Through out the partial government shut down and debt ceiling debate there was an effective attempt by the media and liberals to distort what conservatives are all about. The demonizing narrative led by President Obama, Senate majority leader Harry Reid and House minority leader Nancy Pelosi includes words to describe conservatives and the Tea Party as: anarchists, extremists, wanting to demand ransom as extortionists, wanting to deny poor people affordable healthcare and wanting to burn down your house etc.
Probably the most outrageous, fund raising material put out by Democratic Rep. Allan Grayson asserts that the 'T' in Tea Party represents the KKK's burning cross. Like many of his fellow party members, he seek's to distract from the fact that the KKK's historical origin is rooted in the Democratic Party.
This vitriolic cloud may distort the motives of conservatives and the Tea Party on the basis of what they are allegedly against, however what is being delegitimized is what conservatives and the Tea Party are really for.
Ironically, the opposition to the true motives of what conservatives and the Tea Party are for by President Obama et al, says more about what he and his party members are against, and thus what they conversely are for. The other cloud, that of media censorship insulates this reality of gaining widespread attention.
In regards to Obamacare, Conservatives and the Tea Party are for health care reform that addresses the real issues that cause health care to be more expensive than they should such as: waste, fraud and abuse and also for methods to increase access to affordable insurance such as tort reform, reforms to the FDA so more innovative and less costly medicine can come to the market sooner, and for the ability of insurance to compete across state lines which would further reduce costs. Thus, they are for making health care more affordable via free market methods and accountability, rather than the current redistributive Obamacare strategy that is failing already.
Conservatives and the Tea Party are for more liberty that benefits Americans in health care reform, so individuals will have more freedom to choose and control their health care future rather than a bigger government bureaucracy that seeks to control and redistribute resources often on political motives.
Conservatives and the Tea Party are for methods to protect Americans from mandates which are causing widespread increases in healthcare premiums, they are for preventing measures which are forcing employers to reduce the hours of employees or discouraging full-time employment under Obamacare, and for Americans to really keep their existing coverage and doctor if they like it.
Contrary to the direct promise made by President Obama that " if you like your doctor and insurance you can keep it under Obamacare", almost everyday there are reports of hundreds of thousands of Americans losing their current insurance because of Obamacare mandates that regulate them put of existence. Most often, the new mandates dictate certain coverages which the patient may not require such as maternity coverage for a woman over 50 yrs old etc. As such, the new required coverage is at times more expensive than the one that was forcefully lost, negating the premise that this law makes healthcare more affordable.
As noted by an article by Deroy Murdock in the National Review. "According to Kaiser Health News, Pittsburgh's Highmark insurance and Philadelphia's Independence Blue Cross are canceling 'guaranteed issue' policies, mainly for those with pre-existing conditions. ( Wasn't the promise of the opposite a highlight of the law?) In California Blue Shield ended coverage for 119,000 individuals, and Kaiser Permanente tossed 160,000 people. Florida Blue terminated 300,000 man and women or 80 percent of it's individual market."
There are GOP efforts to propose amendments so people can actually keep their insurance if they like, since the President failed to keep his promise in this regard. Will he label them as 'extreme' for doing what he said he would have done?
Conservatives and the Tea Party are for encouraging tax free health saving accounts for people when they are born that will grow through out one's life and give flexibility between jobs and residence. This is for allowing more freedom to individuals to manage and invest their income rather than a government bureaucracy which can use it as a slush fund such as how Social Security has been used.
With the inevitability of the roll out of Obamacare, conservatives and the Tea Party are for amendments such as the Vitter Amendment. This would force Congress to live under the law they passed rather that receive the special exemption President Obama unilaterally allowed so they and their staff would not have to live under the same mandates as other Americans. See: WSJ The Hypocracy of Congress's Gold Plated Healthcare.
In addition, a central issue of the recent government shutdown was that GOP was for fully funding all areas of government except Obamacare. When Democrats like Harry Reid refused to fund all or nothing, the government was shut down. The GOP pivoted from defund to delay Obamacare especially the individual mandate while funding the rest of the entire government, still the Democrat led Senate refused and prolonged the shutdown. Spitefully, even open air landmarks such as the WII Memorial and private funded historical landmarks were unnecessarily forced to close, while funding of veteran funerals were cut off due to 'legal technicality' unrelated to actual funding availability.
Ironically, after all this and the barrage of vitriolic blame on the GOP and the Tea Party for the shutdown due to their efforts to delay Obamacare, the disastrous roll out of the law hastened by its poorly designed and overpriced website has prompted up to 10 Democrat Senators to call for....... a delay in the individual mandate. Some are even calling for delaying the entire bill. This position was described by Democrats and their media as 'extreme' just a few weeks ago when the GOP and the Tea Party called for it.
