It Only Took Two Years

The Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refers to the Tea Partiers in the House as a cohesive group who are thwarting his legislative desires.  Just what those desires might be is still a little unclear, since Reid seems unable to articulate them to anyone, much less the obstructionist Tea Partiers.

Senator Chuck Schumer (a Democrat apparently representing Chuck Schumer but paid to represent New Yorkers), is following his instructions from the Democratic Caucus to refer to Tea Partiers as "extremists," and to repeat, ad nauseam, the mantra that their call for reductions in spending (money that the government doesn't have anyway) is "extreme." 

These worthies have admitted that the Tea Parties are, in fact, a political force.  Isn't that nice of them to admit that they just got smacked in the face with a dead fish?  Actually dealing with reality must be a refreshing, if frightening, change from their usual rehash of political philosophy as written by Hans Christian Anderson.

These references by these powerful Democrat members of Congress, and the echoes heard from members of the New York-Washington media elite, have identified the House and Senate members who were supported by the Tea Parties in last November's mid-term elections as a separate political force.  This admission elevates the Tea Parties to the status of a de facto political party.   

It's been over two years since Rick Santelli's rant on CNBC that triggered the Tea Party movement.  Two years.  And finally, after two years and a mid-term disaster for them, elected Democrats have recognized the Tea Party's existence as something other than "Astroturf."  They appear to be somewhat slow learners. 

Thinking that Democrats are stupid would be a serious lapse in judgment.  Thinking that Democrats describe anything accurately would be just as large an error.  The Democratic Party is now ascribing to the Tea Parties all the gravitas of a true political organization. 

What possible motive could they have for such aberrant behavior?  Could they be concerned that the Tea Parties are able to throw the proverbial monkey wrench into their plans to get Barack Obama re-elected?  Could they believe that the Tea Parties are a more formidable opponent than the Republican Party?

Nah!

The behavior of Democrats like Harry Reid seems to indicate an effort to drive a wedge between the establishment Republicans and the upstart Tea Partiers.  The only thing that the Democrats fear is a strong, unified front from those in opposition to their nation-crippling tax and borrow and spend programs designed to make all Americans wards of the state.  A state that they believe only they should control.

Isolating the members of Congress that are clearly aligned with the principles put forth by the Tea Parties is an attempt to create a rift between establishment Republicans and the Tea Party. It might be a subtle effort to encourage Tea Partiers to break away and select their own candidates in 2012.  Harry, Nancy and Barack must all be salivating at the thought of a Tea Party candidate making the 2012 general election a three-way race and virtually guaranteeing Obama's re-election.

Being a de facto political party is not, however, the same as being a de jure political party.  As tempting as changing themselves into a de jure political party, with the ability, and will, to nominate and support candidates not tainted by their association with establishment Republicans, such a move would be counter-productive if their ultimate goal is to remove Obama to a position where the greatest damage he can do to this country is by not replacing his divots. 

While there are numerous Democrats that should be removed from Congress, the over-arching goal of both Republicans and the Tea Parties must be the removal of Barack Obama from the White House.  To achieve that goal, a coalition of forces (now, doesn't that sound militaristic!) must hold together in opposition to the Democrats who are currently running our government.  The members of this coalition must include Republicans, Conservatives, Libertarians, Independents and, most importantly, the Tea Parties.  These groups must work together to present a unified front, with agreed upon talking points, and a willingness to exert whatever efforts are needed to counter the highly organized and well-funded Democrat election machine.  Failure to work in concert will almost guarantee another four years of Obama.

In addition, by remaining a de facto rather than de jure political party, the Tea Parties are not subject to the same campaign finance laws and reporting requirements, so they have a certain flexibility not available to the Republicans.

If the grassroots support the Tea Parties enjoy doesn't waver in their demands for accountable, rational and responsible government, we will a least have a fighting chance to redirect our nation back toward a path of fiscal restraint and personal responsibility. 

