Interesting article that points out that the Tea Partiers were not exactly subtle about what they planned to do back in 2010, and now we are paying the price. Indeed, their extremist agenda was hiding in plain sight. The question is whether voters will actually elect people who are interested in governing in 2012 or will they continue to elect people who are willing to trash the nation's economy unless they get their way.
The only think I am not crazy about in the following article is that does not just come out and say Republicans are the ones who are being crazy, even though they are in all of his examples of failure to compromise.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/30/theriault.congress.election/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
The problem with our deficit crisis today is that the message the voters sent -- and that the winning candidates heard -- was "never compromise, never surrender." We may need such a mentality on the battlefield, but we cannot have such a mentality in politics. Politics, after all, is the art of compromise.
* * *
It appears as though the mantra of "no compromise, no surrender" has less appeal for Americans today than it did in November. Or, perhaps it was the one-third of Americans today who oppose any compromise to keep the United States solvent who voted in November, while too many of the other two-thirds stayed home because they didn't think their vote mattered.
Regardless of why "no compromise, no surrender" was more popular nine months ago than it is today, you cannot blame this Washington mess on the members of Congress. They are doing exactly what they were elected to do. I suspect that if Sen. Bennett and Rep. Inglis were around, they would be sitting at the table forging compromise.
Regrettably, they lost to "never compromise and never back down" candidates, who, along with their ilk, are now holding the rest of us hostage.