Well, the House did their part, now it goes to the Senate for a vote tomorrow. You all can make up your own mind wrt the worthiness of the deal, who it benefits, and will it do anything to diminish the debt long term. For my ownself, a glass half full kind of guy, I would back the deal. Considering that this is the first time in history that any debt increase has been coupled with spending cuts, that there is some real cuts in this deal, and that there are no tax hikes listed in the body, I figure that this was pretty good for one half of one third of the government to dictate terms. Here is a Tea Party Senator that feels differently:
Another TP guy, Allen West, is voting for the deal, and some TP loud mouths have decided that he is now a traitor, unworthy of his TP credentials and have targeted him for removal in the next election:
The announcement last week that tea party groups were targeting West for supporting the debt ceiling plan proposed by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) — a plan that could not get enough Republican support to pass the House — was taken as a sign that the movement had started to eat its own. In 2012, West was propelled into office by tea party activists; he’s a fixture on the tea party circuit. If he can’t survive one controversial vote with his reputation intact, no one can.
In my other TP post I posed several questions to the commenters here that thought I was off track, they are still unanswered, so I’ll list them again here:
So I guess you think that all TEA Party candidates must be monolithic, cannot think for themselves, and must vote with one voice, is the right?
I guess you think that if any TP guy voted for the BP he is a traitor and must be voted out at the next election, is that right?
Two of the House’s most prominent TP members (Allen West and Rand Paul) voted differently on the BP, so in your narrow view, one must have betrayed his principals and a concerted effort must be mounted to get him voted out next election, is that right?
Do you think it is possible, just maybe, that a TP guy who knew the BP was all bluster anyway since it would not get through the Senate could vote yes with a clear conscious and an adherence to his TP principals with the idea that nothing is damaged but a lot is gained because now the majority leader has some much needed backing and support from his party?
Do you think it was a good idea for the new kid on the block (the TP) to go around making all kinds of noise about a plan to get rid of Boehner when he has been a good leader (so far), the TP folks just walk in the door and now they act like they own the place and want to upset the apple cart, you don’t see how this looks to the independents, those folks that you will need if you have any chance at all to get rid of Obama next year, and isn’t that the number goal all along?
What do you really expect them to do, part the Red Sea when they just got there, only have a few members, and their party only controls one half of one third of the government?
Being a supporter of the TP philosophy and with a hope that they can gain traction and support for the next election, I can see how it is possible for two TP guys to stay true to their principles and vote differently, just like right thinking people here can differ in an approach and still remain consistent with conservative values. But some I guess believe that any deviation from the marching orders delivered by TP headquarters (who ever the hell makes those decisions, I don’t know) and that guy deserves to walk the plank.
I understand the need for bluster, and this is politics, I understand that, but I’m going to be watching those TP folks come next election and if I even smell any disloyalty on their part towards one of the finest Representatives in the country, and their prints are on the weapon that got him axed, not only will they have killed any of my support, ever, but I will do whatever I can to marginalize them and relegate them to the corner where the LSM put them already, the crazy fringe corner.