The Tea Fragger Party

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
The Tea Fragger Party
67
Sat, 07-30-2011 - 8:19am

What do these TP's hope to accomplish?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-tea-fragger-party/2011/07/29/gIQA23pAiI_story.html

Fragging: “To intentionally kill or wound (one’s superior officer, etc.), esp. with a hand grenade.”

Take names. Remember them. The behavior of certain Republicans who call themselves Tea Party conservatives makes them the most destructive posse of misguided “patriots” we’ve seen in recent memory.

If the nation defaults on its financial obligations, the blame belongs to the Tea Party Republicans who fragged their own leader, John Boehner. They had victory in their hands and couldn’t bring themselves to support his debt-ceiling plan, which, if not perfect, was more than anyone could have imagined just a few months ago. No new taxes, significant spending cuts, a temporary debt-ceiling solution with the possibility of more spending cuts down the line as well as action on their beloved balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution.

These people wouldn’t recognize a hot fudge sundae if the cherry started talking to them.

The tick-tock of the debt-ceiling debate is too long for this space, but the bottom line is that the Tea Party got too full of itself with help from certain characters whose names you’ll want to remember when things go south. They include, among others, media personalities who need no further recognition; a handful of media-created “leaders,” including Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips and Tea Party Patriots co-founders Jenny Beth Martin and Mark Meckler (both Phillips and Martin declared bankruptcy, yet they’re advising Tea Party Republicans on debt?); a handful of outside groups that love to hurl ad hominems such as “elite” and “inside the Beltway” when talking about people like Boehner when they are, in fact, the elite (FreedomWorks, Heritage Action, Club for Growth, National Taxpayers Union, Americans for Prosperity); and elected leaders such as Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, head of the Republican Study Committee, and South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, who grandstand and make political assertions and promises that are sheer fantasy.

Meanwhile, freshman House members were targeted and pressured by some of the aforementioned groups to vote against Boehner’s plan. South Carolina’s contingent was so troubled that members repaired to the chapel Thursday to pray and emerged promising to vote no. Why? Not because Jesus told them to but because they’re scared to death that DeMint will “primary” them — find someone in their own party to challenge them.

Where did they get an idea like that? Look no further than Sarah Palin’s Facebook page, where she warned freshmen about contested primaries and urged them to “remember us ‘little people’ who believed in them, donated to their campaigns, spent hours tirelessly volunteering for them, and trusted them with our votes.” Her close: “P.S. Everyone I talk to still believes in contested primaries.” While they’re at it, they also should remember that Palin came to the Tea Party long after the invitations went out. The woman knows where to hitch a wagon.

Unfortunately for the country, which is poised to lose its place as the world’s most-trusted treasury and suffer economic repercussions we can ill afford, the stakes in this political game are too high to be in the hands of Tea Partyers who mistakenly think they have a mandate. Their sweep in the 2010 election was the exclusive result of anti-Obama sentiment and the sense that the president, in creating a health-care plan instead of focusing on jobs, had overplayed his hand. Invariably, as political pendulums swing, the victors become the very thing they sought to defeat.

Who’s overplaying their hand now?

It must be said that the Tea Party has not been monolithic — and the true grass-roots shouldn’t be conflated with leaders who disastrously signed on to the so-called “Cut, Cap and Balance” pledge. What is it with Republicans and their silly pledges? Didn’t they get enough Scouting? This pledge now has them hog-tied to a promise they can’t keep — the balanced-budget amendment. As many as a third desperately want a pardon from that commitment, according to sources close to the action.

Hubris is no one’s friend, and irony is a nag. The Tea Partyers who wanted to oust Barack Obama have greatly enhanced his chances for reelection by undermining their own leader and damaging the country in the process. The debt ceiling may have been raised and the crisis averted by the time this column appears, but that event should not erase the memory of what transpired. The Tea Party was a movement that changed the conversation in Washington, but it has steeped too long and has become toxic.

It’s time to toss it out.