Conservatives and the Tea Party are for entitlement reforms such as those proposed by Paul Ryan sometimes with bi-partisan support which would prevent Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security from going bankrupt, and would ensure their survival with less impact of them being the main drivers of our growing national debt.
Conservatives and the Tea Party are for government accountability and better management of tax revenues that will reduce excessive spending and bloated budget deficits.
The fact that if one could count to 1 trillion, it would take over 500 years even at a rate of saying on number per second shows that it is not extreme to be for wanting our national debt under control and for not wanting to give Congress and the President a blank check to raise the debt limit. Especially since it is over $17 trillion and growing,
Conservatives and Tea Party are not only for getting our spending and debt under control but ensuring that the sovereign debt will always be repaid, on time and in full to protect the full faith and credit of the U.S. The House passed the McClintlock-Toomey Full Faith and Credit Act in May months before last week debt ceiling deadline but Senate Majority leader Harry Reid moved to strip it out and President Obama refused to support or negotiate it.
Instead, President Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and their allies in the media continued to repeat the false notion that the GOP and the Tea Party wanted to default on the national debt and 'burn down the house'.
Conservatives and the Tea Party are for pro growth low tax reforms and effective regulatory environments that actually increase revenue, job growth and economic activity such as those being experienced in states like Texas, Indiana, Lousiana, Florida, North Dakota and other GOP led states.
Conservatives and the Tea Party are also for school choice which has proven to uplift the quality of education for mainly poor and minority children compared to failing and more expensive public funded union controlled schools. Conversely, President Obama (in his opposition to DC school vouchers for underprivileged kids ) and most democrats including NYC mayoral candidate Bill De Blasio, have been against measures that promote school choice due to their allegiance to teachers' unions and the donations these groups provide to their respective campaigns.
These characteristics of what conservatives and the Tea Party are for, exemplify why these groups are really for liberty and limited government and what these mean to every American. These movements have welcomed and supported a diverse group of people who have become engaged in advocating for liberty and limited government. Despite the false narrative and impulsive reaction of Democrats and the media to label the Tea Party as racists, more minorities have resonated and embraced the ideals of the conservative movement and the Tea Party. It has been the biggest political grass roots movement in recent years. Its potency to challenge the elitist and political establishments is one of the main reasons it attracts such resentment.
Some have even been elected because of their involvement in the Tea Party such as Senators Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and the only sitting black Senator Tim Scott. Governors Nikki Haley and Suzanna Martinez in addition to former Rep. Allen West were also elected to office because of their involvement in the Tea Party.
Some of the most vocal speakers at local Tea Party events are immigrants or children of immigrants who grew up in socialist or communist countries. They often warn against America's trend to imitate the negative virtues of those countries they fled.
The undignified vitriolic cloud of verbal attacks to smear conservatives and the Tea Party also serves another purpose. It has been used to conceal the inability of President Obama and Democratic Senate leaders to actually lead. Issues such as government funding, budget and the debt ceiling have all been used as campaign style crises by the President and Democrats to delegitimize the intentions of the opposition instead of being used as an opportunity to lead and solve issues. The concerted effort to associate the GOP and the Tea Party as 'extremists' going into next year mid term elections, has taken precedent over doing the immediate job at hand in getting things done.
Sen. Chuck Schumer was caught on a hot mike reminding fellow Democrats to keep referring to the GOP as 'extreme'. President Obama twitter page has 'extreme' to describe every mention of the Tea Party. Given various options to negotiate to avoid showdowns, the President's reaction has demonstrated that he welcomes deadlock in order to score political points and inflame divisive rhetoric to destroy conservatives and the Tea Party.
To lead is to negotiate like other Presidents before him. His refusal to negotiate in good faith reveals his affinity to his thought that "it would be easier to be president of China". But this is not a autocratic communist country, it is a constitutional republic with separation of powers facilitating checks and balances. It is important he demonstrates that he understands the difference and uphold his obligation to act as such.
Last year before the November I outlined how Democrats in the Senate such as Harry Reid has obstructed many bills sometimes bipartisan from even coming to vote. Those reasons are still relevant why they should lose control next year. See my previous article: 'A do nothing leadership, why democrats should lose control of the Senate. The Senate has been the legislative body where bills go to die, thus keeping us on a perpetual path of going form one deadline crisis to the next. The President's inaction and silence has condoned this effort.
Conservatives and the Tea Party will continue to promote what they are for, but those like President Obama and his fellow democrats who oppose these issues mentioned should in turn be held to account why they are against them. If they are against liberty and limited government and think it is extreme to be for those ideals, what are they really for?