For the Tea Party’s Joe Miller, Honesty is Not a Principle To Stand On

It’s ironic, but when I debate back and forth across today’s political divide, the one thing that members of the Tea Party Movement consistently love to point out is that their candidates stand or fall on principles. Thus it is alleged that the movement’s quasi-heroic candidates prefer to go down to defeat rather than compromise or deviate from those very deeply held, almost solemnly enumerated principles. Well for one Tea Party star in particular, Alaska’s Joe Miller, the principle of honesty seems to be missing from his litany of deeply held, immutable beliefs. You see Miller, as per recently released records was: “disciplined for using three co-workers’ computers for political purposes and initially lying about it when he worked as a part-time lawyer for the Fairbanks North Star Borough in 2008” And what was the purpose of this unauthorized use of other people’s workstations? Nothing less than an attempt to influence an online opinion poll for the Alaska State Republican Party Chairmanship. Miller eventually admitted, “he was using the computers to vote with “different URLs” in an online poll about the state’s Republican Party chairman, Randy Ruedrich, whom Mr. Miller wanted removed. Mr. Miller cleared Internet cache files from each of the computers. He also used his own computer to participate in the poll and then cleared his cache. After initially lying about the computer use, he eventually admitted to it in a letter to his supervisor, Rene Broker, the lead borough attorney.” Joe Miller eventually resigned from his position at the Boro in the wake of disciplinary action, but only after denying the charges while having deleted years of e-mail that would have included public records.

While we’re on the topic of Joe Miller, how about his hypocritical stance on the constitutionality of unemployment insurance. Miller believes that there are no enumerated powers within the Constitution that provide for this benefit. From his interview on Fox News:”Why are unemployment benefits unconstitutional?” asked Fox News’ Chris Wallace? “The Constitution provides enumerated powers, answered Miller. I guess my challenge is to anybody that asks, show me the enumerated power. And then look at the 10th amendment that says if it’s not done in the Constitution, it’s a power that belongs to the state and the people…When pressed on what he would do for the poor if elected, Miller struggled to provide details.” However, the controversy does not end there. If Miller has such an aversion to the social benefit that is unemployment insurance than why did he abide his wife’s reciept of unemployment compensation after she lost her job for violating nepotism rules?

Another area of federal spending that Miller publicly opposes is farm subsidies. But privately he was more than happy to be a recipient of the very benefits that he is now opposes. How you say? Well as it turns out Miller had received an agricultural subsidy on farmland he once owned in Kansas. Yet, true to form as with the situation surrounding his unauthorized computer use, Miller tried to dance around the farm subsidy issue until he gave up and came clean on this as well. To wit: “Until Monday night, the campaign had also dodged questions as to whether Miller had received federal farm subsidies for land in Kansas, where he once lived. After Alaska Dispatch received Miller’s farm subsidy records under the Freedom of Information Act and told the Miller campaign about them on Monday, Miller’s staff confirmed he received federal payments for 140 acres of cropland he owned in Kansas between 1990 and 1998. Like the vast majority of farmers in that region, Joe received payment from the USDA in exchange for managing his crops according to government standards,” said campaign spokesman Randy DeSoto in an e-mail Monday night.”

So, once again, what are the voters supposed to believe? They consistently hear Tea Party candidates preaching the virtues of fiscal rectitude, personal responsibility, smaller government, low taxes, ad infinitum while some of these same candidates are engaging in or have engaged in the very behaviours and activities that they so routinely oppose in their rhetoric. Miller is not the first member of the Tea Party Movement, nor is he likely the last, to be swept up in this type of controversy. The question that begs asking now is how many more of these revelations are going to surface after next Tuesday and then what are all of those who worked so hard for the movement supposed to do when they are stuck with having elected these political charlatans who where supposed to help them take their country back and make it a better place? We’ve already seen charges of hypocrisy levelled at Sharron Angle and Michele Bachmann related to their positions on government provided health care and their own families benefiting from these programs. That said, who should be surprised by the fact that Joe Miller is now revealed to be a serial hypocrite? The only remaining questions are who will be the next Tea Party personality found to be in the same quandary and just how many of these ticking time bombs presently exist within the movement? 

