One of the most endearing qualities about the Tea Party is that there is no central organizer, no true figurehead orchestrating their protests and meetings. While there are many groups who try to bank on the Tea Party name, it is about as democratic as a political force can act. Brian Bolduc's latest article in National Review sheds more light on the nature of the Tea Party and their diversity by asking their opinion on the recent events in Libya.
The president can commit troops,” says Mark Lloyd, chairman of the Virginia Tea Party Patriots Federation. “But he’s got to go to Congress within a 60-day window [or pull the troops out at that time].” .... the Libya campaign is not the bogeyman that Obamacare is. In conversation, several tea partiers veered off topic to voice their displeasure with the continuing-resolutions dance. ....
“Some folks were saying, ‘Well, it’s not a fiscal issue,’” Hoyt recounts. “But I tell you, you could easily talk about the money being spent.” .... “You’re already seeing Tea Party groups scratching their heads over Afghanistan. How long is this going to go on? What is a victory over there?”
Personally, I'm glad to see the diversity of opinion on foreign policy issues within the group. I think it is best that they keep their focus on spending and stay on track. A united front on a separate issue might dissolve their effectiveness.
--------------------------------------------Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
The good thing about being a "swarm of hornets" (aka army of Davids) is that the target of our swarming knows we are unhappy and cannot weasel out by negotiation or by bribing our "leader". You might get some of us but most of us are going to sting you.
ReplyDeletespeaking of diversity amongst those aligned with the TP-- you might get a kick out of this:
ReplyDeletehttp://imvotingteaparty.com/
The left has become more sympathetic with /some Muslim societies for many reasons. Foreign policy based on marginalizing Muslims and defaulting to an adversarial stance is in our national interest. What is the legal term for an American citizen pledging/ acting with allegiance to a nation not our own and to the detriment of the United States?
ReplyDeleteI notice that the Zionist posts placing the suffering of Israelis above the suffering of all others don't get many comments. Maybe not all conservatives are bees before they are Americans.
For non-bee Americans, it's hard to enthusiastically support a nation that has cost so much and yet behaves in ways that are inconsistent with the commitment to human rights that moved non-bees to support it's charter. Palestinians are weary, just want to raise their families, better themselves, to live. Israel has had Palestine under the boot jack for a long time. If Israel weren't a bully, Palestinians would at least have water every day. How is it that Israel has not lost its way-- and been worshipping fear instead of God?
No one is suggesting that Israel isn't our ally and isn't deserving of our support and protection, if they need it. What has gained traction, is the idea that we should not frame our foreign policy around the notion of Israel as vulnerable amongst enemies-- all of whom are strong and somehow 'less than,' (racism, flat out).
Iran is a problem. Don't you think it would be more productive to focus Arabs on Iran instead of Iran's engaging them to fight Israel?