Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Looks like the debt limit increase is being spun as a Tea Party surrender

At least based upon this article.  It is a liberal point of view, doubtless.

How many in the GOP voted for this?  Was it 28?  Looks like most of the GOP caucus didn't want this.

The real pattern here is that the soft patch in the party, the "squishes" caved in again.  Instead of attributing this turn of events to them as it should be, the liberals would have everyone believe that the Tea Partiers were the ones that caved.

The shutdown demonstrated that the Tea Partiers are, for the most part, delusional rather than irrational: They can be forced to reconsider a particular tactic if you persuade them it’s politically catastrophic.--- Noam Schieber

The Establishment wing of the GOP wants to play with the ObamaCare bad rollout meme.  They seem to believe that they can ride this to victory in the fall.  It's the typical thing amongst them.  They are mostly interested in the politics of a thing instead of the practical matter of governance.  Instead of repealing the statute, as they may have been able to do if they hung together during the shutdown, they want to use the issue instead.  The truth of the matter is that the debt is out of control, just as the rest of Washington is out of control.  So, they are following a theory that general disenchantment with ObamaCare and the lackluster economy will reap big dividends at the polls.  They are fearful of doing anything that may upset what they believe is a shoo-in race to victory in the fall.  They are playing it safe, just as Romney did.  They may be wrong.  In fact, they are probably wrong.

What this sets up is a confrontation within the GOP.  It's between the Establishment and the Tea Party.  We'll see how it goes in the primaries.  If the Establishment holds on for another election cycle, and the election goes badly again, the Tea Partiers are going to have a field day by 2016.  There will be hell to pay.

Romney and the Establishment are the bean baggers here.  Not the Tea Party.


No comments: