by I have been stumped why the miscreants in the Tea Bag Party haven’t been shunned and shown the curb by now when it comes to governing our nation. Instead of summarily dismissing them for their insane, anti-American wishes, the President kowtows to them and coddles them and attempts to pacify them. The Republicans are terrified of their own radicals and refuse to control them. What now? Unrestrained hatred will flow downhill into every creek and river to poison the land and foul the watershed until we’re all dead or dying.
What happened to logic and rational dialogue that leads to consensus and compromise in our national politics?
Instead of punching away Tea Bag hatred and despise, our major media outlets bend over backward to give the them unprecedented press coverage — as if the Baggers have any sense of honor or non-contempt for our Constitution — and that 24/7 coverage only emboldens them and serves to inflame their hatred of the rest of us even more.
In a fascinating article published yesterday — in of all places, Al Jazeera — the truth about the Teabaggers is finally revealed, but will anyone listen and act against them?
Until Democrats, and their leader in the White House, realise they need to stop calling people like Paul Ryan “courageous” and “serious,” and start fighting fire with fire, Michelle Bachmann and her creepy pinwheel eyes are going to continue to get their way at the expense of American values and the middle-class that once made this country great.
The late, great historian Richard Hofstadter added further insight into just the type of “movement” we’re dealing with, in his 1964 award-winning tome, “The Paranoid Style of American Politics.” In it, he outlines the psychological origins of the type of crazed, Tea-bagger style of all-or-nothing dedication to an absolute end, when he wrote of their forebears:
“He does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician. Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish. Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated – if not from the world, at least from the theatre of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention.”
In other words, any compromise, no matter how small, is seen as an act tantamount to treason, which is precisely why we need to stop engaging these tottering tea lovers, because they simply do not believe in the workings of democracy.
Obama and the Democrats must draw a bright, harsh, red line in their blood to double down against anything and everything the Tea Partiers stand for and let the American public decide on which side of that line they will stand. Do we stand with a meek, but reasonable, President, or do we align our future with a bunch of hooligans who prefer to see the destruction of the USA in a frantic attempt to recover their contemptuous, passive-aggressive, White Power Majority rule where you either sit down and shut up or face the point of a gun.
Well writ, David. The Tea Party seems intent on destroying the US as long as Obama is in power. Yuck.
That is their stated intention. To destroy Obama and the government. We must fight back!
Bollocks !
bol·locks
/ˈbɒləks/ Show Spelled [bol-uhks] Show IPA noun
1.
( used with a plural verb ) Vulgar . ballocks.
2.
( used with a singular or plural verb ) British Vulgar . rubbish; nonsense; claptrap (often used interjectionally).
I guess that we’ll just have to wait until Election Day 2012 to see WHICH miscreants are shunned, now won’t we. It seems that your (former?) hero and savior is no longer heroic but has turned into a kowtowing pacifist. Rest easy, though, because if in your desire that the democrats double down against “anything and everything” the Tea Party stands for, the American Public WILL DECIDE on which side of the line they stand and then Mr. Obama will remain only as a bad Carteresque memory. I’m afraid that you and Al Jazeera will be sorely disappointed come November 7, 2012.
With consensus and compromise on your high alter, what would you compromise to continue to raise (or even maintain) the current level of our national debt … I don’t think there is much consensus left in the American public to do so. It’s too bad that November 2012 won’t arrive sooner to squelch the hemorrhaging that will surely take place between now and then. When thinking politicians finally address the possible solutions for our present national debt, I think that then we’ll all be sorry that it has reached it’s current level.
Finally …
I’m chagrined to see you attack Mrs. Bachmann in such a personal tone … “creepy pinwheel eyes” … really? That from Newsweek maybe, but from one of your education … I’m sure you could do better than that if you really tried. Is that “fair and balanced” or don’t you intend to be? Would not attacking her personally be “an act tantamount to treason?” Is it that “[s]he must be totally eliminated – if not from the world, at least from the theatre of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention.” Truely, David, you sound paranoid.
Democrats as champions of the US Constitution … really?
Al Jazeera? … really! You read and quote Al Jazzera? Well, I guess that’s OK … I continue to read and quote YOU.
By the way, does Gordon always agree with you or does he have a mind of his own? Yuck!
We have to raise taxes and we need to get out of the Middle East and slash the defense budget. Those are mandatory requirements for reducing the deficit and the ‘Baggers don’t support either one.
Gordon definitely doesn’t always agree! Thanks for asking.