Steven J. Gulitti

10/27/10

Sources:

Alaska Senate Candidate Once Disciplined for Computer Misuse; http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/27/alaska-senate-candidate-once-disciplined-for-computer-misuse/?scp=2&sq=Joe%20Miller&st=cse

Joe Miller maintains unemployment benefits are unconstitutional; http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/joe-miller-maintains-unemployment-benefits-a

Joe Miller’s Wife Collected Unemployment Benefits; http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20018660-503544.html

Alaska’s Joe Miller states opposition to federal minimum wagehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101004/el_yblog_upshot/alaskas-joe-miller-states-opposition-to-federal-minimum-wage

Senate candidate Joe Miller admits taking farm subsidies; http://alaskadispatch.com/dispatches/politics/6880-alaska-senate-candidate-joe-miller-admits-taking-farm-subsidies

Joe Miller Admits Reaping Federal Farm Subsidies Despite Railing Against Taking Government Funds; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/21/joe-miller-admits-reaping_n_733717.html

The Health Care Hypocrisy of a Tea Party Candidate; http://open.salon.com/blog/steven_j_gulitti/2010/09/28/the_health_care_hypocrisy_of_a_tea_party_candidate

What Is the True Nature Of The Fox News Network?

The recent firing of Juan Williams by NPR for comments made on the Fox News and his affiliation with that network has created an interesting sidebar to this now all too familiar affair. The renewed scrutiny of NPR for its alleged liberal bias has resulted in an interesting byproduct. That byproduct is an increased level of attention now being paid to Fox, its parent the News Corp., and its wealthy conservative CEO, Rupert Murdoch.

The practice of allowing candidates to solicit campaign contributions while appearing on Fox News is a significant departure from what is generally considered television news broadcasting. Mr. Murdoch has abided this practice along with his own well-publicized million dollar contributions to Republican campaign organizations and other efforts to promote positions on the far right. That raises a fundamental question: Is Fox a legitimate news organization or has it morphed into something between a news organ and a political action operation even to the point of being considered a shill? A shill is defined as: “a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.” A political action committee is defined as:“a type of political committee organized to spend money for the election or defeat of a candidate.” Mr. Murdoch has a record of promoting conservative ideas no matter what the cost. He has continued to prop up the conservative “The New York Post” in spite of its staggering losses to the tune of between $15 million to $30 million. According to Business Week magazine: “The Post has lost so much money for so long that it would have folded years ago if News Corp. applied the same profit-making rigor to the tabloid as it does to its other businesses.” What then is the purpose of the continued support of a newspaper the commentary of which often resembles old-fashioned agitprop? There can only be one logical explanation and it’s because the Post represents Mr. Murdoch’s primary organ for presenting the conservative line in what is one of the bluest regions in the country and he is willing to spend whatever it takes to do so.

The argument that Fox News has become somewhat of a political operation is more than apparent when one examines the following evidence. Former Ohio Republican Congressman and now candidate for Governor, John Kasich, appearing during prime time on “Hannity” was given time to solicit campaign contributions while on the air saying:” If you have extra nickels or dimes, please send it our way.” According to Brian Stelter of the New York Times this is not the first time Kasich has used an appearance on Fox to raise money for his campaign. Quoting Stelter: “The channel was the subject of an election complaint in Ohio because Mr. Kasich was able to ask for money and display his Web site address during an interview in August on “The O’Reilly Factor,” Fox’s biggest prime time talk show. Mr. Kasich used to host a weekend show on Fox, and Mr. Murdoch has called him a friend.” Moreover Stelter points out that Fox employees have engaged in more direct political action both on and off the air: “Sometimes the most outspoken of the Fox hosts go out and raise money directly. Mr. Hannity has headlined several fund-raisers for Republicans this year. And just last week, Mr. Beck donated $10,000 to the U. S. Chamber of Commerce to defend it against criticism from President Obama — and challenged his radio listeners to donate as well.”  Beyond these various forms of political action is the fact that several likely candidates for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination are presently on the Fox payroll or regularly appear on the network, including Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich.

