Thanks to the Tea Party for providing some light relief after all the brow furrowing of this week’s US election.
After Barack Obama’s victory over Mitt Romney, the Republicans have been agonising over what went wrong with the right of the party, including the Tea Party, predictably saying that Romney failed for being too moderate and insufficiently right wing. He is apparently, a big woolly softy. They say that to attract voters and win the next election they need to position the entire Republican party further to the right.
Let’s get this clear. The American people have just elected a conspicuously liberal president to a second term (and the only other Democrat to win two terms since Roosevelt was Clinton) by a comfortable margin and the Republican right are saying that Romney lost because he was too moderate.
What exactly does this mean?
Are the Tea Party people and their fellow travellers suggesting that because Romney was too moderate, the hard right of the party refused to vote for him and instead voted for Obama? Is that what they are saying? Instead of going ‘Shit, Romney’s a big girl’s blouse, but at least he’s our girl’s blouse,’ they all declared, ‘Dang, I guess if Romney ain’t our kind of conservative, it’ll have to be Obama’?
Are Tea heads suggesting that in despair at Romney they voted for the man they styled a foreign-born, socialist Muslim?
The right are never very good at joined up thinking. Even the Tea Party name is based on a misunderstanding of the historical tea party.
I’m sure there are lots of Americans who would like to see these people pull so far in the opposite direction to the majority of voters they fall right off the edge of their flat earth.
And then everyone will go tee hee hee. Or tea hee hee.