Did tea party win or lose in debt deal debacle?

The Tea Party stood at a political crossroads Tuesday, split by a vote on raising the US debt limit after fractious negotiations that saw them declared both the big winners and losers.

At issue was the role that the young movement, born of anger at the sour US economy and stoked by establishment Republicans eager to harness its energy, could play in President Barack Obama‘s fight for reelection in November 2012.

“I think nothing really changes. This is, to us, the beginning of the debate,” Republican Senator Rand Paul, one of the Tea Party’s champions in the polarized Congress, told AFP when asked what would happen next.

“We’re going to continue to promote solutions, as opposed to deals. I think this is a deal, not a solution,” Paul said of the 11th-hour compromise agreed by Obama and top Republicans to avert a disastrous debt default.

Paul shrugged off public opinion polls showing that the Tea Party emerged from the spectacle of the acrimonious six-months-long debt debate with its image tarnished.

“I don’t see anything about my perception of the public’s will that tells me I need to do less. They tell me I need to keep doing the same thing and tell me to stand my ground,” the Kentucky lawmaker said.

A fresh survey from the Pew Center that studies US public opinion found that 42 percent of Americans had a less favorable view of Republicans, 37 percent thought less of the Tea Party, and 30 percent viewed Democrats less positively.

Republican respondents were among the most divided: 56 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who agreed with the Tea Party said their impression of members of Congress tied to the movement had improved.

But just four percent of Republicans who disagree with, or are neutral towards, the Tea Party, said they felt more positively about the movement, against 27 percent who reported thinking more negatively.

Political analysts said the split would ultimately matter little and predicted Republicans would unite behind their standard-bearer in the November 2012 race, when the party hopes to retake the White House.

“Those fissures are going to recede, and the Republican party is likely to become more united on the issue of creating jobs and attacking Obama’s record,” according to Matt Dickinson, a political scientist at Middlebury College.

Dickinson noted then-president Bill Clinton overcame lackluster approval ratings to coast to reelection in 1996 after campaigning in large part against congressional Republicans he convinced voters were radical.

But while Obama might be similarly politically “blessed by his enemies,” Clinton “was never in these dire straits economically,” Dickinson told AFP recently.

A senior Republican senate aide agreed, telling AFP: “We could have the party broken into 17 factions in open warfare, but by summer of 2012 everyone will be holding hands against Obama.”

Other key Tea Party figures joined Paul in ultimately opposing the legislation, arguing the massive austerity deal they helped to pull sharply rightward was ultimately insufficient to get Washington’s fiscal house in order.

They included Republican Representatives Michele Bachmann as well as Republican Senators Mike Lee and Jim DeMint — widely considered the Tea Party’s most influential patron in the US Congress.

“It’s time to stop the ‘hot air’ in Washington and let the winds of true change, economic growth and job creation spurred by the private market sweep through this country. Someone has to say NO to more spending. I will,” said Bachmann.

In the House of Representatives, however, 59 of the so-called “freshmen” elected in November 2010 elections shaped by the Tea Party ultimately sided with Republican leaders in backing the legislation, while 28 opposed it.

And more than half of the “Tea Party Caucus” in the House backed the bill.

House Republicans were more united behind the bill than Obama’s Democratic allies, who broke 95-95 amid angry criticisms that the bill cut middle-class programs while failing to increase taxes on the rich and wealthy corporations.

That doesn’t mean Tea Party adherents will set aside their often fiery, take-no-prisoners approach, said Dickinson.

“A good chunk of them think they are doing God’s work, so they are not amenable to the kinds of deals that more pragmatic lawmakers, like their leaders, may find reasonable,” he said.

Enhanced by Zemanta

6 Responses to "Did tea party win or lose in debt deal debacle?"

  1. Sandune  August 3, 2011 at 9:35 am

    From my point of view, the Tea Party has a single agenda. This agenda is to destroy President Obama any way they can. Over the years, I have worked on many presidential elections and never before have seen such a lack of respect for any American running for office. The reasons that they throw out are redundant and laced with emotional insults.

    I look at the future through religious opinions and I see a brooding movement that could lead to dissension all over America. Every action Obama makes faces a shooting range of ignorance. What stirred up this mass of hatred for a man running for office? In my opinion it was the most active members of an unAmerican group coming from the churches across America led by the words of several active radio commentators and some newspapers with religious backing.

    Sure they could bring down the government and we could end up as a Christian nation but what exactly would that mean?

  2. KerriK  August 4, 2011 at 7:57 am

    Yes, the Tea Party is tarnished because their willingness to bring down the government to achieve a political agenda became very obvious over all of the months of negotiations. If they are trying to bring back the middle class I don’t understand why closing loopholes for the very rich and subsidies for very profitable corporations is anathma to them. This needs to happen in order to give our middle class a fair shake. Then we can continue to discuss ways to cut spending – but cutting spending withouth increasing revenue is only going to hurt those they say they are trying to h elp.

  3. SG2  August 6, 2011 at 3:24 am

    Did tea party win or lose in debt deal debacle?

    Someone won & big?

    The $1 Billion Armageddon Trade Placed Against the United States Bond Market

    http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article29477.html

    “This means someone with the ability to place an $850 million bet was likely privy to inside information on the debt-ceiling debate.”

    • Carl Nemo  August 6, 2011 at 3:39 am

      Thanks SG2 for the ‘dirt’ concerning a possible rigged trade. This also happened in conjunction with 9/11 where undisclosed speculators shorted the U.S. markets and made a bundle. They tracked the ‘entities’ back to Germany, but allegedly the trail went cold. Bullsh*t…!

      The trail led back to Saudi ‘investors’ and no doubt a host of their buddies both arabic and the West. This is all long forgotten since the attention span of the American electorate is that of “chickens”, possibly less so. / : |

      Carl Nemo **==

      • SG2  August 6, 2011 at 10:26 am

        S&P is run by McGraw Hill CEO Harold McGraw III who supports Mitt Romney for President.

        Hmmm…I smell fish and it ain’t Friday

  4. Loonesta  August 7, 2011 at 9:31 am

    At this point it is irrelevant whether the Teas lost or won anything since they’re for destruction of the American government anyway – the entire world are the losers here. The rest of the globe is now aware of the Teavangelistas, and whether you read Der Spiegel or China Daily or the Guardian or Le Monde or what have you, they would place blame at the feet of the Teas and find them ridiculous at best. The Tea Party are America’s embarrassment, like a flock of small children pooping in a public pool.

Comments are closed.