Thursday, February 27, 2014

Why Republicans Need the Tea Party

David Horowitz at National Review:

Can the marriage between the Tea Party and the GOP survive?

My answer is: It better. The White House is occupied by a lifelong anti-American radical who has done more to bankrupt this nation’s economy, take us down as a military power, and destroy individual liberty than anyone would have thought possible in January 2009 when he took office. And it’s worse than that. Obama is the head of a Democratic party that has moved so far to the left over the last 46 years that it has become anti–free market, anti-individualist, anti-constitutionalist, and unready to defend America’s sovereign interests at home and abroad. We cannot afford to let such a party run our government for another four or eight years. The world cannot afford it.

So how do we hold together the conservative coalition opposing this national suicide? How do we make this marriage survive? First of all, by recognizing that the basic difference between the Tea Party and the Republican party is a matter of tactics and temperament, not policy and ideology. To understand what I mean by this, one has to go back to the flashpoint that has made the possibility of a Republican schism a topic of the day: the famous alleged government shutdown by tea-party hero Ted Cruz. I probably should acknowledge here that I am a huge fan of what the Tea Party represents, though not always what it does. I believe the emergence of the Tea Party is the most important political development in conservatism in the last 25 years, and is possibly the last best hope for our country.

The government shutdown was the alleged result of Senator Cruz’s filibuster of a continuing resolution to fund the government. In fact, the House had passed a resolution to fund the government but not Obamacare. In the Senate, however, Majority Leader Harry Reid stripped the Obamacare-funding ban from the bill. Cruz conducted a one-man filibuster to express his opposition, both to Reid and to the Republicans who voted to fund Obamacare rather than join him. And so Republicans attacked each other instead of the real culprits.
You might ask yourself this question: What would have happened if the Republican party and the Tea Party and the big PACs run by Rove and Koch had funded a $30 million campaign to put the blame on Obama and Reid, where it belonged? There was no such campaign. All the parties on our side failed to take the fight to the enemy camp. The finger-pointing that followed is just another example of the circular firing squad that we on the right are so good at and that continually sets us back.

Here’s a second important point that applies to all the frictions between tea partiers and Republican regulars. The conflict among the Right about the Obama shutdown was not about policy. It was about tactics. Every Republican in Congress is opposed to Obamacare, with no exceptions. Not a single Republican legislator voted for it. Not a single Republican legislator would support it. The issue is how best to defeat the Democrats and repeal a monstrous law — how to defeat the socialist party that now controls our government and is hell-bent on bankrupting our country, crippling our military, and destroying the culture of individualism and opportunity that has made this nation what it is.

Understanding that what divides us is tactical, not fundamental, is crucial to keeping the marriage alive. A tactical difference is no grounds for divorce.

Read the rest here.  

If you like what you see, please "Like" us on Facebook either here or here. Please follow us on Twitter here.


13 comments:

Anonymous said...

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/hillary-clinton-mike-huckabee-iowa-poll-2016-election-104041.html


-mac

cimbri said...

Republicans have to be more specific about their plans. You can't just cause a shutdown, by refusing to fund the govt.(ACA is part of the laws of the govt.) without clearly running on it, and warning people ahead of time the ramifications involved, ie. drop in credit rating, damage to economy etc. The cure is probably worse than the disease. Just get control of the Senate and Presidency and the ACA can be cleaned up. Nothing is happening for now with the ACA, so the tea parties need to get over it.

Anonymous said...

Mac, the problem with Huck is that he has a tendency to say off the cuff things that don't age well. Talking about a woman's libido in this environment is not the brightest thing to do. Huck is from another time period, and I'm not sure he can translate to now. Part of the reason Obama won is the successful democratic false charge that Republicans hate or want to oppress women. Huck fed right into it. He's not tuned in enough to realize that.

Yes, he might be doing well in Iowa at the moment, but that is most likely because people have forgotten about his problems, and are not taking the race seriously yet.

I think this commentary by Horowitz hit the nail on the head. We need someone to call out democrats for the lying hate-mongers they are. Anyone who will do that has my vote. Problem is that people like Cruz are too busy attacking other Republicans. at least Huck doesn't do that.

-Martha

Anonymous said...

Cimbri, nothing his happening with the ACE except millions of people are suffering under it. So the tea party definitely doesn't need to get over it.

We need to get TOUGH on Democrats, for crying out loud. That is why I like this article.

I agree with you that the no-strategy shutdown was unwise. We nee to get a freakin strategy.

-Martha

Anonymous said...

Martha,

Don't always feed into liberal lies as they twist Huck's words again and again because they fear him. You are then part of the problem and not the solution.

-mac

Anonymous said...

mac, I didn't twist Huck's words, I read his exact quote. It was used against him and us. We don't need to hand out free material like that.

-Martha

Anonymous said...

You don't think they and you constantly twist Huck's words?

-mac

Anonymous said...

mac, no I don't twist Huck's words. They come from his mouth, and I make a judgment on whether or not I think he should have said them, and whether or not they help or hurt us. People used the occasion of Huck talking about women not being able to control their libidos against us. Now, I know that technically he said DEMOCRATS don't believe women can control their libidos. But in the end, what does that distinction matter? It doesn't. Therfore I don't think his word were in very good judgment.

-Martha

Anonymous said...

Martha: "Now, I know that technically he said DEMOCRATS don't believe women can control their libidos"


Thank you finally. Pretty obvious and IMPORTANT technicality.

-mac

cimbri said...

Democrats never said that women can't control their libidos. It was just pure nonsense from start to finish. Huck was projecting his own feelings onto Dems.

cimbri said...

The tea parties are a big pain in the rear end, and cause endless factionalism. We would be better off if they had never existed.

Anonymous said...

With friends like cimbri, good Republicans are doomed.

Ohio JOE said...

Cimbri, why would be be better off if our national debt was even higher? Why woul we be better off if taxes were even hire? Why would we be better off if unemployment was even hire? These are a few questions that the establishment must answer if we are to take their policies seriously.