Free Markets, Free People

The tea party movement is a response Barack Obama

Recently, former Vice President Dan Quayle offered his two cents about the tea party movement:

Like many influential causes before it, the “tea party” movement appeared on the scene uninvited by the political establishment. Democrats in the White House and in Congress recognize it for what it is — a spontaneous and pointed response to the Obama agenda — but some Republican leaders still aren’t sure what to make of it, as tea partiers have risen on their own and stirred up trouble in GOP primaries.

Bruce takes issue with Quayle’s comments and defends the tea party movement:

The tea party movement is not exclusively a reaction only to “the Obama agenda”. And if the GOP buys into that, they’re buying trouble. Quayle even acknowledges that without knowing it when he talks about trouble in Republican primaries.

This grass roots movement didn’t begin when Obama took office or in reaction to his specific agenda, but instead began to form during the Bush administration as government continued to expand. About the time TARP found its way into the political lexicon, it went public. It was the size of the crisis and response – the trillions of dollars thrown around like confetti – that finally spurred people into the streets and birthed the official “tea party movement”.

I really wish that were true, Bruce, but Quayle is right.

The problem is that tea party types did not organize protests to the economic policies of George W. Bush, and TARP was not the first example of fiscal impropriety of his presidency. He cut taxes, so most self-identified conservatives don’t ask questions. Nevermind that he didn’t cut spending, resulting in massive deficits that will cause huge tax increases in the future.

The first protests were prompted by Rick Santelli’s rant on CNBC in response to the Obama Administration’s $75 billion Homeowners Affordability and Stability Plan that was a bailout for both irresponsible borrowers and lenders.

Bruce continues:

[T]his isn’t a movement of right wing disgruntled Republicans. This is a movement of small government fiscal conservatives – almost libertarian in leaning. Her discussion of the demonization of business, the necessity of allowing businesses to fail, getting out of the way of the markets and let them take the lead in recovery were on target and well delivered.

At the beginning of the movement, yes, I think that would have been a true statement. The first Atlanta Tea Party (2/27/09) was a mix of libertarians, like myself and Eric Von Haessler, and fiscal conservatives. There was an authenticity about it as 300 people were huddled together on a cold, wet day at the state Capitol.

Even then, no one was talking about past fiscal recklessness, even though Barack Obama had been in office for just over a month, though everyone was slamming him. I don’t have a problem with that because Obama is spending our country further to insolvency but by what was being said, you’d think Bush never existed.

The day Newt Gingrich got involved was the day I walked away. Gingrich is no fiscal conservative, after all he supported TARP and entitlement expansion. He is a political pragmatist that will endorse any movement or political idea that will advance the Republican Party.

It was even more obvious at the Tax Day Tea Party where Sean Hannity, the Republican cheerleader, showed up to broadcast his show. By this time, libertarians began to take a skeptical eye to the tea party as it seemed that Republicans were successfully co-opting the movement.

And finally, Bruce says it:

[Tea partiers are] not looking necessarily for Republicans. They’re looking for principled small government fiscal conservatives who will return sanity to government and scale down its size, scope and cost. Sen. Olympia Snowe would not qualify. Sen. Lindsey Graham most likely wouldn’t qualify either. And I’ll venture to say, neither would Sen. John McCain. These are the type people they’re promising “trouble” for in Republican primaries.

What are the qualifiers for a “tea party” candidate, rhetoric or actually putting their words into action? For example, J.D. Hayworth, McCain’s primary opponent, isn’t exactly a fiscal conservative, though he may be more so than the incumbent.

I sumbit to you that Hayworth’s tea party support, sans Sarah Palin, isn’t because of fiscal concerns, it’s because McCain doesn’t hate brown people.

Personally, I don’t believe the tea party movement as principled as many of promoters and leaders believe it is. For example, during the health care debate, tea partiers echoed Republican criticism of ObamaCare, including the line that it would cut Medicare. If you’re complaining about Medicare cuts, are you endorsing tax increases in the future? Medicare has to be cut to avert a fiscal crisis.