When you look across the political spectrum to Fox’s chief rivals: MSNBC, CNN and NPR you see several object lessons in how competing news organizations have different values. Political action at MSNBC, for example, is much more constrained, to the point that there is very little deviation from what could considered legitimate news reporting and commentary. Again quoting Stelter: “All this political activity has spurred at least a little bit of hand-wringing at the channels. NBC News, which operates MSNBC, recently reiterated its rule that employees may not engage in political activity, but said it had carved out an exception for some MSNBC hosts.” To date whatever exceptions exist at MSNBC, they are not even remotely close to the on the air solicitation of funds, public activities related to fund raising by network commentators or the employment of prospective presidential candidates on the network’s payroll which is presently the case at Fox. At NPR political activity of any variety is virtually nonexistent. In the final analysis what we have witnessed at Fox News is the evolution of a news organization into something beyond what is commonly considered political reporting and commentary into something short of a political action committee, a sort of quasi-political news organ if you will. That said shouldn’t the Fox News Network scrub the subtitle of “Fair and Balanced” from its headline banner seeing as it can no longer legitimately make that claim in light of the fundamental transformation that has taken place within the Fox organization?

Steven J. Gulitti

10/25/10

Sources:

Two Takes at NPR and Fox on Juan Williams; http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/business/media/22williams.html?_r=1

 

Candidates Running Against, and With, Cable News; http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/us/politics/24cable.html?emc=eta1

The New York Post: Profitless Paper In Relentless Pursuit;

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_08/b3921114_mz016.htm

Business and Rights Groups Are Growing Wary of the Tea Party

As I have said several times, to date, as we get closer to November 2nd, the hurdles that the Tea Party Movement must surmount just keep getting higher and more arduous. Since my last post on the topic two reports have come to the fore that support what I have been saying for the past month.
 
First, the popular business periodical, “Business Week”; just came out with an article entitled:”Why Business Doesn’t Trust the Tea Party”; To wit:  “The Tea Party’s small-government slogans may be appealing, but its policies could throw the U.S. economy into chaos”. This article has detailed the extent of discomfort and dismay within the business community that has resulted from the rise of the Tea Party Movement within the American body politic. In general the business community’s uneasiness with the Tea Party Movement can be summed up as follows: “It may sound like a corporate dream come true—as long as the corporation in question doesn’t have international operations, rely on immigrant labor, see the value of national monetary policy, or find itself in need of a subsidy to boost exports or an emergency loan from the Fed to survive the worst recession in seven decades. Business leaders who favor education reform, immigration reform, or investment in infrastructure can likely say goodbye to those ideas for the short term as well; they won’t be possible in the willfully gridlocked world of the coming 112th Congress.” Focusing on South Carolina in particular, where a Tea Party backed candidate has a good chance of winning and it’s Senator, Jim DeMint (R-SC) is a leading force in the movement, the local Chamber of Commerce had this to say:”For business leaders who prize pragmatism and stability, it was all too much… Chamber members, he says, tend to be more realistic and moderate in their thought processes. We prefer candidates who are not extreme. If you look at the Tea Party, I think most of them would say they hate Big Business.” To amplify the concerns of the business community in this key conservative state, consider the following: “As the South Carolina Chamber realized, the Tea Party’s seductive small-government principles are hitched to a train full of explosive cargo—from Alaska’s U.S. Senate candidate, Joe Miller, who suggested Social Security is unconstitutional, to Delaware’s U.S. Senate candidate, Christine O’Donnell, who has no relevant job experience…The Tea Party’s brand of political nitroglycerin, in short, is too unstable for businesses that look to government for predictability, moderation, and the creation of a stable economic environment. A lot of the agenda is being driven by the extremes…This kind of extremism makes it much harder to plan from a business perspective.”

