Tea Party Conservatives Looking for Lockstep, Not Compromise -- How American is That?
In the ridiculousness that has become the post 2008 national election morass within the Republican Party, the extremists (read: Tea Party neoconservatives) are entrenched (they're always entrenched). They're serious (they're always serious). They're angry (they're always angry). And they're claiming victory (they're always claiming victory in their little spin-world) in the only major election on November 3, New York's 23rd Congressional District, that they lost. Why? Because it was the only one that actually counts when talking about a "mandate" that shows disapproval of the 10-month-old presidency of Barack Obama, that mandate that people like Bill Kristol, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and other mouthpieces of the neoconservative contingent of the GOP assured America was going to happen. And it is the only election that matters when dealing with President Obama because the seat directly effects legislation. And their candidate, Doug Hoffman, lost. So how have they managed to find victory in defeat?Spin, spin, spin...
Extremists like Michelle Malkin are saying that getting Republican Dede Scozzafava to withdraw from the race so that a "real" conservative (read: Republican) like Hoffman could run was the victory. Getting a "real" conservative like Hoffman, who may be the most platitude-espousing automaton to present themselves to the public since Sarah Palin, to run in Scozzafava's place constitutes a "victory" for the Tea Partiers and their "my way or the highway" ideology. They are hellbent on fracturing the Republican Party and making it so ideologically based that they are leaving no room for moderates. It is a "join us or leave" ideology that brooks no compromise, takes no prisoners, and suggests that anything slightly left of their predominantly unyielding positions are unpatriotic, detrimental to America's future, and fundamentally immoral. This includes members of their own party, those they call fake, faux, or phony Republicans. Like Dede Scozzafava.
Comments
I believe the modern 'Tea Party' originated during the past election cycle with a repudiation of the status quo by more libertarian-minded paleoconservatives that wanted to return to the days of our Founding Fathers. Unfortunately, after the elections, the GOP (and their neocon mouthpieces) took bits and pieces they liked of the movement and threw out the rest, completely distorting what it stood for. I used to enjoy seeing men dressed in tri-corner hats at Ron Paul rallies...but now I can only hold my nose in disgust to see how they've essentially squashed something that might have made a real difference in Washington...
Interesting as always.
:)
Most Tea Partiers are conservatives who have repudiated the status quo of the GOP. They repudiate the Democrats as a matter of course. They're no independent movement. They're extremists and hardliners within the GOP. If Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, Fox News and that crowd of conservative throwbacks support or belong to the movement, they're nothing more than neoconservatives trying to pass themselves off as something newer and better. Otherwise, why don't they just call themselves Libertarians and move on. And ignorance of the Constitution is pretty universal in this country, so I don't think the Tea Party members have a lock on the Constitution. Besides, conservatives have been steadily chipping away at the Constitution for the past eight years. Where the hell were the Tea Parties when everyone's individual rights were being trounced by illegal wire taps?
JSmith
(Guest)
(Guest)
11/08/2009
If you think the TEA parties represent a split in the Repbulican Party, you're dead wrong. It represents a repudiation of both parties, who have proven their corruption and ignorance of the Constitution.
Comments 1 - 5 (of 5)
|
|