Bruce gives a picture of what the movement is supposed to be, but it’s not and it hasn’t been for a while. But that’s just my personal observation as a disgruntled former tea partier.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

39 Responses to The tea party movement is a response Barack Obama

  • The problem is that tea party types did not organize protests to the economic policies of George W. Bush, and TARP was not the first example of fiscal impropriety of his presidency.
    I must strenuously disagree. The Porkbusters were clearly the movement forebears of the Tea Parties. They didn’t have the kind of mass organization, but they were sufficiently provocative to be thorn in Trent Lott’s side when he still mattered. It was just that TARP, followed so soon by the Stimulus and auto bailouts were the kinds of events that spur masses to organize. Obama taking office occurred in the first stages of that. Doubtless his being in the Oval Office contributed significantly, since it’s difficult to imagine McCain being such a spendthrift in such a short time, but it’s the policies, not the man. And the groundwork had been laid years before. Suggesting otherwise just lends credence to the *sshats who would dismiss the TP movement as nothing but disguised racism.

  • I think there have been several parents to this movement – and all of them predate Barack Obama and his agenda.  As Dodd suggests, what got this movement out of the starting gate wasn’t Obama but the litany of spending which hit at the first of the year – starting with TARP (something which happened in the Bush administration).

    What has happened since (Gringrich, Hannity) is really irrelevant to the beginning.  There are always going to be those who try to take advantage of a populist movement.  But I certainly don’t see Gingrich or Hannity identified as a leader of this movement.

    As for those complaining about cuts in Medicare – two things, only some of them are libertarians and a lot of them are elderly people.  And, as a diverse group – another point I’ve made – some are independents.  So I see nothing surprising about such complaints.  I’d expect them.  That doesn’t mean though that on a meta level they don’t want to see smaller and less intrusive and costly government.

    Last – just a note for the record: Jason posted this at United Liberty and I asked him to repost it here so we could talk about it.  I don’t consider it a personal attack or an attack on my credibility, etc, ad nauseum.  It’s a disagreement between two friends of a like philosophy who simply see something a bit differently.  I just happen to think I’m right. ;)

     

    • I sumbit to you that Hayworth’s tea party support, sans Sarah Palin, isn’t because of fiscal concerns, it’s because McCain doesn’t hate brown people.

      >>> Is he saying the tea parties are in fact racist in his opinion?

      • No, I am not. I’m saying that the tea party movement has been co-opted by groups that are not interested in fiscal issues.

        • Jason-

          Thanks for the response, but a further clarification please?  In your opinion  then, are the people who “co-opted” the tea parties racist?

    • Nothing but love for you, McQ.

      • I know that Jason – that’s why I asked you to post this here for heaven sake — just us guys having an argument sans beers. Well, I’m having a beer anyway.

    • Rodger Hedgcock stated that he was part of a Tea Party that, IIRC, was during Bush’s era.

      Bruce is right about the old people in the movement who don’t want to cut Medicare. They are not part of the Republican establishment, and they are in fact people the Democrats could count on to oppose Republican efforts at reform (recall Bush’s failed social security reform effort). The truth is that the movement appears to have a number of subgroups with slightly different agendas. Not all sub groups will appeal to libertarian idealism.

      Newt has proven to be an idiot, but Hannity is a decent conservative voice. He’s not a libertarian, and you may not agree with him on all things, but he does listen to the other side of the issue (he dosn’t cut off callers he disagrees with), and this has impressed my wife, who at 44 was a Democrat leaning independent (she now says she will never vote for a Democrat again).

  • I agree with you, Jason, on each point (except I never really strongly identified with the Tea Parties, and so didn’t reach a point where I “walked away”).

    The Tea Parties started out with a focus on spending (particularly deficit spending) and private financial responsibility.  They had strength in their focus.  Unfortunately, someone got the idea to use the “backronym” of “Taxed Enough Already,” and it’s a troubling sign when complaints about spending and government intervention are supplanted by the easier protests against taxes.

