Tea Party Response to Obama: Is One Needed?

Dear Friends: Many know that Obama has recently belittled the Tea Party movement, referring to those attending the Tax Day Tea Parties during legitimate and Constitutionally protected demonstrations of free speech as “folks waving tea bags around”. (Note the derogatory use of the term “Tea Bag”, instead of the grassroots term “Tea Party”). Some designated “Tea Party” leaders are rushing to meet with him. Why? And what could that achieve?

I am no fan of our current President. But, truth be told, I have usually not be a fan of the man sitting in the nation’s highest executive office (e.g. I voted against Reagan in 1984, I voted against GHW Bush in 1988, and voted for Clinton before before I voted against him in 1996). My batting average for this pick is not very high.

However, I have never been so unnerved by the growth of government as I am now. I took Obama seriously when he told Ohio plumber Joe Wurzelbacher that he wanted to “spread the wealth“. I also noted how aggressively the elite media and local government workers/Obama supporters targeted Wurzelbacher for daring to ask a hard question of Obama AND getting a candid answer.

My interest in the Tea Party stems from Republican senators ignoring my faxes to vote “No” on the pork-laden budget, legislation directing my taxes to pay the mortgages for the irresponsible, and California Republican representatives rolling over for the Democrats and voting to raise my state taxes. I am deeply angered that putrid government financial corruption has contaminated my son’s future with burdensome deficits. As I mother, I am very worried that the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act (also known as the GIVE Act) will eventually force him into a service program that fits into a politician’s schemes. Basically, I joined Tea Parties not because of Obama, but to get solid representation that showed fiscal responsibility and appreciation for capitalism — the President never figured into the equation because I had already deemed him an uncompromising idealogue.

I am under no illusion that Obama would agree with me, or my band of Tea Party Patriots, about the value of free market enterprise or the ultimate humanity of fair capitalism. We could have a Tea Party daily at 1600 Pennsylvania avenue, and it would not make a dime’s worth of difference. If the Tea Party Movement is to mean something someday to someone, I do not think it is sensible to rush into meeting with Obama unless there is some larger purpose to serve that is reasonably achievable.

Presently, I can’t fathom what that purpose would be. As I am a scientist, I like to look at previous experiments and analyze the data. Perhaps if we did that, we could make a determination as to what such a meeting could accomplish.

Let’s review examples of Obama’s meeting with the “opposition” and “corporate America” and see how that has gone. Obama met with conservative pundits at columnist George Will’s house: then, he tells GOP legislators attempting to do some bipartisan compromising “I won” and proceeds with enormously expansive and liberty-crunching legislation. Obama will directly lie about meetings (e.g., indicating that Jim Owens, the CEO of Caterpillar, Inc., said that if Congress passes Obama’s stimulus plan, this company will be able to rehire some people who were just laid off., which Owens said was just not true). Finally, it appears Obama will strong-arm private citizens and entrepreneurs to push through his vision (during a radio interview, a bankruptcy lawyer said: “One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House Press Corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight.” For details, click HERE).

Looking at these data points, I think we have a negatory on any success trajectory.

Therefore, I would encourage the citizens of the Nationwide Tea Party Coalition to exercise extreme caution in their offer to meet with the President. The mainstream media has demonstrated that it is enchanted with Obama and cannot comprehend why anyone would protest during his current administration — with the $13/week stimulus, I guess we peons should shut up and be grateful. Finally, the media treatment of GOP VP candidate Sarah Palin was so awful, it inspired Breitbart’s John Ziegler to make a documentary entitled Media Malpractice — and if someone with a knack for communicating with people effectively like Palin has this kind of trouble, just what is in store for people with more of a grassroots background?

But I digress. I have a bad feeling about this meeting, and strongly urge that anyone meeting under a “Tea Party” banner reconsider. Obama seems to be setting the movement up, especially since the derision is right of the Saul Alinsky “Rules for Radicals” handbook (Rule 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.). The elite media and Obama supporters have no desire or reason to present such a meeting in a fair manner: I warn you, that whatever is done during this meeting will be tailored into a Rule 12 demonization that will undermine our efforts.

Perhaps the best response to Obama is to ignore his man-child “Tea Bag Waving” mock and direct our protest to the adults — namely, fellow voters who will elect enhanced opposition to the nanny-state set-up the President is trying to achieve.

UPDATE: My favorite journalist, Jake Tapper, is on the story.A related analysis from American Thinker is HERE.