Thus, from the perspective of the practical businessman or woman, the Tea Party Movement may espouse pro-business ideas in theory, but in practice, the movement may be as much an obstacle to economic expansion and rejuvenation as anything that might emanate from the left side of the political spectrum. That is to say, that in the minds of today’s business professionals the ideas currently espoused by the Tea Party Movement are most likely to be of little use now. That said, these business professionals find little to rejoice over when they actually get down to the nuts and bolts of  the Tea Party’s ideology and how it relates to the practical aspects of running an economic enterprise. The bottom line for these business people is that the Tea Party Movement is a losing proposition, a bum deal no matter how you slice it. The leading luminaries of the Tea Party Movement either don’t understand the business environment or if they do, they have jettisoned that knowledge for the sake of a political purity that has little practical application in the economic realities of today’s America.

The next potential blockbuster, as reported on today’s “Meet the Press” which will hit this coming week, is a report by the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights and the NAACP that again, raises questions about the degree to which the Tea Party Movement can be considered an engine of racial discord in America. This report, entitled: “Tea Party Nationalism”, lays out the following conclusions: “The result of this study contravenes many of the Tea Parties’ self-invented myths, particularly their sole concentration on budget deficits, taxes, and the power of the federal government.  Instead, this report found Tea Party ranks to be permeated with concerns about race and national identity and other so-called social issues…Tea Party organization have given platforms to anti-Semites, racists and bigots, Further, hard-core white nationalists have been attracted to these protests, looking for potential recruits and hoping to push these (white) protestors toward a more self-conscious and ideological white supremacy.” In fairness to the amorphous Tea Party Movement, many of it’s subset organizations have been quick to distance themselves from any and all forms of blatant racism and bigotry, but the labels associated with these now discredited and antiquated forms of social behavior have regrettably continued to dog the movement.

Thus as we get closer to the mid-term elections of 2010, the more the questions surrounding the Tea Party Movement come to the surface and they seem to be coming  with increased velocity. The politically astute can only ask one question: “As the questions surrounding the viability of the Tea Party Movement continue to mount, to what extent can the average citizen feel comfortable throwing his lot in with this, as yet, undefined and controversial movement?”  A corollary question also comes to the fore: “In an age of globalization and increased economic competition, are the interests of the American people best served by a movement that is so loosely defined and as of yet so unsettled, which contains such a large element of political amateurs in it’s electoral slate?

 

Steven J. Gulitti

10/17/10

Sources:

Business Week: :”Why Business Doesn’t Trust the Tea:  The Tea Party’s small-government slogans may be appealing, but its policies could throw the U.S. economy into chaos”;http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_43/b4200066170117.htm

 Meet the Press: Sunday, October 17, 2010;  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39674828/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts

For Tea Party Candidates, the Stumbles, and Fumbles Continue

As November 2^nd draws nearer, it seems that the stumbles and fumbles of key Tea Party candidates just keep on coming. This has given rise to ever more questions about the fitness and viability of some of the leading candidates for public office running beneath the Tea Party banner.

Not to lean too heavily on the much maligned Christine O’Donnell, but when a candidate for a seat in the U.S. Senate can’t name one recent Supreme Court decision that she disagrees with, one can only roll one’s eyes so many times before one has to dismiss this woman’s candidacy altogether for the farce that it obviously is. Covering O’Donnell’s debate with Chris Coons for Politico, David Catanese made the following observation: “She also failed to name a recent Supreme Court decision she agreed with — a moment reminiscent of the infamous question that tripped up Sarah Palin during her interview with CBS anchor Katie Couric. O’Donnell paused for a few seconds before telling the questioners she would get back to them and “put it up on my website.” Catanese went on to observe that: “Wednesday night’s nationally televised Delaware Senate debate showcased Christine O’Donnell’s great strength — as a feisty tea party upstart exuding personal charisma, as well as her primary weakness — as a flawed candidate carrying a heap of baggage who at times appeared out of her depths on substantive policy questions.” So let me get this straight, Ms. O’Donnell wants to take a moment or two to “research” her favorite Supreme Court decisions and then she will “get back to us”. Are we really supposed to take this candidate seriously or is this someone’s idea of a spoof? Beyond that Ms. O’Donnell seems to be confused as to who is actually charged with judicial review under our system of checks and balances, saying: “when I go to Washington, D.C., the litmus test by which I cast my vote for every piece of legislation that comes across my desk will be whether or not it is constitutional.” Funny, but isn’t that the job of the Supreme Court?

