Austin Scott and the 8th Congressional Distict

Back in 2010, Austin Scott switched from running for governor to challenging Conservative Democrat Jim Marshall for the 8th CD. That turned out to be a wise move on Scott's part as he rode the anti-Pelosi, anti-Government Tea Party wave election of 2010 in unseating Marshall to become the new congressman of the 8th Congressional District. And as a result the 8th was redrawn to re-assure his re-election by removing democratic Bibb County and placing it into the 2nd CD, currently represented by Sanford Bishop, thus the 8th has become strictly a rural-dominated congressional district with Houston County being the population center of the district.

So since then, what has Congressman Scott done since being elected. Well he's sponsored, or co-sponsored a few bills such as H.R. 972 to protect individual privacy against unwarranted governmental intrusion through the use of drones to introducing a bill to end furloughs and ensure civilian workers are paid. Those are nice gestures, but since arriving in congress, Scott has been a reliable party line soldier for the GOP. The National Journal back in February named Scott the second most conservative lawmaker in the House in 2012. He was named Class President for the 112th Congress after arriving.

Someone asked me without the Tea Party wave of 2010, do I think he could have still managed to unseat Marshall? My answer was no! Without it, he probably would have come close, but not enough to unseat the Bluedog Democrat.

Scott ran unopposed in 2012, will he go unopposed next year? Who knows. I doubt it will come from the GOP side, if it comes from the Democratic side, it will have to be from someone who's background fits the rural congressional district and someone who is not afraid to show their differences with the National Democrats and President Obama.

The Left Exaggerate Republican Gerrymandering of 2011 in Shutdown Role

Gerrymandering is among the weak spots in our constitutional system of government. Although it wasn’t intended or foreseen by the Framers of the Constitution, it popped up pretty early.

Anyway, skipping ahead two centuries, Democrats are understandably annoyed that despite the fact that Dem House candidates nationally received more aggregate votes than Repub candidates, the Republicans maintained a solid 234-201 majority.

Successful Republican gerrymandering had something to do with it, but gerrymandering  alone is not only or primarily in producing that result is often overstated.

During the current shutdown mess, some liberals have embraced a second, related theory suggesting that not only did the Republican gerrymandering manage to cobble together a majority of House seats out of a minority of House votes, but they also managed to create a large number of safe red districts packed with voters who are so far right that they produce congressmen who are either right-wing hardliners or have to act like they are to fend off a Tea Party primary challenge.

The goal of gerrymandering is to maximize the number of districts that are barely safe enough by packing as many of your opponents' voters as you can into a small number of extremely partisan districts while safely distributing the rest throughout your own districts. In this way, gerrymandering may actually increase the number of moderate Republicans.

So there's a problem in believing that gerrymandering inflated the number of House Republicans, while also thinking that gerrymandering increased the number of ultraconservative, Tea Party Republicans. That may seem surprising, but it shouldn’t be. In many respects, the GOP’s divide between relative moderates and ultraconservatives also cuts across geographic and partisan lines. In the fiscal cliff, for instance, northern, blue state Republicans were far more likely to vote for the Senate compromise than their red state, Southern counterparts. And the number of northern Republicans has been meaningfully inflated by GOP-led redistricting efforts in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Virginia, and Ohio. Without GOP-led redistricting in those blue or purple states, the inevitably conservative Republicans in red states, locked into ultraconservative districts by (let's call it like it is) racial polarization and the Voting Rights Act, would constitute an even larger share of a somewhat smaller GOP caucus, making it even more difficult to reach compromises like the fiscal cliff deal for instance. It would be more difficult to resolve the government shutdown or debt ceiling debacle.

The Tea Party will re-elect Barack Obama in 2012?

And here's why:

If Barack Obama is somehow able to win reelection, the Tea Party should be on his list for a thank you note. President Obama’s prospects for reelection are decidedly mixed, but better than we’d expect given all else in the environment.

The economy is terrible, unemployment is high, and President Obama’s approval rating is extremely low. Normally, this bodes badly for a president seeking reelection, although in this case, Obama’s approval rating is still much higher than the ratings for Congress or the Republican Party. The Tea Party deserves some of the credit.

