Those who adore modern, unlimited government have a problem. A few problems, actually, but biggest is their obvious inability to say no to government growth.
Todays politicians and pundits seem completely incapable of prioritizing anything. After all, in their minds, every need represents a right to government support or a mandate for government action. If a constituency likes a program (and what constituency objects to money being thrown at them?), what can they say against it?
But these folks have a second problem, a practical one. They have opponents. The bulk of the American populace, in a sense. But, in particular, the Tea Party protestors.
These new opponents are not protesting tea, but rather ever-growing government, politics-as-usual for both major parties.
The Tea Party name, of course, comes from a legendary event from the days of colonial unrest, prior to the secession of the colonies as the 13 United States.
But lets not get hung up on the name. The actual meaning of the historic Boston Tea Party is irrelevant to modern-day Tea Party protestors, who are most concerned with a few core issues, the very issues that the people who are now in charge dont want addressed.
Indeed, our rulers are in a bit of a panic. Thats why they, their core supporters, and the mainstream media have been so keen to portray Tea Party protestors as racist. It is gutter politics. Just what weve grown to expect.
The best they can do is to ask where the protests were in the Bush Administration, when the bailouts began and the budget had gone all out of whack and deficits soared and debt ballooned. Why wait till a black man hit the White House?
First, get real. Does anybody really believe that, if Hillary Clinton had been elected instead of Obama, the Tea Party protesters would be copacetic?
No. But protesters under a Clinton administration would be labeled angry white males (remember?) and wed be informed that men outnumber women at the rallies.