This column in CNN by Maria Cardona made by blood boil.  This writer eloquently describes the 87 members of Congress in the Tea Party Caucus as the “Tyranny 0f 87″ and in these terms: The tyranny is coming from the 87 members of Congress from the tea party caucus, whose selfish and irresponsible demands during the debt ceiling negotiations may very well mean either outright default or what could be even worse and too late to avoid — the downgrade of the country’s gold standard AAA credit rating. What is worse, these 87 little tyrants have no clear understanding of the fallout of either scenario. Is conviction in Washington, DC so rare that it is mistaken for selfishness or irresponsibility?  Compare the Tea Party Caucus with say, the Blue Dog Democrats, who say they want to do something about the debt but when they had to power to go into then Speaker Pelosi’s office en mass and say, “We won’t help you with any thing until we get a curb on spending RIGHT NOW!”  Did they do it?  Memo to those in districts where you have a Blue Dog versus a Tea Party candidate – who to choose?  Pick the one in the EFFECTIVE group.  The one the liberals complained about: The heart of the problem is that this power in the hands of a group of people who have never governed, have no interest in compromising, and have no clue about the history of government or how government really works, is a dangerous thing and the American people may very well be the victims in this childish game of chicken. If the CNN columnist is concerned about tyranny, perhaps she should consider the health care debate and passage.  Were the people consulted?  The Democrat leaders did not view any sign of public displeasure as a sign they should not give up their “selfish” and “irresponsible” support for a health care plan people did not want.  Maybe they should be seen as standing for principle regardless of political consequences?  After all, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, people voted for Scott Brown to succeed the late Edward M. Kennedy in large part because he would be the 41st vote to filibuster Obamacare.  He spoke against it after his election.  What happened next:  We had the House consider passing a bill without any voting.  Then, the pro-life Democrat representative from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan was a hold out until he did what?  Went along for a worthless piece of paper?  Did it ever occur that might be irresponsible?  Did anyone seriously consider the costs of a government take over of health care (Yes, call ME a liar , why don’t you, Politifact!) But the Tea Party Caucus is irresponsible and tyrannical: Voters still know how Congress should work and poll after poll has shown these members were elected to work with their colleagues for the greater good of the country — to come up with balanced approaches that are fair and bipartisan. [...]