What Tea Party has Sullivan been Watching?

Perhaps the Mad Hatter's, because he's obviously not been paying attention to the Tea Party movement in this country's politics.  Today, in a post almost laughably entitled "Why the Tea Parties Matter," he quotes Michael Scherer, who states that "the silly campaign rally signs and DNC oppo may matter less than the fact that Tea Partiers are shaking up the Republican Party, which is good for the Republican brand."  Sullivan goes on to say

That's the optimistic view. I would like to share it. But the social and cultural baggage of the movement - and its support for the unrestrained war machine and visceral recoil from a majority-minority America - seem to point in the other direction.

Of course, in his usual lazy manner, Sullivan provides no example of, much less a link to any "social and cultural baggage" of the movement.  Nor does he care to explain the Tea Party's support for the "unrestrained war machine."  If anything, the Tea Party movement has largely put the topic of War and Empire on the back burner in the face of an unprecedented expansion in domestic spending that has largely been of no consequence to any improvement of this country.  But because dialing back defense spending is not a hot topic, the Tea Party is apparently in support of wild and aggressive expansion of the empire.  How ludicrous.

And let's not forget the piece de resistance of his post, the Tea Party's "visceral recoil from a majority-minority America."  To those of us with a standard person's intellect, the immediate response to that line is "what the hell?"  It's a line that doesn't mean anything at all if taken at face value.  But when you remember what side he's on, it becomes all too clear that Sullivan is beaming down from his ivory tower with a smirk at how well he was able to disguise outwardly calling all Tea Partiers racists.

Despite his laziness and his backward way of thinking, however, there is hope on the horizon for Dandy Andy, as he at least recognizes that we are on the brink:

But if they manage to get a GOP House to back real cuts in entitlements and defense, and actually cooperate on some kind of deal with Obama for long-term debt reduction, I'll be more than happy to change my mind. But I see an ideological rigidity that would prevent this. Which would mean more stalemate. Which means more debt.

The only problem with Sully's realization that the road ahead offers more debt due to ideological rigidity is that he is expecting President Obama's policies to be the way out, and that the soon-to-be-GOP-led House would cause more debt by not cooperating with him.  Apparently Sullivan's solution to reducing the debt is for the future representatives of the people of this country to bow before their King.  You'll pardon me, Mr. Sullivan, if I, like many other racist, war mongering, social misfits feel that our President has been the one digging the hole.  It's time to test his ideological rigidity.