Next is the apparent waffling or misinterpretation of Rand Paul’s position on taxes. Three days ago, Paul stated to The American’s for Fair Taxation: “The federal tax code is a disaster no one would come up with if we were starting from scratch. I support making taxes flatter and simpler. I would vote for the Fair Tax to get rid of the 16th Amendment, the IRS and a lot of the control the federal government exerts over us.” Yet today, Paul’s Campaign Manager, Jesse Benton, hit the airwaves saying said that this representation of the candidates tax views was:” the result of an “overzealous” anti-tax advocate who misstated Paul’s position when he quoted the candidate.” But according to the Louisville Courier-Journal: “Over the past few days, Paul has distanced himself from the Fair Tax despite mounting evidence that he has, indeed, voiced support for the plan.” Okay so what are the voters supposed to believe? Rand Paul was for the Fair Tax before he was against it? If so why the flip-flop? Where does the candidate actually stand on this issue and what are the voters supposed to base their decision on, that he favors a national sales tax of 23%, the so called fair tax, or he does not?

Finally there is New York’s Tea Party candidate for governor, Carl Paladino, who veteran conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer called the “most suicidal candidate” in the 2010 election cycle. In an article that appeared in today’s Washington Post, “Your pre-election post-mortem” Krauthammer opined: “Carl Paladino is running in a deep-blue state with sky-high taxes, yawning deficits and rampant corruption. The last elected Democratic governor resigned in disgrace, and his successor is so tainted that he dare not run for another term. So, what does Kamikaze Carl proceed to do? Get in an angry shouting match with a reporter. Level some odd insinuation about his opponent’s “prowess.” Figuring he hasn’t veered off-message enough, he then expounds on homosexuality — and spends three days having to explain and reaffirm, before the inevitable apology. He’s down by 19 points.” Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, Paladino seems to have done just that with both barrels blazing.

So what is the rank and file Tea Partier to do? If you live in Delaware, Kentucky or New York how can you bring yourself to vote for candidates who either don’t understand the process of judicial review, whether or not they actually support a national sales tax or what their actual message is? Isn’t the Tea Party supposed to represent an alternative to business as usual? If this is what three of the major contenders under the Tea Party banner represent, in terms of policy and perspective, are we any better off with candidates of this caliber or will they likely guarantee more ineffective government due to their inexperience, lack of depth and inability to articulate what actually is their position on a given issue? These are serious questions that every voter must ask before they can vote for any of the above candidates with any degree of comfort or confidence.

Steven J. Gulitti

10/15/10

Sources: 

O’Donnell Mangles The Constitution, Can’t Name One Recent Court Decision She Disagrees With; http://www.wikio.com/video/christine-donnell-botches-questions-supreme-constitution-4301917

Christine O’Donnell goes deep debating ChrisCoons;http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43579_Page2.html#ixzz12TywYIvH

Decoding Christine O’Donnell; http://www.slate.com/id/2268261/entry/2268304

“Overzealous” anti-tax advocate misstated Rand Paul’s position on national sales tax, campaign says; http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20101015/NEWS01/310150097

Rand Paul campaign denies FairTax support; http://www.kentucky.com/2010/10/15/1481222/apnewsbreak-paul-campaign-denies.html

Your pre-election post-mortem; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/14/AR2010101405234.html

Who Is Desperate, Progressives or Sharron Angle?

I recently pointed out in two articles that I wrote, referenced below, that several Tea Party backed candidates are presently running into some strong headwinds as Election Day approaches. Some have tried to dismiss these facts as “progressive desperation”. However, for one candidate in particular, Nevada’s Sharron Angle, there seems to be some serious desperation within her own campaign. In fact that desperation became so evident that she tried to get a Tea Party fellow traveler to drop out of the race so she could “win.” Well that just begs the question: If Angle is such a strong candidate and the Tea Party behind her is so much a force to be reckoned with, then why the need to desperately plead with Scott Ashjian to drop out of the race?

