Joe Scarborough defends the TEA Party . . . cue “Twilight Zone” theme. In a jaw-dropping article entitled The Truth About the Tea Party (yes, I’m linking to hack rag Politico for a change), Scarborough writes:
Let’s simply review how terrible the tea party has been for the GOP.
— They energized a conservative movement battered by eight years of bloated Republicanism,
— they shocked the political world by taking Ted Kennedy’s seat,
— they put Obama Democrats in a constant defensive crouch,
— they led the resistance against “Obamacare,”
— they helped bring about the largest legislative landslide in U.S. history in 2010,
— they grabbed six seats in the U.S. Senate that year,
— they helped elect six governors,
— they helped win 700 seats in state legislatures, and
— they helped elect a Republican majority that included the largest number of Republicans elected since 1946.
With a track record like that, the Republican Party had better watch their backs. If this trend keeps up, they might just win the White House and the Senate.
Regardless of what happens in the next few weeks, the general theme that the tea party has been bad for the GOP is pure malarkey.
That’s a short list of TEA Party accomplishments, of course, but it’s a good, meaty one . . . “gob-smacked” doesn’t cover my initial reaction. Scarborough is a well-known RINO (whom I consider a progressive–aka regressive), so this defense of the TEA Party is unfathomable. What is he doing? And why?
I’m not really sure, of course, but I can guess. His article always uses lowercase for “tea party” rather than more correct Tea Party or the still more correct TEA (taxed enough already) Party. Is this purposeful? Sure it is, and it may also be a Politico editor’s choice, so we can’t make too much of that . . editors are funny creatures, but I tend to think that Scarborough chooses the lowercase on purpose, to diminish the “tea party” next to the nice, bold caps of “GOP.”
Scarborough makes an interesting (for lack of a better word) observation that may provide clues:
CNBC anchor Rick Santelli’s 2009 rant from the Chicago Mercantile Floor created a viral video that launched a national movement that created a new focus among conservatives. Before that, Republicans had little to rally around.
Before their 2009 formation, their GOP president had just spent $700 billion baling out Wall Street. Their GOP Congress had spent the Bush years driving up the deficit to record levels. The national debt doubled during the Bush years, and their so-called conservative party had shoved through a $7 trillion Medicare drug plan without paying for a dime of it.
Hmmm . . . . Scarborough misreads the TEA Party here, massively. We are not “GOP” or “Republican,” not by a long shot. As I’ve said often enough, we would have responded to a McCain big spending, big government presidency in like manner. We all know that. Perhaps even Scarborough knows that. So why, we might ask, is he stating that the TEA Party is, essentially, GOP? He acknowledges that the TEA Party was a response to Bush’s big spending, big government ways as much as it was to 0’s, but in doing so, he also suggests that we are angsty Republicans, not the Constitutional conservatives that most of us are. Why work so hard to paint us as GOP?
Here’s the end of his article:
But all in all, most Republicans I know prefer having the largest GOP majority since 1946 instead of Pelosi. We also liked having 700 new Republican state legislators elected in 2010, a national debate focused on less spending and a Democratic president who is now fighting for his political life.
No one knows what happens next. But we can at least start telling the truth about what happened over the past three years. Whether opinion leaders like it or not, the tea party helped engineer a Republican landslide, reframed the national debate and put the president so far back on his heels that even Mitt Romney has a chance to be president.
And that in itself is pretty damned remarkable. All true, of course, but all wrong at the same time.
The long and short of it, then, is that Scarborough’s article is yet another attempt by “establishment GOP” (i.e. RINOs, progressives/regressives) to turn the tables, to “embrace” the TEA Party, to try–in essence–to control us. It’s not unexpected, of course, they’ve done this off and on since ’09, but this is the groundwork phase of trying to corral us into the GOP fold, to ensure that we act against our principles as so many progressives have happily done since 0 took office. We’re supposed to be proud and pleased to have “helped” the GOP; we’re supposed to, should Romney win, sit back and be quiet. We’re supposed to look the other way should the GOP establishment carry on with their big spending, big government ways. We’re supposed to see a Romney victory as “mission accomplished” and shuffle back to our couches and back to our long sleep. Or perhaps they hope we’ll act as regressives have and defend the indefensible out of some crazed partisanship rather than acting on our principles . . . something that regressives left in the dust the second they embraced 0’s “kill list,” drones, war in Libya, continued Bush wiretaps, TSA indignities, deportation of illegals in record numbers, and on and on.
Isn’t that the most hilarious, out of touch, delusional hope since that “hopeychangey” nobody became president in ’08? Regressives, when they took over the Democrat Party, made the mistake of putting party before principle; we are not that stupid, not that devoid of a moral and ethical core.
Newsflash establishment/RINO/regressive GOP: the TEA Party is not at all interested in the GOP except as it furthers our agenda of limited Constitutional government that gets out of the way of the free market and that supports liberty and personal responsibility in a fiscally-responsible manner. Should the GOP fail in this regard, then the failed members will be replaced in 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020, and beyond. And that absolutely includes Romney should he be elected on November 6th and then go off the rails into big spending, big government craziness.
That is not a threat, that’s a promise.