Why Is The Tea Party 'Extremist,' But Democratic Support For B

[ARI Media Feed]

When the Tea Party calls for real cuts in our welfare state, it is typically denigrated by the left as “extremist.” It would be a mistake though, to regard this response as mere name-calling. It is far more significant—and dangerous. 

This op-ed was published at Forbes.com on November 11, 2013.

Link to original

[Repairman]

This piece in Forbes is nicely stated, however, I don't exactly see how it helps to define much of the public perception of the Tea Party. From my impression, the Tea Party has a vague approach to reality. My claim is based on a recent debate in Wisconsin over the expansion of a gambling operation, a former dog track, now in mothballs due to poor profitability. The Hard Rock hotels corporation seeks this expansion with the governor's approval and customary bribes, i.e. licensing fees. A spokes person for the Tea Party, Robert McGuigan, protests this expansion, which is estimated to create 3,300 jobs, for the stated reason that these jobs will be UNION jobs, and that union dues will automatically be used to support opponents of our controversial Governor Scott Walker, the arch-enemy of public workers' unions. Among the other Tea Party representatives is one Scottie Hughes of Tennessee, quoted in the Kenosha News, November 6, 2013, saying that the casino expansion will only benefit "union bosses (from) out of state."

While I will be the first point out that casinos do not generate wealth, and that gambling operations of any sort usually invite corruption and benefit the usual suspects, nonetheless, casinos are businesses. This gaggle of out-of-state Tea Partiers are opposed to the expansion of a business, on the grounds that they pose a threat to a politician. Am I the only one who sees the absurdity of these charlatans? Incidentally, I have no stake in public or private gambling concerns. I support Walker's initiative to restrict the bargaining power of public unions. I voted for him twice. I simply do not understand what this so-called Tea Party is trying to accomplish, and I have the impression that they do not know the difference between private companies bargaining for contracts with their employees, and politicians bargaining for public workers contracts on behalf of the tax payers.

I'm sorry if it seems as if I have changed up the subject a little, but the Tea Party is a bit of theater that merits some reviews from this forum. I don't think they are extreme; I think they are inconsistent, unspecific, and as long as they are they remain inconsequential.