At least two Tea Party achievements are now helping the president: By invigorating the Republican Party’s base and helping it make huge gains in the 2010 elections, activists have been able to pressure members of Congress to work on their agenda....an agenda that isn’t very popular with the rest of the country.

The Republican Party in Congress is now comprised of people elected with Tea Party support, others who fear being challenged in primaries by Tea Partiers. The House passed Rep. Paul Ryan’s model budget, which would slash both taxes and government and turn Medicare into a voucher program. Policy merits (or de-merits) aside, it’s awful politics. Republicans turned the debt ceiling debate into a debacle, and are now blocking an extension of the reduced payroll tax on working Americans to protect low rates on–really–millionaires.

Tea Party enthusiasts are still disappointed. Others are scared. And the Republicans need a presidential candidate to beat Barack Obama. Without discussing intelligence and integrity at this point, candidates for the Republican nomination have created the weakest field of hopefuls in my opinion in either party for generations.

The party out of power wants to nominate a presidential candidate who can win elections, and has demonstrated that ability in the past, preferably by winning big elections. Practically, this means governors and senators, preferably from large and/or swing states. Among the top tier of candidates, only Mitt Romney (Massachusetts) and........ Rick Perry (Texas), yes Rick Perry qualify on this front, and Governor Perry has disappointed as a campaigner so you can almost stick a fork in him. Ex-Governor & Ex--U.S. Ambassador Jon Huntsman (Utah) have generated minimal support, but he out of all the GOP candidates is the most well-positioned to take on President Obama & win because he doesn't come off as a scary, or a loon or too hardcore for voters who are independent/moderate.

Meanwhile, the rest of the field has included Herman Cain, a radio host who could have surprised political pols had not been for the various women who came out against him who alleged he had either sexual harassed them or affairs with them, former Senator Rick Santorum, who had been at the bottom of the barrel has found new life in a new polls showing him surging with the Iowa Caucuses only 5 days away, & two sitting members of the House, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul), and a former Speaker of the House Newton "Newt" Gingrich who was forced to resign in disgrace by his own party more than a decade ago & someone who I said could give Obama a run for his money if he somehow makes it to the general election.

The Tea Party mobilization within the Republican Party scared off or silenced many establishment Republicans, and nourished several weak and improbable candidates. It has also moved the entire debate far to the right, with candidates trying to cultivate the enthusiasm demonstrated by Tea Partiers.

Because he started organizing and fundraising early, and because he has been willing to pander to the Tea Party, Governor Romney has survived all of this, but left little space and money for anyone else from the party establishment. Romney has been unable to increase his support, and thus far, no one else has been able to topple him.

While journalists and political junkies may fantasize about the excitement of a brokered convention, it’s likely that one of the candidates still in the field will win the nomination through the primary process. If it’s Governor Romney, he will be a less than inspiring choice for the Tea Partiers and some evangelicals at the Republican base, but he will have made enough pandering statements to them to fill the ads of his Democratic opponents.

Any of the other Republican candidates would be substantially weaker in a general election. Either way, the Tea Party has had the perverse effect of helping the electoral prospects of its prime target.

Are there some similarities betwen the Tea Party Movement & the (JBS) John Birch Society?

There are some similarities to the John Birch Society & some of the Tea Party Movements across the U.S.

The favorite lines used by Tea Partiers are: bring about less government, more responsibility, and —Preserving Individual Rights Restoring the Constitution.


Nothing wrong with that! I agree with those notions.




In its weekly webcast, John Birch Society CEO Arthur R. Thompson came to the defense of Rand Paul, (who won the Kentucky GOP primary running as thre Tea Party candidate, defeating establishment candidate Trey Grayson), and issued a rambling condemnation of government "forcing" integration (although to soften this position, he similarly condemned "forced segregation," apparently referring to Jim Crow laws). "When you have government involved in this process, it can really lead to serious problems," he said. Government, he continued, shouldn't be involved in forcing people on some things, it's always been the official position of the John Birch Society that forced segregation is wrong, but forced integration by government is equally wrong. And that's just the way it is. It's called freedom. Now there will always be inequities in freedom."