 In a meeting held with Nevada Tea Party Chairman Sid James and other movement operatives, Angle tried to make a deal with Ashjian to drop out in order to give her a chance to win. The Party chairman showed a fair degree of desperation himself when he abandoned his support of Ashjian, insisting that Angle will lose unless he withdraws and that there was still time to get his name off the ballot. Angle herself went on to promise just about everything but the Moon, Sun and the Stars to get Ashjian to quit the race. Angle was quoted on tape as saying: “I believe you (Ashjian) can do some real harm, not to Harry Reid but to me…I’m not sure you can win and I’m not sure I can win if you’re hurting my chance and that’s the part that scares me.” She went on to say:” Says the grass roots movement “gives me juice. That’s really all I can offer to you (Ashjian) is whatever juice I have, you have as well…” 

So there you have it, in the case of Sharron Angle there is no need for “progressive desperation” as there seems to be more than enough of it within the Angle camp. Perhaps this is what was behind the recent major flip flop on Ms. Angle’s previous positions on privatizing Social Security and her attitude that unemployment compensation was akin to welfare. Then again, with her race with Harry Reid being a statistical dead heat, there is reason enough for her to be so desperate in trying to get Scott Ashjian out of the race and likewise there is no cause for any desperation on the part of the progressive electorate. As of today, RealClear Politics’ average of all polls shows a 0.2-point spread in favor of Harry Reid. I guess that’s enough to make any politician desperate with November 2^nd just over the horizon.  

Steven J. Gulitti
10/13/10     

Sources:

Controversy Continues for Tea Party Candidates

Bent Angle, Sharron Angle’s Major Flip Flop.

All is not well in Sharron Angle Land;
http://www.politicalbyline.com/2010/10/04/all-is-not-well-in-sharron-angle-land/

 Tea Party of Nevada chairman quits after Sharron Angle tape flap; http://www.rgj.com/article/20101006/NEWS19/10060434/1321/news

Nevada Senate – Angle vs. Reid,http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/nv/nevada_senate_angle_vs_reid-1517.html

Bent Angle, Sharron Angle’s Major Flip Flop

Tea Party darling, Sharron Angle has apparently decided that politics as usual suits her better than sticking to her previously held Tea Party Movement principles. In an development that has been reported on both the left and the right, Angle has abandoned her previous positions on privatizing both Social Security and the Veterans Administration. Likewise, her attitude that unemployment insurance is welfare has been abondoned for the latest spin du jour. Think I’m putting you on? Well here it is from the conservative organ NewsMax:” In a dramatic shift, Republican U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle said Saturday she wouldn’t work to privatize Veterans Affairs, dismantle Social Security or dismiss unemployment benefits as welfare… Angle on Saturday denied she had called for the end of the VA…In another slight change Saturday, Angle said of unemployment: “We pay into it, so in some respects, it is an insurance policy that we bought into with our paychecks.” She described it previously as a “system of entitlement.”
 
At the same time, another prominent Nevada Republican has decided against Angle and thrown her support to Harry Reid. As reported in yesterday’s New York Times: “Harry Reid can now boast a second Republican feather in his cap, of sorts. Less than 24-hours after earning the endorsement of Bill Raggio, a highly influential Republican and Nevada state senator, the Senate majority leader on Friday  landed the support of Dema Guinn, the wife of the former governor who died unexpectedly this year.”
 
All of this fits into what I have said in previous posts and that is, that as we get closer to November 2nd, the scrutiny put on the Tea Party Candidates will cause people to have serious second doubts about their positions and the viability of those candidates if they are actually elected. Secondly, that many of the movements leading contenders are nothing more than professional politicians in Tea Party clothing who have jumped on the wave of voter discontent so as to get themselves elected.
 