Video

In both debt plans, the wealthy win.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-debt-ceiling-clock/2011/07/28/gIQAqxDxfI_video.html

 


Photobucket&nbs

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
Tue, 08-02-2011 - 9:29am
It's was a simple question. There are certainly things I will not compromise on. The Tea Party was an easy target in this debate. No one paid attention to the Progressive Caucus and their refusal to compromise. Why do you suppose that is? Seriously.
The politicians elected on a tea party platform made a commitment to address the debt, to address out of control government spending. Something both Dems and Reps have claimed to be concerned about but done nothing. Heck, Obama even ignored his own appointed commission on tackling this debt issue. (This didn't have to be the fiasco it was) For people to expect the tea party republicans not to hold on to their convictions on this is ridiculous.
Just as when ever the abortion debate raises up on this board, I have yet to see one pro-choice advocate even consider the pro-lifes position, not adopt it, just consider the pov. There is no compromise, no giving at all that there may even be substance to what the pro-lifers are saying. Why is that any different than the tea party republicans sticking to their guns about fiscal responsibility, especially when you have the S&P saying that 4 or 5 trillion in cuts is what is needed to keep our triple A rating, raising the debt ceiling is inconsequential?
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
Tue, 08-02-2011 - 9:32am
Why do you think that? Because he said so? There was no transparency to these meetings as he promised. The Republicans have an opposite pov. Do you automatically assume they are lying? Consider this: my life experience with people tells me that when 2 parties have different recollections of what occurred, the truth is lies somewhere between the two stories.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
Tue, 08-02-2011 - 9:41am
"I can't say exactly what I would compromise on because I'd need to go through the plan point by point & I'm just following the 'overall'. President Obama came into office with a huge debt because of the spending & tax cut follies of the former administration. "

This is getting so tiresome. Bush's policies did not cause the economic downturn. They may have not prevented it, or helped (at all or enough, depending on your economic view), but they were not the cause. The elements that created the downturn and eventually recession were many, varied and began long before Bush got into office. I'll give one glaring example: The housing bubble. I may not be an economist, but I read enough to understand that it was the housing bubble that has kept us depressed, it began back in the 80's with changes in loans. I saw it back in the 90's, friends buying houses and seeing their value increase substantially over one years time; people trading up houses because of the rapidly rising equity they were experiencing. My gut told me to take advantage while we could b/c it could no way last. I was right. I'll add one more, the tech bubble burst. Not as traumatic as the housing bubble, but still had impact.

I would love to see economists and politicians discuss this honestly instead of with their political bias and spin. Too many people don't really understand what is what. Economics is difficult to understand as it is b/c it is so multifaceted. To try to reduce it to the actions of one administration is detrimental to honest debate and resolution.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
Tue, 08-02-2011 - 9:42am
Having fun? Is this what is considered civil, mocking me?
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
Tue, 08-02-2011 - 9:45am
I guess you would rather focus on people you don't agree with than what the President said.
He was condescending. There are a lot of people that were paying close attention to this issue.
I guess in the end it comes down to what one wants to see.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2008
Tue, 08-02-2011 - 10:56am

It's was a simple question. There are certainly things I will not compromise on. The Tea Party was an easy target in this debate. No one paid attention to the Progressive Caucus and their refusal to compromise. Why do you suppose that is? Seriously. 

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
Tue, 08-02-2011 - 11:41am
I guess I don't look at it as simply aiting numbers game, and no, I highly doubt tea party republicans were ok with the way they were depicted by dems and echoed by the media in this debate.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
Tue, 08-02-2011 - 11:43am
You might want to check those numbers too, last I saw the dem vote for this bill was evenly split.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Tue, 08-02-2011 - 12:05pm
Please point out any numbers that are incorrect. The article I posted is dated July 29th. If you have more recent info. please post.
Thanks

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2007
Tue, 08-02-2011 - 12:28pm

I thought this country was run....By the People.....I guess that no longer matters.

The Republicans don't care that, what....68% wanted some type of revenue?

Pages