I don’t know about you, but one of my favorite things on earth is when foreigners, ensconced in liberal bubbles, possessing zero understanding of segment of America’s population, extrapolate theories to fill the voids of knowledge. Perhaps I’m kicking off the week being a bit harsh but honestly, folks, I’ve quite had it with people saying ridiculous things.
Case in point, one Katty Kay, Washington correspondent for the BBC:
And if there is going to be a division, and if there is going to be a wing of the Republican Party that says, do not on any issue, on any case, even on its merits, compromise with the President, it’s gonna be the Tea Party. And if the Tea Party is driving the energy in the Republican Party, Republicans in Washington, Republicans in Congress are going to have to look very carefully at how they deal with them. And the Tea Party is saying we don’t care about whether it’s in the country’s interest, in our foreign policy interest, in our economic interest necessarily to deal with the President. What we want is to be the party that obstructs Barack Obama. Many of them ran specifically on stopping and on checking Barack Obama, and so that is their priority. And the establishment is going to have to either listen to them or try and find a way to overcome that energy.
Katty Kay believes that the goal of the tea party is to be the spoiler for Barack Obama, even at the best interest of the country.
It will never, ever occur to someone as partisan as Kay that the policies pushed forth by this President have already compromised the best interests of this country. Kay is too much of a progressive-socialist editorialist to examine that a 9.7+% unemployment rate, failing dollar, crumbing foreign relations, repeat terrorist attempts (and terror trials with easy-off verdicts), the largest tax hike in the country’s history with health control, an inability to approach economic issues without artificial federal stimulation financed by China, et al. is what ails the country. She speaks about the tea party movement as though it wasn’t the mainstream, everyday movement it became long ago – too long ago for any credible journalist to have not yet discovered this truth. She speaks about nationalizing the private sector as though the act of doing so wasn’t obstructionist to the Constitution.
She, like every other pseudo-journalist out there, doesn’t explain what side the tea party movement is on except to say that it opposes Barack Obama. She won’t or can’t explain why Obama’s approval rating is at an all-time low:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 27% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13 (see trends).
or what he’s doing to earn such a low approval rating. Real journalists would be talking about the reason why (remember the five Ws of reporting? Who, what, when, where, why?) instead of shoveling dirt on the answers. They certainly had no problems with digging up truth and lie about Bush, suddenly they lost all those skills with Obama.
This is the world in which we live, the funny media world wherein a certain number of editorialists think themselves journalists and think so little of you as to believe you’ll find them credible.
Kay doesn’t believe that limited spending, fiscal accountability, smaller government, you know, abiding by Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution is in the country’s best interest, the country founded upon those very principles. Perhaps she forgot that America doesn’t abide by the principles which govern the various parts of Europe and the Middle East in which she was raised.
She believes that Obama, period, is in the country’s best interest, she showed her hand like a semantics novice with her statement:
And the Tea Party is saying we don’t care about whether it’s in the country’s interest, in our foreign policy interest, in our economic interest necessarily to deal with the President. What we want is to be the party that obstructs Barack Obama.
Perhaps, as I said earlier, I’m being more critical than usual with this statement but the statement level if silliness warrants it. It reinforces this idea amongst prejudiced progressives that the movement’s only goal is “anti-Obama” and that it’s made up political idiots.
****
This post is about to go dangerously off-topic so I’ll keep it brief: The biggest lie the GOP ever told is that the people comprising grassroots are stupid.
People who read the frillion-page health control bill, stimulus bill, edujobs, bill, ON AND ON and knew it better than their lawmakers.
I had a very interesting phone call with a senator-elect last week who, I’m told, wasn’t exactly “thrilled” (cue jazz hands) because myself and tons of others weren’t buying the FLAT OUT LIE told by surviving RINOs that earmarks “weren’t a big deal.” (Forget that it was earmarks that passed the stimulus and health control. Sure, no big deal at all, right? Nothing to see, move along.) The feeling I took away from the conversation was that the American people just don’t get the system and they’re going to screw themselves because of it.
Excuse me?
Our Founding Fathers, regular men who did great things together, established this system along with other regular men. Farmers, bankers, gunsmiths, educators, men of the earth, men (many of who) didn’t have an Ivy League education or a silver spoon up their backside at birth. Bureaucrats want you to think that the system is too complex because they want you to be stupid about it and uninterested in it. They work very hard to create as many levels as possible away from the simplistic government our Founding Fathers formed for one simple reason: they don’t want you to know what they are doing. It’s a lie and a load of crap, and any elected official who dares to suggest such an offense to the intelligence of the constituency ought to face a primary that removes them not just from office, but out of the whole danged state.
The biggest irony of all? Is that the progressive “journalists” like Kay? Claim to stand against it yet completely support it.
****
Kay misses history and the point with this remark:
But I think this is the biggest point that, I mean, the point that Dan raises about in 2012. Will voters more reward competence and actions that have been seen to be effective for the country? Or will they reward politicians who stood on principle and opposes the White House expansionist agenda, as they see it? I expect it’s actually going to be some mixture of the two.
[…]
It [soda tax] will go absolutely nowhere because people think that it’s ,indicative of a nanny state, and they don’t want it.
Let me put on my keyboard psychologist hat. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I get the impression that she thinks government expansion is bad, but what this administration is doing isn’t expansionism. Couple that with the next remark, about how the government wants to introduce a soda tax so that it doesn’t actually have to be responsible and cut spending, so long as there are people around who want to be taxed more for drinking soda, a new-age “sin tax,” if you will.
I appreciate Kay’s attempt to understand a movement whose guiding principles are based on a document, the aesthetic inspiration of which she is demonstrably far removed.