Tea party misunderstood by political commentators

Published: October 26, 2013
Advertisement
;

In “Too little politics in Washington” (Commentary, Oct. 20), George Will said “Obama and his tea party adversaries have something in common — disdain for the practice of politics within the Framers' institutional architecture.” That's an inaccurate premise. Leonard Pitts Jr., in “Party's real believers thrive on rejection” (Commentary, Oct. 20), said, “This is what it has come to in Tea Party America: government of the crisis, by the crisis, for the crisis.”

Let's think for a moment: Why does the government run from crisis to crisis, or should I say from continuing resolution to continuing resolution? Because the Senate hasn't passed a budget in four years! Memo to Pitts: The tea party doesn't control the Senate, yet. In “How GOP can rebound from this tough stretch” (Commentary, Oct. 20), David Ignatius said “a grass-roots movement to rebuild the GOP as a governing party is possible.” The grass-roots movement that Ignatius prescribes is already taking shape. It's a movement that stemmed from excessive government spending and the questionable passing of the Affordable Care Act. The movement is referred to as the tea party.

The tea party is a group that seeks the power to determine its own outcomes instead of having Washington, D.C., guide them to their station in life. Because of this, tea party members and “Washington players” — whether writers or politicians — don't mix; both groups desire this control.

James Seabrook, Oklahoma City