I read this editorial (free subscription required) earlier in the day, but didn’t have a chance to comment on it until now. I’m not really surprised to see this sort
of editorializing by liberals, especially the NYT, but I am continually mystified by the crazy generalities they use to describe folks associated with the Tea Party. I’m also at a loss to explain why they feel the principals espoused by Tea Partiers are “on the fringe.” Here are a couple of examples:
But for voters of all stripes, Tuesday’s primaries should illuminate the growling face of a new fringe in American politics — and provide the incentive for level-headed voters to become enthusiastic about the midterm election.
So, from this little snippet in the first paragraph, we learn that the Tea Party, and the candidates they back are the “new fringe”, and their crazy antics -putting up anti-establishment, non-RINO candidates- should give “level-headed” voters incentive to do the right thing, and “refudiate” their silliness. Obviously, there are no level-headed people associated with the Tea Party.
Republican leaders have to decide if they want the tiny fraction of furious voters who have showed up at the primary polls to steer them into the swamp for years ahead…Democrats, especially beleaguered incumbents and the White House, need to counter the toxic message of the Tea Party so voters have an alternative. For both parties and certainly the broad swath of independent voters, defeating this new crop of Tea Party nominees has become imperative to avoid the sense of national embarrassment from each divisive and offensive utterance, each wacky policy proposal.
I’m not sure that I’d characterize the number of people associated with the Tea Party as a “tiny fraction.” Nationwide, there are millions of folks who identify with the principals of the Tea Party. Because there’s no official nationwide organization, it’s difficult to say how many there are, but a recent Rasmussen poll gives an indication of the divide between folks who identify with the Tea Party, and supporters of President Obama (Descended from Olympus and Lightworker Genius):
On major issues, 48% of voters say that the average Tea Party member is closer to their views than President Barack Obama. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 44% hold the opposite view and believe the president’s views are closer to their own.
Not surprisingly, Republicans overwhelmingly feel closer to the Tea Party and most Democrats say that their views are more like Obama’s. Among voters not affiliated with either major political party, 50% say they’re closer to the Tea Party while 38% side with the President.
Diverting momentarily from the NYT editorial, I thought it would be useful -once again- to outline the divisive, offensive, and wacky fringe ideas that the Tea Parties are based on. This is from the charter of the Richmond (VA) Tea Party site (my emphases):
Richmond Tea Party, Inc. is a non-partisan, grassroots community established to advance and strengthen the Founding principle that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are God-given rights guaranteed to every individual by the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Virginia. We believe that government derives its power from the people and is established solely to protect these rights. The core principles of limited government, fiscal restraint, personal responsibility, and governing with virtue and accountability are all necessary to ensure the preservation of our freedom. We believe that local governments, communities, and individuals are best suited to serve and represent the needs of the people. Most importantly, we believe that citizen participation in the political process is a fundamental necessity for good government.
According to the New York Times editorial board, this stuff is out there on the fringe, and “level-headed” voters had better turn out in droves in November if they want to stop this kind of lunacy from taking over our government. The editorial goes on to toss some ad-hominem attacks at Christine O’Donnell and Carl Paladino, Tea Party-backed winners in Republican primaries this week. None of it is substantiated by any particular facts, but I’m sure most of the Times’ readers don’t care to hear any facts with their dose of liberal clap-trap. They go on to explain that Republicans are committing a grave mistake by not distancing themselves from the extremisms of limited government, lower taxes, and fiscal sanity.
But, in fact, the party’s hopes for retaking Congress are deeply bound up with the fate of Tea Party candidates across the country, and the party’s leaders have done little to distance themselves from the extremism that now constitutes mainstream conservative policy.
When the House Republican leader, John Boehner, voiced a possible compromise on tax cuts, he was immediately shouted down by other party officials and pilloried as weak by right-wing blogs. Mr. Rove noted that Ms. O’Donnell is unlikely to win in November, possibly preventing the Republicans from taking over the Senate. He is now a pariah himself in those same circles.
I think Doctor Zero sums up the feeling of all of us malcontented fringe lunatics out here in flyover country: we don’t want any more stimulus; we don’t want any more runaway spending; we don’t want any more gifts to the unions that supported Obama, and, most importantly – we don’t want to give you any more control.