Jim Yardley is a retired financial controller, Vietnam veteran and libertarian (small "l").  Jim blogs at jimyardley.wordpress.com, or he can be contacted directly at james.v.yardley@gmail.com.
The Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refers to the Tea Partiers in the House as a cohesive group who are thwarting his legislative desires.  Just what those desires might be is still a little unclear, since Reid seems unable to articulate them to anyone, much less the obstructionist Tea Partiers.

Senator Chuck Schumer (a Democrat apparently representing Chuck Schumer but paid to represent New Yorkers), is following his instructions from the Democratic Caucus to refer to Tea Partiers as "extremists," and to repeat, ad nauseam, the mantra that their call for reductions in spending (money that the government doesn't have anyway) is "extreme." 

These worthies have admitted that the Tea Parties are, in fact, a political force.  Isn't that nice of them to admit that they just got smacked in the face with a dead fish?  Actually dealing with reality must be a refreshing, if frightening, change from their usual rehash of political philosophy as written by Hans Christian Anderson.

These references by these powerful Democrat members of Congress, and the echoes heard from members of the New York-Washington media elite, have identified the House and Senate members who were supported by the Tea Parties in last November's mid-term elections as a separate political force.  This admission elevates the Tea Parties to the status of a de facto political party.   

It's been over two years since Rick Santelli's rant on CNBC that triggered the Tea Party movement.  Two years.  And finally, after two years and a mid-term disaster for them, elected Democrats have recognized the Tea Party's existence as something other than "Astroturf."  They appear to be somewhat slow learners. 

Thinking that Democrats are stupid would be a serious lapse in judgment.  Thinking that Democrats describe anything accurately would be just as large an error.  The Democratic Party is now ascribing to the Tea Parties all the gravitas of a true political organization. 

What possible motive could they have for such aberrant behavior?  Could they be concerned that the Tea Parties are able to throw the proverbial monkey wrench into their plans to get Barack Obama re-elected?  Could they believe that the Tea Parties are a more formidable opponent than the Republican Party?

Nah!

The behavior of Democrats like Harry Reid seems to indicate an effort to drive a wedge between the establishment Republicans and the upstart Tea Partiers.  The only thing that the Democrats fear is a strong, unified front from those in opposition to their nation-crippling tax and borrow and spend programs designed to make all Americans wards of the state.  A state that they believe only they should control.

Isolating the members of Congress that are clearly aligned with the principles put forth by the Tea Parties is an attempt to create a rift between establishment Republicans and the Tea Party. It might be a subtle effort to encourage Tea Partiers to break away and select their own candidates in 2012.  Harry, Nancy and Barack must all be salivating at the thought of a Tea Party candidate making the 2012 general election a three-way race and virtually guaranteeing Obama's re-election.

Being a de facto political party is not, however, the same as being a de jure political party.  As tempting as changing themselves into a de jure political party, with the ability, and will, to nominate and support candidates not tainted by their association with establishment Republicans, such a move would be counter-productive if their ultimate goal is to remove Obama to a position where the greatest damage he can do to this country is by not replacing his divots. 

While there are numerous Democrats that should be removed from Congress, the over-arching goal of both Republicans and the Tea Parties must be the removal of Barack Obama from the White House.  To achieve that goal, a coalition of forces (now, doesn't that sound militaristic!) must hold together in opposition to the Democrats who are currently running our government.  The members of this coalition must include Republicans, Conservatives, Libertarians, Independents and, most importantly, the Tea Parties.  These groups must work together to present a unified front, with agreed upon talking points, and a willingness to exert whatever efforts are needed to counter the highly organized and well-funded Democrat election machine.  Failure to work in concert will almost guarantee another four years of Obama.

In addition, by remaining a de facto rather than de jure political party, the Tea Parties are not subject to the same campaign finance laws and reporting requirements, so they have a certain flexibility not available to the Republicans.

If the grassroots support the Tea Parties enjoy doesn't waver in their demands for accountable, rational and responsible government, we will a least have a fighting chance to redirect our nation back toward a path of fiscal restraint and personal responsibility. 

Jim Yardley is a retired financial controller, Vietnam veteran and libertarian (small "l").  Jim blogs at jimyardley.wordpress.com, or he can be contacted directly at james.v.yardley@gmail.com.