GOP political leaders admit that our Orwellian proles have been brainwashed as the article “Inhofe Declares War On DeMint-Backed Earmark Ban, Saying Those Who Support It Are ‘Brainwashed'” indicates.
Inhofe wants to battle DeMint regarding earmarks with the article stating “While much ink has been spilled exploring the civil war between far-right tea party conservatives and more moderate Republicans, there appears to be a new rift emerging among the die-hard conservative wing in the Senate. Echoing the demands of the tea party movement, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) proposed yesterday a ban on earmarks in the Senate, and is aggressively whipping his colleagues to support it. While Republican leaders offered strong rhetoric on the campaign trail about opposing earmarks, now that the GOP has successfully taken power, they have been cool to DeMint’s proposal.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) – whom National Journal ranked as the most conservative senator in 2009 – has gone even further, declaring “an all-out war within the Senate GOP conference next week to defeat an earmark moratorium.” Inhofe has said he will take to the Senate floor Monday to deliver a “pretty strong statement” against the ban, and to call out DeMint for supporting earmarks before he was against them. DeMint “was really pro-earmark. … He ran as a pro-earmarker” as a House Member in 2004, Inhofe told Roll Call.”
Inhofe maintains that fellow Congressmen have been victims of GOP hypocrisy as the article states “In an interview with conservative radio host Ed Morrissey yesterday, Inhofe said people like DeMint who oppose earmarks are “brainwashed,” adding that if his fellow senators vote to ban earmarks they are voting to “trash the constitution and reject their oath of office”:
INHOFE: They’ve been demagoguing this whole thing on earmarks, but you’ll never convince the American people of it because they are so thoroughly brainwashed.
You say earmark, they say, oh, earmarks are bad. But then when they stop and define the earmarks, then they think, that is what the Constitution – that is what James Madison said we are supposed to be doing in the House and the Senate.
So my concern is this…these guys will come in and the first vote they will cast is to trash the Constitution and reject their oath of office. I know that sounds extreme, but I don’t want these guys sitting around worrying about whether or not we will not do our job and whether we will cede our power to the president, or not.”
Inhofe’s assertions regarding fellow Congressman being brainwashed are accurate. These Congressman greedily used misinformation on their willing victims-their right-wing extremist constituents.
There are going to be battles between conservative GOP Congressman such as Inhofe and rabid Tea Party Congressmen. The Tea Partiers will even turn against their own as the article states “Meanwhile, tea party leaders are furious that conservative favorites like Sen.-elect Rand Paul (R-KY) have suggested they will request earmarks. Mark Meckler, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, told the Washington Independent’s Jesse Zwick today that the tea party will hold members accountable if they don’t support an earmark ban. “This is a fundamental issue – it’s both substantive and symbolic. … This is a vote that will never go away, like TARP,” she said. In fact, she issued a threat to those who oppose an earmark ban, saying, “in 2012 when they have aggressive, well-funded primary challengers, they’ll know why.” Indeed, her group sent an action alert to members today saying, “Our first battle with the newly empowered GOP” will be over earmarks.”
The policy stances that the Tea Partiers subscribe to are startling. The Tea Party knows the disasters that will ensue as a result of not allowing the debt ceiling to increase but the article “Tea party Sen.-Elect Lee Vows to Vote against debt limit increase” shows their lack of concern for these crises.
Judy Woodruff– a standard MSM interviewer quizzed a typical Tea Partier–Sen.-elect Mike Lee of Utah about how Republican congressional leaders will implement ideas from candidates who ran on a Tea Party platform of smaller government and reduced spending.
Judy Woodruff wondered how the Tea Party would cut US spending as the article states “I ask you because, as you know very well, 60 percent of the budget, defense, Social Security, Medicare, and if you walled that off — and you have suggested you would wall that largely off — all you’re left with are veterans benefits, retirement benefits. You’re left with safe food and drugs, protecting the environment, education, medical research, and a lot of issues — a lot of items that people think are essential for the federal government.
So, I guess my question is, what would you cut?”
Lee initially equivocated and Woodruff tried to corner him as the article states “And where would you — for example, some of your new incoming colleagues have said they want to look at cutting federal government salaries. They want to look at cutting out the Department of Education, cutting out a number of other things. Are there any specifics you can give us?”
Lee got the GOP course of never answering a question directly as the article states “Well, yes. I would like to see a cut with the Department of Education.
Look, our education system in the United States of America functions best when decisions affecting the classroom are made as close to the classroom as possible, when they’re made by teachers, by principals, by parents, and by state and local government and educational officials, not from Washington, D.C.
And that’s one area where we could cut and we could save a lot of money. We could save about $50 billion a year doing that. Of course, that’s a drop in the bucket compared to what we would need to cut if we were to balance the budget.
And that’s I say we’re going to have to look at across-the-board cuts, the likes of which we could discern perhaps by looking back to a budget as recent as the 2004 budget.”
Woodruff got to the central question as the article states “Now, one of the decisions Congress is going to be making early in the new year is raising the debt ceiling. And I believe you have said you would vote against that. And my question is, even if it means shutting down the federal government, which is what’s happened in the past when Congress hasn’t supported that?”
Lee “I would vote against raising the national debt ceiling. Again, this is about mortgaging the future of unborn generations of Americans. It’s a form of taxation without representation. I don’t think we can do that.
Now, I think there are alternatives out there that we could use in order to avoid a government shutdown. I don’t want a government shutdown. I don’t think anyone does. I would like to see some form of continuing resolution that would allow spending to continue at current levels.
But, if we had to do that in a way that enabled us to avoid having to raise the national debt ceiling, we might have to consider across-the-board cuts being built into the automatic continuing resolution.”
Woodruff again asked for specifics as the article states “But, again, across-the-board, no specifics?” to which Lee– as the article states “Correct, across-the-board.” gave the typical non-answer favored by his GOP masters.
Lee, like his other Tea Party brethren would willingly allow all of the horrors that will follow voting against raising the national debt ceiling occur, but he can’t think of reducing the debt by getting the rich to pay their fair share.
Woodruff– as the article states, asks “And — and — and, in terms of the Bush era tax cuts, you have indicated you’re in favor of extending those permanently.
The estimate is, that would cost something like, what, $4 trillion over the next 10 years. How would you pay for that?”
Lee hemmed and hawed and gave the Boehner-McConnell answer as the article states “Well, in the first place, I think it’s important that, when we ask that question, we not look at it in terms of a cost. This isn’t money that belongs to the government. This is money that belongs to the people, the people who earn it, the people who are paying their taxes.”
These chumps want to add $4 trillion to the deficit and they are giving the same answer that stooges for Reagan gave. Can’t they spiff it up for the new century at least? They know their red state constituents lap it up.
The elections have produced these results: The Tea Party-which was the impetus for the GOP takeover, is against earmarks, but their GOP masters might ignore that. The Tea Party is saying they won’t the allow debt ceiling to increase, but their GOP masters might sweep that away also. There is a possibility that the leading symbol of the Tea Party–Rand Paul, might get attacked by the Tea Party for changing his stance on earmarks.
The stances of the Tea Party were too radical. The GOP appreciates their efforts in sweeping aside the Democrats, but the GOP is the experienced right-wing group. The hopes and dreams of all of the Tea Party voters don’t matter if they don’t meet the GOP’s demands.
All of the Tea Party voters were given misinformation as platforms, and the wizard behind the curtain will have to act as the grownups in the Republican party. Since the days of Reagan it has been all propaganda all of the time for the GOP so why would the Tea Partiers expect anything different. Why would they think their wishes would be to be acquiesced to?