Posted on 07/02/2014 5:37:28 AM PDT by cotton1706
I have fond memories of my internship on Capitol Hill last summer, many of which have broadened my understanding of the political culture brewing in Washington. As I mentioned already in the Daily, I had the privilege of meeting Bill Nye, Francis Collins and other well-known faces.
It would be difficult, though, for me to place those delightful occasions ahead of the durable friendships I built during that time. These friendships crossed party lines and I found that we could have thoughtful discussions from across the aisle, absent the scant and cheap points typical of the comments section of any newspaper.
I remember frequently declining invitations to a round of drinks after work in order to spend extra time discussing policy in a Republican office with my Republican friends. A byproduct of those conversations was the subtle realization that there is still a great deal of reason found in the Republican Party, despite the festoon of superstition, ignorance and imprecision adorned by its tea party compatriots.
Safeguarding that reason is of utmost importance to the identity of the Republican Party. Where once the tea party was an asset to the GOP, it has now become a liability.
Despite taking some recent blows, the tea party movement continues to challenge “establishment
(Excerpt) Read more at iowastatedaily.com ...
My understanding then was that TEA actually stood for Taxed Enough Already.
To that end, the philosophy seemed to be that government was too big, and needed to be shrunk, and stop spending money left and right, provide less non-productive welfare services and bring the deficit down while easing the pressure on the taxpayers and businesses wallets.
In this regard, it was all about the economy and deficit. So, am I wrong?
Just what do non-TEA party aligned people think the TEA party is about?
Is it a social conservative movement? Is that the problem that younger people have with it? Because I will say that no matter how opposed we are to homosexuality, the younger crowd has no problem with. I will say neither do I, but I just don't want to hear about it. Private behavior should be private. But that's just me. Why does the TEA party (Taxed Enough Already) even have a position on gays? So if anti-TEA party types dislike the TEA party's stance on gays, well, they're wrong because they don't have a stance on gays.
Next social issue: Religion. Again, the TEA party doesn't have a position except to whole-heartedly approve the government staying out of religion. Even if a liberal, what is the problem with that position? Do you seriously want the government to regulate religious thought?
Next, Abortion. Does the TEA party have a formal position on this? Probably only that government should not pay for or promote it.
Discrimination: The TEA party is against, no matter which way it comes. There are a lot of people who feel that in order to help one group, we've unjustly penalized another. Beyond this, if you equate support for blacks to equal unrestrained welfare than yes, the TEA party is totally against that. However, it is not racism that breeds this opposition, but rather the extravagant spending that they are against. It is not racist to oppose welfare even if a lot of welfare goes to blacks, especially if you are convinced that welfare stifles responsibility and the desire to work. And in this case, it is an economic debate on how to bring forth more jobs. The TEA party believes that it is private businesses that would create jobs if the government would reduce their expenses by cutting taxes and eliminating regulations (hint: smaller government, the original idea).
Immigration: Legal, OK, but regulated to not hurt the economy by removing job opportunities for citizens. The TEA party believes that illegal immigration is wrong and should be strongly opposed due to economic issues once more and it is not anti-Hispanic although that is what the Left believes.
What's left for the anti-TEA partiers to rally against? Gays, abortion, religion, blacks, illegals... None of these save illegals are a TEA party issue.
I absolutely believe almost all Americans share TEA party values, that is, the real values, not the phony arch-conservative racist Snidely Whiplash ones made up by the media.
We NEED to properly challenge all who misrepresent TEA party values.
They’re all for conflict when it’s with conservatives. All the dirty tricks and “fight” they won’t bother to use against America’s enemies, including the left.
Interesting, according to his stilted attempt to be high-brow, he claims to have only met the faces, not the people.
“In the spirit of the Socratic method, I find this to be a contemptible position and unworthy of public discourse.”
This pathetic, self-important boob is about as ignorant of the Socratic method as any I have heard or read.
From the text: “Although it would be difficult to characterize it as a tea party victory, Eric Cantor’s defeat — and threats other incumbents still face — leaves us wondering as to what direction the Right is moving.”
The Right has always been right, the Republican Party has moved left. And this by the virtue of redefining the middle, brought to you by the Progressives on both sides of the aisle.
“copyright restrictions apply down thread as well, thank you.”
I don’t understand. What did I do wrong?
He makes the same arguments as Marx...
Tea Party opponents are “unscientific”.
Of course, he, being a “moderate” “atheist”, has beliefs and ideals that are “scientific”.
You posted the rest of the article in the Comments section.
“...despite the festoon of superstition, ignorance and imprecision adorned by its tea party compatriots. ....”
Aha, proof that the writer has a worthless degree and has never been able to confront any truly difficult problem.
May he forever be shoved up his own Obamahole.
Oh. Thanks. That was not my intent. I posted several paragraphs I wanted people to see. I won’t do that going forward.
Thanks for your understanding.
“I should admit, though, that I was once an aficionado of Rand’s ode to capitalism. I snapped out of the fantasy, however, after I realized my egotism was driving my friends and family away. In retrospect, my love of objectivism was, perhaps, just a “phase.””
You misunderstand the genesis of your egotism. It had nothing to do with Rand’s writings, and you have no shrugged off that particularly odious stench of your self-importance.
What an arrogant little s-.
So young, so full of knowledge and deep understanding.
"Politics' may be about "compromise", but "right" and "wrong" are not.
The Constitution is a contract. Contracts can't be "compromised" just because some feel like they want more of the pie or don't like the way it was written and agreed upon. That's the "compromise" that shouldn't be compromised with.
Unfortunately, "moderates" (like Liberals) have little sense of right or wrong. To them, it is just about dividing up the pie and getting votes so they can attain more power over the pie.
Scr*w 'em both and the pale horse with the death rider they rode in on...
He is an outright liar.
He claims to have been an “aficionado” of Rand - I’m calling BS on that claim.
No doubt he read Rand because it was the “cool” thing to do - I doubt that he does ANYTHING without major attention to the “cool coefficient”. He read parts of the book, was able to talk about it in a “cool” way that he thought made him sound “cool” and “lettered” and smart. No doubt he conversed as he writes with repeated verbal clumsiness and outright faux pas.
When Rand’s cool coefficient dropped low enough, he quit dropping her name in what he considered “cool” circles. He never understood what Rand wrote. Never understood why it was so esteemed. He simply used it, as he does his Nye worship and his “atheism”, as a tool in his quest for cool.
One cannot be an “aficionado” of Rand without understanding and appreciating the underlying philosophy. One cannot appreciate the underlying philosophy and only to disparage it later in favor of big government statism.
Ergo - he was never a Rand aficionado.
Looks like he’s never worked a day in his life and had everything handed to him.
“Because apparently the ideas of small government aren’t worth fighting for.
(Why would we need repubs to fight democrats If the only government in our lives was the post office? )”
The moderate Republicans arer a party of “Bold Pastels”, yeah, that will sell....
They want to Compromise, especially their principles, so I guess they want to Compromise their Principles....
“What an arrogant little s-.”
I really enjoyed GilesB’s deconstruction of the article, but you summed it up even better! Sometimes it’s good to be concise.
Good ping — thanks!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.