Steve Gulitti
10/10/10
 
 
Sources: 
 
Nevada’s Angle Recasts Position on Public Benefits; http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/USNevadaSenateAngle/2010/10/10/id/373156

Sharron Angle, on second thought, changes her mind on some things; http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/10/sharron-angle-nevada-senate.html
 
Reid Receives Two G.O.P. Endorsements; http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/an-unlikely-endorsement-for-reid/

Controversy Continues for Tea Party Candidates

A funny thing seems to be happening, as we get closer to November 2^nd, the level of controversy surrounding the candidacy of several prominent Tea Party candidates seems to be either emerging or increasing. The list spans a who’s who of some of the most prominent Tea Party candidates now running on the platform of bringing meaningful change to American politics.

First there’s Rick Scott running for Governor in Florida. Scott has been a vociferous opponent of health care reform, having spent millions to oppose reform. However, his former  company was the beneficiary of Medicare and Medicaid monies totally in the millions if not billions. In fact even the conservative magazine “The American Spectator” called Scott’s company’s actions into question: “ His business record is also likely to draw fire. Scott was pushed out from Columbia/HCA in 1997 in the midst of a fraud investigation that led to a $1.7 billion settlement on charges that the company overbilled state and federal health care programs. While he was never charged with any wrongdoing himself, Scott was the head of the company – and thus the situation will garner more scrutiny now that he’s a political candidate.” Then there is an amplifying article that appeared a month later in the Florida paper; The Sun Sentinel, by Sally Kestin: “Rick Scott, who ran a company involved in the nation’s largest Medicare fraud case, wants to be Florida’s governor…Rick Scott was co-founder and CEO of Columbia/HCA in the 1990s, when the FBI launched a massive, multi-state investigation that led to the company pleading guilty to criminal charges of overbilling the government….Scott considers himself a health care pioneer who significantly cut costs and improved patient care. But his decision to enter the race and his explanation of what occurred at Columbia/HCA is rankling some of those familiar with the fraud scandal.”

Next there is Rand Paul, who has called for restraint in health care spending so long as it does not go so far as to impact his own income. Paul’s hypocrisy is so obvious that even the Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal could not bear to ignore this fact and reported on it in a mid-May article appearing in it’s Washington Wire: “Tea Party favorite Rand Paul has rocketed to the lead ahead of Tuesday’s Republican Senate primary here on a resolute pledge to balance the federal budget and slash the size of government. But on Thursday evening, the ophthalmologist from Bowling Green said there was one thing he would not cut: Medicare physician payments In fact, Paul — who says 50% of his patients are on Medicare — wants to end cuts to physician payments under a program now in place called the sustained growth rate, or SGR. “Physicians should be allowed to make a comfortable living,” he told a gathering of neighbors in the back yard of Chris and Linda Wakild, just behind the 10th hole of a golf course.” So there you have it, doctors are free to run on reforming federal spending so long as their income stream is held harmless. Well if that does not sound a bit hypocritical then what does?

Next on the hit parade of hypocrisy is New York’s Gubernatorial candidate, Carl Paladino whom Greg Smith of the New York Daily News says has grown rich thanks to government handouts and favors. According to Smith’s research: “In a last-minute bid to keep that lucrative government subsidy, records show he overstated the worth of the company that got the break by including properties he’d already sold off. The millionaire Buffalo businessman, who last week became his party’s candidate for governor, has shaped much of his Tea Party message by railing against government spending and vowing Draconian bureaucratic bloodletting. At the same time, he’s received millions of dollars in tax breaks over the years, mostly as payback for investing in distressed properties in and around his native Buffalo, where manufacturing jobs have disappeared and the economy has long been in a free fall.” Thus what we have in New York State is a Tea Party candidate who seems to have filled his pockets at the public trough but who has now “seen the light” on the excesses of government spending and wants to end it, that is, after he more than got his fill from that very trough.

