of US Treasury debt by April of next year. Per capita, the commitment to quantitative easing comes to almost $2,000 per American. What’s more, if this program fails to pull the economy out of recession, the Fed stands ready to up the ante. This amounts to little more than gambling; but instead of using their own accounts, the central bankers are wagering the nation’s savings.
Having already committed $1.7 trillion in the first round of quantitative easing, the Fed is rolling the dice once again – despite ample evidence that their costly remedy won’t work.
According to the Fed’s own analysis, the US economy continues to disappoint, despite the massive QE-1 cash injection. Given the poor fundamentals: rising unemployment, plummeting house prices, and falling stock prices, it should come as no surprise that consumer confidence is low and spending continues to lag.
Now, by monetizing almost the entire federal deficit through QE-2, the Fed hopes to give Congress the breathing room to enact reforms before skyrocketing interest rates bankrupt the Treasury. Meanwhile, the central bank hopes that the expected inflationary consequences will be nullified by a resulting broad-based recovery. But an economist as knowledgeable and experienced as Chairman Bernanke should know by now that any real economic revival will come from private industry, not government. The money printed by the Fed will indeed flow into the economy, where it will push up asset prices in many sectors. Already commodity prices are soaring. But inflation cannot create real growth.
Michael Pento, Senior Economist of Euro Pacific Capital
It seems the current Chairman of the Federal Reserve is of the belief that diluting the dollar is the cure for everything from a recession to male pattern baldness. And like other snake-oil salesmen before him, Mr. Bernanke is heavy on promises and light on results. Here are five prescriptions that money printing can’t fulfill:
Lower the corporate tax rate. The US corporate tax rate is the second highest in the developed world, after Japan. Lowering this tax would help American businesses compete with foreign corporations and unleash the entrepreneurial spirit of our workforce. In addition, lowering taxes on capital goods purchases and retained earnings would also encourage expansion projects, new hiring, and therefore general business development.
Reduce crippling regulations. There isn’t a much better example of the current environment of excessive red tape than the number of “Czars” running around the White House: 28, at last count. Ronald Reagan had just one. These sub-cabinet level offices simply advise the President on how to further fetter American businesses and launch umpteen “independent probes” every time an issue comes up. But even officials not given the Imperial Russian title are busy making life hell for small- and medium-sized businesses because there is too much power in Washington. Read More »
Well, to be quite fair Ron Paul said they talked about introducing a bill to end or audit the Fed on their first day in office together. Here is the entire long and excellent interview with David Asman on Fox Business channel.
Ron Paul also talks about becoming the new Chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy with the GOP taking control of the House.
The subcommittee’s jurisdiction includes domestic monetary policy, and agencies which directly or indirectly affect domestic monetary policy, multilateral development lending institutions such as the World Bank, coins and currency including operations of the Bureau of the Mint and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and international trade and finance including all matters pertaining to the International Monetary Fund and the Export-Import Bank.
I don’t think there could be a more perfect subcommittee for Ron Paul.
Later in the interview Judge Napolitano joins the discussion. Check it out below.
In one of the several interviews Liberty Maven did with Rand Paul I asked a question about strategy that I believe is the main reason Rand Paul won and is now Senator-elect Rand Paul. Here is that question and Rand’s excellent response again:
LM: Your recent op-ed in USA Today discussing libertarianism and conservatism where you deemed yourself “not quite” a libertarian seemed to be another (rather successful in my view) effort to unite conservatives and libertarians by focusing on where there are agreements. Is one of your fundamental campaign strategies to foster agreement between these groups?
Rand Paul: Yes, it is. The views that unite many conservatives and libertarians are grounded in deference to the Constitution and its principles, and a belief in limited government. These ideals have not been acted upon by many in Washington recently, and that’s why I’m running. It’s also why the Tea Parties exist – frustration with a lack of accountability on spending and the size of government.
These ideals – and the joining of all limited government advocates — form the basis for my campaign this year, one that has struck a chord with Republicans, independents, libertarians, and Tea Party activists. For the country’s sake I hope we can keep these groups in agreement and united against those who do not hold the same respect for those Constitutional principles.
Yes. I believe that about sums up why Rand Paul was successful. He united all flavors of voters. The Republicans, libertarians, independents, conservatives, and tea partiers joined together to support him. He also united progressives pretty well too. They were downright venomous for some reason. I guess that’s the way they roll when they disagree with someone.
A little less than a year ago I posted an article entitled, “Why Rand Paul Will Win“. I listed three reasons: public sentiment, fund raising, and the “it” factor. In retrospect it was mostly public sentiment that turned the tide in his favor in both the primary and general.
Also of note, Rand Paul’s father Ron, won his race. There’s a slight chance Ron Paul could be in line for a committee or sub-committee chairmanship now that the House is changing control to the GOP. It’s likely we’ll all be seeing more of the always-entertaining hearing sessions with Ben Bernanke tap dancing around Ron Paul’s questions. I also believe it to be quite likely we’ll see Ron Paul running for president in 2012 given the results and public opinion. Fox News even threw some love Ron’s way by mentioning him as the catalyst for his son’s and the tea party’s victories. Prepare your bank account for an onslaught of money bombs next year and in 2012.
Admittedly, I’m conflicted on this particular election eve. I’m excited at the potential for actual change if many of these so-called “tea party” candidates get elected. That potential is based upon hope more than expectation. If I decide to vote, I’ll vote for the Libertarian candidate in my district. I’m glad I have that choice since I can’t stand the GOP candidate (30 year incumbent Frank Wolf) nor can I stand the Democrat (Obamacare supporter).
That being said I have some questions. Most won’t be answered in the near term, but will be answered within the next 2 years.
Will Rand Paul win in another “Randslide”?
If Sharon Angle defeats Harry Reid will Chuck Schumer become the leader of the Senate?
Should Rand Paul win, will he lose the support of the Tea Party during his term as Senator?
Will Ron Paul’s supporters be happy with the way Rand Paul votes on foreign policy?
If the GOP takes control of the House will Ron Paul become the Chairman of the Financial Services Committee?
Will the Republicans be able to repeal Obamacare?
Are the Republicans going to to water down the Tea Party message by playing the same old political game?
Will Sarah Palin become the GOP nominee in 2012 due to her perceived influence on the Tea Party candidates winning in 2010?
When will Ron Paul announce he is running for President in 2012 (My guess is sometime in January of 2011)?
When Republicans gain control of the House and nothing changes will a Third Party option become truly viable in 2012?
Those are the main questions I have. Do you have any to add?
Quote of the Day: “If elections really changed things they would be illegal.” — Emma Goldman
I will start with a confession . . .
* I cheered in 2006 and 2008 when the voters body-slammed the Republicans
* And I will cheer again next week when the Democrats too get slammed
Both the Republicans and the Democrats have thoroughly deserved their repudiations. I think our political parties are so bad that it’s almost always appropriate for incumbents to lose, and for the majority party to revert to minority status. But that doesn’t mean that such changes really improve things.
Did things improve in 2008 when Obama’s Democrats gained control? I think the answer is no. Obama has continued, or worsened, nearly all of Bush’s policies, and with the Democratic Congress has managed to outspend the profligate Republicans. Should we really expect the Republicans to be different this time?
If you hold out hope, prepare to have it crushed, starting here . . .
Liberty Maven
John Browne, Senior Market Strategist at Euro Pacific Capital
Loading ...
