The second wave of the American electorate’s ire came on Nov. 2 – the first being the protests engineered by the then much maligned TEA Party movement. This second wave, the one that actually showed TEA party’s poltiical fangs that others scoffed at and called "extremist" was about one thing: a too big of a Government that didn’t know its bounds and spent too much of money that wasn’t / isn’t their’s.
The consent of the governed was being withdrawn.
Surely, the aim was on the fiscal side of the ledger, but with the machinations and final passage of Obamacare with its Individual Mandate, the emphasis now includes a huge helping of "How DARE you tell me how to live my life". Ya think they listened to us in DC?
No; I blogged about the federalization of the Lunch Ladies, where Michelle Obama’s stand out line was:
We can’t just leave it up to the parents.
Implicit in that piece of legislation is that the Dept. Of Agriculture has been tasked with writing even MORE regulations about what your kids can and cannot eat. Bake sales? Ha! Kiss those cupcakes and Toll House cookies goodbye!
Look, I’m not happy that we’ve got chubby children – but who owns the responsibility for that? Society? Government? The Schools? Any one except for the Parents? It seems that Progressives, the Political Class, are fine with any of those options. They DO believe that we, as individuals, are incapable of caring for ourselves – we have to be directed.
Well, Sarah Palin (Republican), I think, sent the message during her TLC Alaska show when making the s’mores that most of us liked: this is our responsibility – not the Government’s.
Enter former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (Republican)…
One of the knocks against him during the last Primary is that he had no problem with using the force of Government in carrying out his beliefs. So, did he take the election results seriously (e.g., "hands off!") or does he stay with his inner big government leanings? From the Washington Examiner:
“Michelle Obama’s not trying to tell people what to eat or not trying to force the government’s desires on people,” Huckabee said. “She’s stating the obvious, that we do have an obesity problem in this country.”
He added: “The first lady’s campaign is on target.”
Well, Huck is wrong – she is in full Nanny State roar nag if you read the legislation (or even a summary) – it does lay out what is permissible and what is not. The larger problem, however, is NOT that he is misquoting her or didn’t read the legislation (he is and obviously, he didn’t). Well, the Examiner goes one step further – and quotes his book "From Hope to Higher Ground":
…History shows that we can, in fact, help Americans to change, not by force-feeding them government restrictions or requirements but by first changing the attitudes and atmosphere in which we live. Eventually, having shifted public opinion, we can solidify the attitude and atmospheric changes with government actions that define the will of the majority.
Right. Why should Government be changing people? Why is it acceptable for Government to drop down to stealth mode (effectively) so as to accomplish an end point that some "leader" decides is best for them? Is that what the Founders meant by a limited government? Instead of letting people live their lives the way they want to, Huckabee is perfectly fine, if left at the power end of the levers of Government, to use Government to his own ends and purposes.
So, given that, how is that different than what Progressives believe, saying, and are doing in passing legislation?
I’ve got one of those as my President right now. Do I want another one telling me what I have to do, even if that one has an R next to their name?
