“a simple majority of Americans” might “disapprove of the ACA”, but 72% of American disapprove of shutting down the government to force its repeal.

The President doesn’t have the power to repeal any law. (That would be, oh right, the House the Republicans dominate with a gerrymandered majority, but still they couldn’t repeal or defund the law). And he can’t refuse to implement a law, either, even if it didn’t happen to be his “signature” political initiative. Yet Tea Party fanatics shut down the Federal government and threatened to trash the country’s credit rating, to try to somehow force the President to do just that. The Tea Party Caucus in the House has about 80 members representing just a few million Americans. Yet they took it upon themselves to use the threat of economic disaster to force the much larger majority to give in–about 72% don’t approve of the forced shutdown.

You really don’t see anything there that’s anti-democratic? Really?

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

(18 USC § 2331 — The “Patriot” Act

Tea Party politicians only issue veiled threats of “acts dangerous to human life” (remember the phrase “second amendment remedy”?), so technically they haven’t been guilty of domestic terrorism. But I think the above forms a fine basis of a concise definition of political terrorism. The actions of rightwing fanatics were explicitly intended to coerce a policy change that they failed to achieve within the rules of democracy.

Do you still not see anything anti-democratic about the Tea Party’s actions?

“They changed the rule which was obviously within their given power to do so”…so you believe that might makes right? They changed the rule for the sole purpose of preventing democracy–a simple vote in the House–from functioning.

Yes, that’s a “tyranny of the minority”. Is that not obvious after we’ve suffered through a tantrum staged by just 80 members of a 435 member body of Congress?

It’s now less than an hour since news broke that the Senate passed a last-minute deal. I think we’ve managed to avoid “degrading” democracy, by not rewarding political terrorism and not establishing the precedent that coercion by a small minority works. But it was a close thing, and we know they’ll keep trying.

Teahadis wrap themselves in the flag and squawk loudly about their love of democracy, while their actions prove nothing but utter contempt for it.

“This is nuts. The president will never sign a bill defunding the singular achievement of his presidency. Especially when he has control of the Senate. Especially when, though a narrow 51 percent majority of Americans disapproves of Obamacare, only 36 percent favors repeal. President Obama so knows he’ll win any shutdown showdown that he’s practically goading the Republicans into trying.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-how-fractured-is-the-gop/2013/08/01/6fd6f816-fada-11e2-9bde-7ddaa186b751_story.html

The links are in his op-ed.

But I’ll keep your remarks in mind, next time a Democratic minority comes after your guns, or decides they’ve had enough of your voter suppression, or gets sick of GOP maneuvers to deny women their constitutional rights. I have a feeling you guys will be singing a very different tune, then.

I don’t think you people fully comprehend what a really bad and stupid idea, what an utterly disgraceful idea, this was. We already knew what you wanted, but now we can see how far you’re willing to go to get it. You’ve shown us what you’re capable of, and we won’t soon forget.

They changed the rule which was obviously within their given power to do so. So where’s this “contempt of democracy‘? Do you view it like a tyranny of the minority? How does the action degrade your idea of what democracy means?

Now, add Richard Nixon. Watergate and all the associated crookedness.

Throw in Ronald Reagan and the Iran-contra affair. Ollie North dealing cocaine to people in the US, the entire bunch acting against the law, and worshiped by Conservatives.

Now add GWB and Dick Cheney, starting an illegal war and selling it to Americans with lies.

They always bounce back, as corruption is not the exception as we’d like to believe, it’s the norm. We don’t want to face that.

It’s obvious that the rare periods of Democratic administrations are necessary to help the country recover from Conservative, extremist, fundamentalist administrations. Republican has been, as demonstrated by their actions, synonymous with corrupt. It’s not anything we want to believe, however, so each time we regard it as an aberration. It’s not.