Tea Party Propaganda Promotes Division At Home, Unity In Russia

Josh Rogin of The Daily Beast made an appearance on MSNBC’s All In on Monday. The Tea Party released his quotes to promote the aspect of weakness from our nation’s chief executive. Tea Party officials took it upon themselves to push their agenda by attempting to make our President seem like he has lost all credibility with foreign nations as well as, blur the lines of how foreign policy should be approached.

When analyzed, the Tea Party would be comical in their comments if they weren’t so irresponsible and dangerous. Demonstrating the lack of depth in both thought and character of those who would call themselves patriots. But, then again, the Tea Party isn’t really about patriotism is it?

Tea Party propaganda.

Rogin said Monday in response to the crisis in Ukraine,

“When you take out all the breathy rhetoric, when you take out all the ad hominem attacks, [the criticisms] boil down to this: the Obama administration has lost credibility around the world. Their reactions to a host of revolutions especially during the Arab spring have been seen as ad hoc and very hard to understand. They have ruined relationships with allies with the lack of consultations.”

The Tea Party post continued with,

“Rogin noted that the seemingly directionless foreign policy under the Obama administration had created ‘a perception of a lack of leadership.’ ‘And Obama, if you read his Bloomberg interview today, doesn’t acknowledge that perception.’”

The Tea Party critique.

The Obama administration is not without fault. They are not above criticism. There are healthy, productive ways to add to the conversation. The Tea Party refuses or is unable to perform such a feat. And that is what makes them counter-productive and volatile to the American political process. Simple analysis of the Tea Party position makes clear their intention and the damage they can do.

First, let’s get rid of the Latin so the regular guy can understand the statement. “Ad hominem” means, appealing to feelings, prejudices, emotions and/or special interests rather than intellect. To attack a person’s character or personal attributes in order to promote their own position, rather than based on the merit of the argument. Tea Party tactic 101.

“Ad hoc” means, for the particular case or situation. Without consideration of broad application.

So, cutting out the wordplay of Rogin and the Tea Party reveals,

“When you take out all the breathy rhetoric, when you take out all the ad hominem  [special interest, emotional, prejudicial] attacks, [the criticisms] boil down to this: the Obama administration has lost credibility around the world.”

Really? Cutting out the Tea Party criticisms seems to take the lack of credibility question away entirely. No one else is painting such a picture.

“Their reactions to a host of revolutions especially during the Arab spring have been seen as ad hoc  [specific to the situation] and very hard to understand. They have ruined relationships with allies with the lack of consultations.”

Hmmph! Funny how just a few words put in place (or remove, depending upon intent) change the context. Isn’t it?

Tea Party hypocrisy is the reality.

The Tea Party adding their own commentary to Rogin’s quotes only exacerbates the ridiculousness.

“Rogin noted that the seemingly directionless foreign policy under the Obama administration had created ‘a perception of a lack of leadership.’”

Uh, no it doesn’t. Tea Party assertions of a “seemingly directionless foreign policy” lead the reader to believe Obama and his administration have no idea what they’re doing. The only perceived lack of leadership is being done by, and promoted for, those who oppose team blue. They want you to believe you have no leader. In order for the Tea Party to succeed, all other political strategies must fail. It’s that disgustingly simple.

The reality is, most in the public eye believe John Kerry’s role as Sec. of State has been brilliant. Exactly the way the country should be conducting itself. Kerry talking tough publicly while Obama gives Putin a way out on a public stage and dealing with him privately through a series of extended phone conversations. But Rogin, the Tea Party and the right has to add,

‘And Obama, if you read his Bloomberg interview today, doesn’t acknowledge that perception.’”

Obama not listening to Tea Party rhetoric. Are you?

No kidding? Obama isn’t listening to, or acknowledging the opinions of, those who would oppose him at every turn? Obama isn’t listening to destructive criticisms while he handles a delicate foreign policy issue involving armed insurgence? Imagine that.

Wouldn’t an acknowledgment of the opposing party’s beliefs that he is an ineffective, weak, “feckless” leader be the stuff of a man who is second guessing himself and therefor only continuing to propagate the weakness of leadership in the United States?

I’m of the opinion that the only people that promote weakness and lack of direction in leadership are those who publicly oppose the rightful leader. “United we stand, divided we fall.” “Divide and conquer” Y’know? That kind of thing?

 Who is invited to the Tea Party?

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said in a tweet on Tuesday, ” It started with Benghazi. when you kill Americans and nobody pays a price, you invite this type of aggression. #Ukraine”

Keep in mind that Graham faces Tea Party opposition in his home state and needs votes wherever he can get them. And if it weren’t for Tea Party rhetoric we would be long past Benghazi. But the Tea Party isn’t legitimate. They are being funded by hidden dollars and hidden entities in order to promote their own agenda. Not by arguing on the merit of their points, but by “ad hominem” attacks.

Meanwhile, there are still people in politics that have a clue. Robert Gates, former Defense Sec. to both Bush and Obama said in a Washington Post column by David Ignatius,

“It seems to me that trying to speak with one voice- one American voice- has become a quaint thing of the past. I regret that enormously.”

That quote was echoed by Morning Joe‘s, Joe Scarborough when he said,

“that there is nothing more frightening to America’s enemies than a strong, unified American voice. If the President of the United States isn’t providing that publicly, and some could argue that he’s not, it’s incumbent upon his political rivals to encourage him privately. not provide political broadsides in public when the tanks are rolling. There is gonna be a lot of time to do that during the campaigns. But for now Washington leaders should measure their words a bit more carefully.”

Would the Tea Party lead us to war, or away from it?

The Tea Party and it’s ideals have mirrored Putin. You’ve heard the quips about how the right wing courts the power of Russia’s leader. Now, they have to flip flop on that position. In doing so, the only way out for the Tea Party is not to offer suggestion or assistance but by harsh criticism of their own country’s leadership. The consequence being the perception of a divided nation. Who’s responsible for that?

Make no mistake, wars have been started for less than what we see now, and it could happen again. This is chess people. It ain’t checkers. The elected in Washington must put their egos in check. There is only room for one on top of the hill. We voted on that 2 years ago. While Republicans may have ideas and criticisms, to voice those so boisterously in public isn’t helping the situation. It may, in fact, lead this country to war.

If that happens, and I hope it doesn’t, pay attention to who stands in the spotlight to be recognized, and who mumbles off in the darkness anonymously to play with words and fondle their twitter.