The infamous Tea Party has done it again! As a recent story by former Governor Jennifer Granholm in the Huffington Post tells us, the Tea Party is flexing its muscles and may tear the Republican Party in half:
So, Ted Cruz won the runoff in the Texas senate race.
Congratulations to him and to the Tea Party for putting another feather in their tri-corner hat.
But here’s the thing: The ascendancy of Tea Party candidates like Cruz, while impressive, comes at a cost to the Republican Party: the loss of moderate Republicans who have been knocked off or have resigned. Other Republicans have simply moved farther to the right in order to placate the absurd demands of the Tea Party extremists.
The effects of the Tea Party (and the Koch brothers) on Romney’s candidacy have brought about a tax plan that sounds an awful lot like Reaganomics:
The Tax Policy Center took a close look at Republican nominee Mitt Romney’s proposed tax and economic plan and concluded that it would cut taxes for the richest Americans and actually raise them on the poor.
Romney has proposed cutting all tax rates by 20% and eliminating tax deductions, while also capping federal government spending at 20% of GDP.
Now we know that Mitt has very little sympathy with the poor — he actually said “I don’t care about the poor.” But four more years of the “trickle down” economic theory that has created huge gaps between the very rich and the very poor in this country, and threatens to eliminate the middle class which is hanging by a thread and living from paycheck to paycheck, will put us in an even deeper hole than we are already in. This is not good.
But if Governor Granholm is correct in her assessment we may not have to worry about the deeper hole that Mitt Romney might want to dig. If in fact the Tea Party brings about a radical split in the Republican Party and drives away the moderates as she predicts, the man cannot win. Some Republicans will simply not vote for a man who seems to be made of soft plastic and shows himself willing to sleep with the Koch brothers and their ilk. Others might vote for Obama as the only acceptable alternative.
But then Barack Obama will lose many voters as well — to wit, the young who are disenchanted with his conciliatory posture, his willingness to make deals with unscrupulous people, order drone attacks in crowded cities in Pakistan, and waffle precariously on the environment. Many of these people will not vote either. But others will vote for him as the lesser of evils, which suggests that he will back into office as the candidate many did not want but decided was the only viable alternative. What else is new?
This is one of the flaws in a system in which the candidates are chosen for us by the very wealthy in this country and our choice comes down to Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee — both of whom are corporate puppets and neither of whom would know a principle if it bit them in the butt — and certainly have shown no inclination to stand on one. What we need is curbs on corporate spending and the realistic possibility that a person, male or female, who deeply believes in doing what is best for the country and not for a particular political party can emerge as a viable candidate for the highest office in the land. In the meantime we must settle for the lesser of two evils.