Barry Goldwater main plank in his platform of 1864 was opposition to Civil Rights, although he helped led integration as a City Councilman in 1949 in Arizona (Phoenix).

FYI: Goldwater broadly opposed strong action by the federal government. Although he had supported all previous federal civil rights legislation, Goldwater made the decision to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964. His stance was based on his view that the act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of states and, second, that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do business, or not, with whomever they chose.



OKAY!!!!!



Now let me say that the Tea Party movement is not influeced by the Ultra-Conservative Right-Wing Group John Birch Society in any way, but its hard not to say that it has adopted some of their principles.

The John Birch Society became active and many grassroots members attached themselves strongly to the national political figure they saw as an agent for change, Republican Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona.

The Tea Party Movement have done the exact same thing. It is a movement madeup of strong grassroots members who have attached themselves to the likes of former Vice-Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin, who is seen by some as the defacto leader of the movement.

Could Rand Paul be another bellwether figure slated for trouble for his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act? While he can argue, as did Goldwater, that his opposition stemmed from deeply grounded constitutional principles, and it is known that Paul's views reside within libertarianism, the ultimate question is how these positions play out in an aggressive activist front.


Like Civil Rights was the main culprit for the society, the "so-called" government takeover of our Healthcare System, you can say is the main culprit that elevated the Tea Party movement to where it is today.

Like the 60s in which a strong ideological battle emerged between Goldwater & his far-right allies,against major senatorial figures from his own party at the time, there is one now between Tea Party Grassroots & the establishment GOP, ( Marco Rubio, Tea Party candidate) & (Charlie Christ, etsablishment GOP pick) down in Florida & of course Kentucky's Rand Paul against Trey Grayson serves as examples.


But are there similarities to the Tea Party & John Birch Society? Me personally I don't think so, but according to some there are,for example:

Terms used against President Obama like Communist, Socialist, claims of wealth redistribution, fascism.

It is becoming fashionable to argue that the Tea Partiers are the heirs of the John Birch Society. The tea party leaders disavow any racist appeals from their ranks. But historically, whether it was the JBS or Goldwater, the radical right has often had a soft spot for bigots."

The Tea Party movement entered the nation's consciousness during the past year with sizable and at times very angry public demonstrations. The Tea Party is a movement with no clear leadership and no centralized structure. Not everyone flocking to the Tea Party movement is worried about dictatorship. Some have a basic aversion to big government, or Mr. Obama, or progressives in general. What's more, some Tea Party groups are essentially appendages of the local Republican Party. But most are not."

Leaders are often people with no political experience, but they "tell strikingly similar stories of having been awakened by the recession. Their families upended by lost jobs, foreclosed homes and depleted retirement funds, they said they wanted to know why it happened and whom to blame.

The motto of the Tea Party Patriots, a large coalition of groups, is fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.


Here's my Opinion:



The focus is also strategic: leaders think they can attract independent voters if they stay away from divisive issues. Raising social issues, risks fracturing the strength it has built. Some people at Tea Party gatherings say they want to eliminate the federal income tax, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, government programs that keep millions of people out of poverty and enable them to get needed healthcare. On these issues, Tea Partiers are on the far right.



Why do some in the Tea Party oppose the federal income tax? Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid? If you don't know, how might you find out?

What specific government actions fuel anger and resentment among Tea Party members?

What leads them to conclude that the US government has become tyrannical?



Hmmmm...........



The JBS main for was communism, the Tea Party's is Socialism.

The JBS main foe was Civil Rights, the Tea Partymain foe was Healthcare Reform

They all are in line when it comes to welfare, abolishing the Federal Reserve, limiting the powers of government, etc.

So you be the judge, are they similar or what?

Oklahoma Tea parties and lawmakers Envision Militia

Yahoo News Reports:

Okla. tea parties and lawmakers envision militiaTea party movement leaders say they've discussed the idea with several supportive lawmakers and hope to get legislation next year to recognize a new volunteer force.

Continue to read :

Tea Party Militia

I hope Lawmakers here don't do something as ridiculous as this. Oklahoma has got to be the most conservative state in America.