First, there was Debbie Wasserman-Schultz singing the praises of House speaker John Boehner for standing against“Tea Party right-wingers” who refused to co-sign his “fiscal cliff” vote. Wasserman-Shultz bemoaned the disrespect she imagined Boehner to have endured and insisted that his fiscal cliff vote was “the right thing to do.”
In her opinion piece – “Good GOP vs. Wrong GOP” – columnist Froma Harrop explained the “wrong GOP” as Tea Party meanies who are committed to ousting the “good GOP” for compromising with the Democrats. While Harrop submitted the “wrong GOP” – the Tea Party – to a demonizing denunciation, she awarded the “good GOP” – the present Republican leadership – with kudos and her liberal seal of approval.
Then there was Dewayne Wickham, political prognosticator extraordinaire. Wickham advantaged Republicans with the heads up that the party will inflict irreparable harm upon its political relevance if it runs “that Tea Party wunderkind,”Senator Marco Rubio, as its 2016 presidential nominee. Apparently concerned for the future success of the Republican Party, he recommends Governor Chris Christie as the GOP’s “best bet” for presidential victory in the 2016 campaign.
You have got to be kidding me! What a farce! No way is it politically possible for liberals to want what is best for the Republican Party. If ever there was anything “too good to be true,” it is their expressions of concern for the well-being of the GOP. Their show of such “compassion” is feigned – political theater staged to cast Democrats as “compromise-friendly” while portraying Tea Party Republicans as “non-negotiable diehards.”
Liberals couldn’t give a rat’s rectum about the recovery or the survival of the Republican Party. The truth is that they would rather have neither. Indeed, it is in pursuit of that preference that they are trying to goad the GOP family into the fatal warfare of “mutually assured destruction,” that is, the self-eliminating shoot-out of the “circular firing squad.” What a coup de grace that would be for the liberal, socialist, progressive, Democrat establishment.
In the meantime, the liberals will continue to side with“bipartisan Republicans” against Tea Party conservatives whenever the two are at odds over any political issue. Their expectation is that the present Republican leadership will always capitulate when threatened with “blame” for refusing to compromise with the Democrats on matters of“the public good.” On the other hand, liberals have no illusion about the commitment of Tea Party Republicans to the preservation of conservative principles – and the adherence thereto. If you want to understand the loathing and fear driving the enemies of the Tea Party to crave for its extinction, you have just read it.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, the Democrats initiated a ferocious “take no prisoners” assault upon the Republican Party. Since Sarah Palin was designated “darling of the Tea Party,” she was singled out for “cruel and unusual punishment” by all the talking heads of liberalism. So determined were they to “get Palin” that they dispatched their smear merchants to “dumpster-dive” in a hunt for garbage with which to defile her character. The garbage they could not find they fabricated. They just “made stuff up.”
Palin could not escape the massive hail of lies, demonization and smutty mouth insinuation (“tea baggers” and such) fired upon her by the character assassins of the Democrat party. When the election was over, the lampooners of liberalism caricaturized her departure as the headstone of the Tea Party. Time and again, however, their obituaries announcing the passing of the movement have proven to be – as Mark Twain would put it – “greatly exaggerated.”
The liberal’s repetitive insistence that the Tea Party is dead is political psychology intended to wear down the spirit and the determination of the membership. But the Tea Party movement continues very much alive, and all of its detractors know it. The fact of this truth is implicit in the never-ending flogging they expend on the contradiction of“beating a dead horse.” As I have said in previous articles,“everybody knows that you don’t beat a dead horse.”