Tea, Newt, Mitt and Jefferson's Warning about Obama's ilk

Given the results in FL last night, it appears Mitt will probably be the nominee.

He has a better chance against Obama, (if polls are the arbiter of the future) than a Newt who can REALLY hold a grudge like son of a bitch.

I’m not sure we can call Newt ‘tea party’ in the sense his focus is on small govt, equal opportunity and maximizing the entrepreneurship which makes mobility among classes possible. His focus in foreign affairs is NEARLY a 1:1 match of mine. 

But the tea party to a noticeable extent (at least up here  in Maine…You go to a tea party meeting here in the capital and you see people upset about what’s going into frankfurters.) has gone wacky paleo-John Birch -Ron Paul - Neville Chamberlain by isolation - on the way to old school anti -xxxx ideas .. and is NOT what we all saw in the streets in 2009-2010 demanding an end to massive debt and overreaching executive power ceded by congress to bureaucratic arrogant prix. 

Those people all went back to work or to look for it. Those people are not represented.

With a huge hat tip to Midnight Rider for yanking out Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, 1784, from the Separation of Powers Section …

Thomas Jefferson warned us of the danger of “elective despotism:”

“They should look forward to a time, and that not a distant one, when a corruption in this, as in the country from which we derive our origin, will have seized the heads of government, and be spread by them through the body of the people; when they will purchase the voices of the people, and make them pay the price

x lation, you cast a vote for people whose innate corruption prevents them always from acting for the benefit of the nation, and the good of the people. Their allegiance is elsewhere, and they depend on creating a PERCEPTION of them which will cause you to vote for them again.

Meanwhile real power is concentrated in departments which control day to day life in a Dickensian-Kafka-esque grotesquery of 1776-1789.

Mitt might win, but probably will not reverse THIS.

Mitt, who has a better chance of winning, does not seem, to me to have the inner will or perspicacity to SOLVE all aspects of the major problem the USA has. The economy. Fix the economy and people aren’t at each other’s throats over money, jobs, and resources. Fix the economy and debt shrinks. Fix the economy and tax revenue jumps. Fix the economy and defense resources will not become scarce and unaffordable.

To fix the economy we need BOTH growth and dramatic shrinkage in the size AND power of EVERY SINGLE cabinet dept. But that’s not Mitt.

Mitt might be an expert at financial products and what the books can do, but that is not the same thing as creating the milieu which makes economically feasible - production in the USA at selling prices which are competitive with those we see, or finding an alternate solution.

The people who left the streets in 2010 feel even stronger about things today than then. But no one represents that. Both party’s recoil in horror from this group. Both party’s ruling groups are in fact their OWN CLASS..the political class.

When Mitt fails to change things in his 4 years, after Obama has failed, and we see Hillary uncoiling from her nest in 2016, and Ron Paul and the other usual suspects, WHAT THEN?

Third party time? Revolt?

There is a problem.