George Will compares TEA Party to Obama
Mark Levin on his show last evening gave a more thorough rebuke to Will than shall I offer here, so I suggest if what you’re looking for is a detailed analytical breakdown of what is, in short, a rationalization for “strategic” surrender and a sophistic attempt to conflate Constitutionalism with such a strategy, please go visit Levin’s podcast.
From my perspective, a reply rather simple, and takes few words, to answer Mr Will’s premises: until you show us the virtue of pushing empty calls for generic “compromise” with those who state repeatedly, “I will not negotiate,” your column is both absurd and, from a standpoint of defending liberty and using the Constitutional procedures granted us to fight a government cabal spending beyond its limits and tied to no specific budget or constrained by any individual appropriations fights, obscene. It is the rote platitudes of Republican (2x Obama voter) Colin Powell and Jeb Bush dressed up in the erudite referencing of historical red herrings and non sequiturs.
Granny glasses and a bow tie don’t mark you as conservative any longer. They merely remind us of how those who deny constitutionalism are trying to camouflage that cowardice and retreat of a party unmoored from its base that has, to date, left us with $17 trillion in fiscal operating debt, $90+ billion in unfunded liabilities, and, in the case of the GOP, as collaborators on the debt expansion and impediments to any compromise that would have at least delayed the biggest new entitlement in our lifetime from being imposed on a citizenry that overwhelmingly does not support it.
The TEA party offered a 1 year universal delay — an easy argument to win, given the selective waivers handed out by a man who is constantly preaching “fairness”; the caucus also wished Congress, the President, and staffers to enter the system they passed into law without a 75% subsidy from the taxpayers ensuring they get Cadillac plans at affordable prices.
Compromise for its own sake isn’t “conservative” or “Madisonian.” It is an excuse to pretend to a prudence and political acumen long ago surrendered by those who, when all is said and done, are comfortable and supportive of a more powerful federal government.