I guess you weren't watching the same Tea Party Convention coverage that I was on C-Span. I thought there was a good deal of rage expressed at both parties and "government as usual" at it. Especially coming from the guy who's the head of the Tea Party movement in South Carolina. He didn't spare his contempt for both parties and the Bush Admin. too. I thought the Convention did a pretty good job of leveling the rage and scorn at the Washington-business-as-usual scene.

I don't follow your reasoning here. The whole idea of the Tea Party movement is to restore Conservative values and strict adherence to the Constitution within the government establishment. No?

I can't speak for "Democrats" in general, but this Democrat isn't interested in taking the country in that direction. I don't see it as a solution to the country's problems. What am I missing here?

Ok, I get it. Right now I think the groundswell of disgust you're talking about is epitomized by the Tea Party movement. They are certainly disgusted. They would like to see a sea-change in the way government business is conducted. Get rid of the sleezey backroom deals and the vote-buying. No one objects to that noble principle. Everyone wants to clean up corruption in government. The way you go about it is the sticking point, I think.

Since that is the way business is currently conducted in Washington, the Dems. aren't strongly motivated to change the process right now since they are in the majority. They would stand to gain nothing and lose a whole lot I think you would agree. It would certainly render them powerless and their current majority would be meaningless. I can see why the Tea Party conservatives think it's a great idea (now!). It would definitely deep-six the Democrat's agenda.

If and when the Pubs gain control of both Houses of Congress and the Presidency, I'm sure there will be lots of "Tea Party" Dems scrambling around and forming their own protest movements screaming about sleezey backroom deals and corruption in government and vote-buying. Politics as usual... And so it goes...

I agree. But as I've said before, I think with the level of partisanship that's currently in vogue in both Washington and the rest of the country, nothing will change. I've never in my lifetime seen such vitriol. It is influencing how everyone thinks, sadly. It's too bad, but there you have it.

Libby wrote, "I don't follow your reasoning here. The whole idea of the Tea Party movement is to restore Conservative values and strict adherence to the Constitution within the government establishment. No?

I can't speak for "Democrats" in general, but this Democrat isn't interested in taking the country in that direction. I don't see it as a solution to the country's problems. What am I missing here?"

And with those words summed up everything that is wrong with the Democratic party.

That is why their ideas should be slapped down in every courtroom across the land. The scary part about these times is that we can no longer depend on the courts to adhere strictly to the constitutionality of a dispute.

And as I have said many times, thank God for the foresight of the Founding Fathers who understood the concept of the Constitution being a living document and not something similar to the stone tablets of The Ten Commandments.

Libby,

I need some references to back your claim that the Founding Fathers intended the constitution to be a "living document" or was otherwise intended to be tampered with on a regular basis. Until then, I'm going to have to believe you misunderstood ALL your history and civics teachers.

EW: I plead guilty as charged. If I abandon my belief that the Constitution was meant to be questioned and that it was meant to be flexible enough to apply to conditions 200+ years after it was penned, then I am left with your belief. Which [if I may be so bold] is:

The Constitution is a perfect document just as it is written. It needs no interpretation despite changing times and circumstances. What worked 200+ years ago for approx. 3 million people living in primitive circumstances and with very different cultural norms that hardly resemble the way the 300 million plus people living in today's America is still relevant. What worked then works just as well now and forevermore. All we need to do is convince today's society that that is the way they should [have to] live. Nothing has changed. You just have to conform to that "perfect" model: [aka] "The Ten Commandments". I reject that belief.

One reason I do is because although the Constitution provides for a way to ammend it, the process isn't efficient or applicable in today's real world. In 1787 if the document took months or years to be modified that was the norm. It fit perfectly with the pace of life then. In the 21st century that's an unacceptable formula. IMO. And that's only one of my reasons.

I think I have partially explained [defended] my position. I'm sure you don't agree but it's enough wordiness for a comment, I think.

TV: You just go right on thinking that I'm stupid and misunderstood all my history and civics teachers. No matter what I say you have already concluded that that is the case. You never waver in your snap-judgments, I'll give you that!

That is because I am rarely wrong.

That's cute, TV. Really clever comeback. But you can ditch the false modesty as far as I'm concerned. Say what you really mean: "That is because I'm NEVER wrong."

Not false modesty. Just accurate.