Brit Humes take on the TEA party
Posted by richrobinson 12 years, 6 months ago to The Gulch: General
I think Brit nails it
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Brit has it right. While I am not a TEA party member, I do support their cause. I know many who call themselves such and one thing I know is that they are almost universally slimmed by MSM and painted as anarchists and extremists, when in truth all they have in common as a group, is their desire to return to constitutionally limited government and that they feel Taxed Enough Already. What is so radical about that?
1. used to discredit. Suggesting that individuals in the tea party will follow Ted Cruz, no matter his policies or strategies, opposed to individuals electing and feeling represented well by an articulate and strong voice in their legislature.
"reckless and doomed."
1. tea party has a "reckless" plan. How so? Define how this strategy was reckless. More so than decades of out of bounds spending and money printing? More reckless than thousands-perhaps millions of business owners losing their businesses, laying off their workers? More reckless than that? You are a Beltway boy. Come live in the real world for awhile.
2. doomed. the tea party cannot convince all of the republican party to reason. but now they know who to concentrate on voting out in 14 and 16.
Make no mistake. Brit Hume is NO fan of the Tea Party.
* The federal government is a "leviathan" whose growth must be "stopped and reversed"
When he uses negative language to assess the strategy, it is expressed:
* "pied-piper Ted Cruz"
* "hopeless strategy"
* "supposedly golden era of Ronald Reagan"
* actions that are "reckless and doomed"
Is this HIS viewpoint, or his he now merely borrowing the language of the Tea Party opposition? Hard to say for sure, but I kind of think he's just adopting the language of the other side. Does it matter? Are we deciding whether Brit Hume is a friend of the Tea Party, or whether he's explained things fairly? In my mind, whenever anyone uses the phrase "what were you thinking", it's of course an implication that you weren't - that you were being stupid. I think Brit's just trying to explain to both Rep's/Dem's that think "Cruz and the Tea Party were being stupid", that he really wasn't being obstructive without cause. He's explaining the motive and I think he did a good job there.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013...
I now focus on seeding my ideas with those who *are* seen and heard... and listened to. It has to be enough for me to provide fertile ideas for them to expound upon.
Like today, Jonathan Hoenig said something I've said for some time; Why didn't Patrick Henry say "give me healthcare of give me death, instead of "give me liberty or give me death"? Which, more accurately, would be give "me liberty" or give me healthcare, but what the hey.