In addition to these issues, the trials and tribulations of Senate candidate Sharron Angle just seem to keep on coming. Today it was reported that Republican Nevada State Senator Bill Raggio has done something he has never done before, endorsed a Democrat. Raggio is throwing his support behind the embattled incumbent, Harry Reid (D-NV) due to what he considers Angle’s glaring shortcomings as a state level politico. In Raggio’s own words:  “What is difficult to overlook is her record of being totally ineffective as a four-term assemblywomen, her inability or unwillingness to work with others, even within her own party, and her extreme positions on issues such as Medicare, social security, education, veterans affairs and many others,” Raggio said of Angle…He also challenged his Republican colleagues who have lined up behind Angle’s campaign.”Some supporters tell me we need to support her because we need her vote in the U.S. Senate as a Republican and she ‘can’t do much harm as a junior back bencher,'” said Raggio. “Since when should this be the criteria on how we select and vote for a U.S. Senator to represent our State?”

So what are the voters to believe and how are they to vote for the likes of Paladino, Paul, Scott and Angle among others come election day. Isn’t the Tea Party Movement supposed to represent some sort of catharsis in American politics, a movement to cleanse the system of rot and decay? Is it not supposed to be a citizens revolt against business and politcs as usual, both in Washington and at the state and local level? If so, how is it that individuals of such questionable qualities and backgrounds became some of it’s leading candidates? Has the movement been hijacked by the very political slicksters that it’s supposed to oppose? Are these accomplished political operatives and savy businessmen  in the process of taking the rank and file Tea Partiers for the political ride of their lives? Have professional politicians on the right jumped on the bandwagon of reform and revolt all the while hoping to just harness this energy for their own political ends? Or is it the case that the aforementioned candidates, like Paul of Tarsus, have “seen the light” on their own personal road to Damascus. Are they like Constantine at the Battle of Milivan Bridge who looked into the sky, saw a cross, and then went on to win the battle and spread Christianity, the new and revolutionary religon,across the Roman Empire? My educated guess is that it’s the former not the latter.

Steven J. Gulitti

10/8/10

Sources:

“Obamacare Opponent Rick Scott Launches Bid for Governor of Florida”; http://spectator.org/blog/2010/04/13/obamacare-opponent-rick-scott

“Rick Scott, who ran a company involved in the nation’s largest Medicare fraud case, wants to be Florida’s governor”; http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-05-20/news/fl-rick-scott-governor-hca-20100520_1_medicare-fraud-case-hospitals-in-el-paso-hospital-giant-columbia

“WSJ: Washington Wire; May 14, 2010, 9:22 AM ET Rand Paul: Cut Spending But Not Medicare Doctor Payments”; http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/05/14/rand-paul-cut-spending-but-not-medicare-doctor-payments/

Tea Party-backed GOP governor hopeful Carl Paladino fighting for $1.4 million tax break
: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/09/20/2010-09-20_huge_tax_break_fits_carl_to_a_tea_big_govt_foe_fights_for_14m_windfall.html#ixzz11ouPpyw6:

Top Nevada Republican Endorses Harry Reid, Slams Sharron Angle; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/07/bill-raggio-endorses-harry-reid-slams-angle_n_755109.html?ref=email_share

Today’s O’Donnell Farce du Jour, “I’m You!, Really?

The latest television ad for Tea Party backed Senatorial candidate, Christine O’Donnell starts with the candidate stating: “I’m not a witch, I’m you.” Oh yeah, hardly. Does Christine O’Donnell actually think that most people have a track record like hers and with that could actually be elected a U.S. Senator? Do most of us have a track record like hers:

* A twenty year gap between attending a cap and gown ceremony and actually receiving a degree.

* Annual earnings of $5,800.00 twenty years after graduating college.

*  Defaulting on a mortgage and at the same time proffering oneself as someone who could effectively manage public finances.

* Fibbing about one’s electoral record even in light of the fact one never got elected.

* Running for office as a fiscally responsible conservative after having a IRS lien for $11,744 in back taxes and penalties from 2005.

* Claiming that: “that scientists were “cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains.”

Is that just like you? Well if it is then you should not be running for public office either.

Steven J. Gulitti

10/5/10