    Then the Tea Party crowds got flooded with a bunch of conservatives who, because of their irritation with the failure of the GOP to accomplish conservative goals, joined what seemed to them like a cool, independent pressure group.  They promptly piggybacked their pet issues — like immigration — onto what had been a strongly focused fiscal-conservative initiative, and now many self-identified Tea Partiers are concerned enough about other issues that they’d sacrifice spending discipline.  In many places, the Tea Party has lost its focus on spending and is indistinguishable from a movement conservatism upset with both Democrats and the Old Guard Republicans.

  • The problem is that tea party types did not organize protests to the economic policies of George W. Bush

    >>>Not quite. It may have taken off under Baracky because the Dems basically put the tax and spend agenda on steriods, but you certainly can trace it back to W.  Does the word “Porkbusters” ring a bell? 

  • Porkbusters was not a big deal.  There may have been conservative grumblings about some kinds of spending under Bush, but there wasn’t any significant/vocal opposition.

    The libertarians, of course, always grumble. And there were tea party type people funneling their frustration into helping Ron Paul. But without Obama, the tea party protests wouldn’t have really taken off. They certainly didn’t take off when Bush was doing his own bailouts.

    • Porkbusters was not a big deal.  There may have been conservative grumblings about some kinds of spending under Bush, but there wasn’t any significant/vocal opposition.

      >>> Gotta start somewhere though.  Avalanches start from a few pebbles and all that. 

  •  sumbit to you that Hayworth’s tea party support, sans Sarah Palin, isn’t because of fiscal concerns, it’s because McCain doesn’t hate brown people.

    I’m trying to figure this line out because the link doesn’t even address illegal immigration. So you’re saying they ARE racist? Just want to be clear.

    You don’t get that old people are gonna complain about reducing their medicare? Now I understand your  a young’un, but Medicare became law in 1965. They’ve been paying into this for most, if not all there lives, and now you expect them to lay down when its cut so that the young ones, who haven’t sacrificed squat get their health care taken care of at their expense. Naw, you would never complain if you were in that situation. Me, I’ve payed into it for 34 years and I don’t care if they eliminate it, provided that the government stays completely out of health care. Otherwise, you owe me bro. And you owe them to.

    People bitched and moaned about Bushs spend for as long as I can remember. But, he was better than any choice we we’re given. I sure as hell didn’t want to vote for him the second time. You think Kerry would have been better? With Bush and those before him we were like the frog in the pot slowly heating up. Obama is Bush on steroids. Its like we thrown into the boiling pot. Who really gives a damn when the people woke up. Their  awake now. The lines are drawn brother. Your with the statist or liberty, take your pick.

    • Again, I’m saying that the tea party movement has been co-opted by groups that are not interested in fiscal issues. This is evident by the support for Hayworth, who is not a fiscal conservative, in his race against McCain, who has supported immigration reform
       
      You think Kerry would have been better?
      With a Republican Congress? Yes. Remember the 90′s, divided government works.

      You don’t get that old people are gonna complain about reducing their medicare? Now I understand your  a young’un, but Medicare became law in 1965. They’ve been paying into this for most, if not all there lives, and now you expect them to lay down when its cut so that the young ones, who haven’t sacrificed squat get their health care taken care of at their expense.
      I’m looking at it from an economic perspective. Something has to be done, even if that includes cuts in benefits. I realize that you may not understand what I’m talking about, but Medicare represents $35+ trillion in unfunded liabilities. You’ve got to do something.

      • I understand exactly what your saying. Your also suggesting that the government do the exact same thing that  Obama claims the insurance companies are doing. So we can’t have the insurance companies allegedly do it but the government should. I’m not taking to your vision if libertarianism at all. If you gonna start giving everyone health care, but your going to cut the legs out from under those that contributed for others for the last 35 to 40 years, I ask you. When do you think they’re going to turn on you? Or are you going to be the exception?

        I’m of the understanding that the TP really wants to get rid of all incumbents. So do I, for the next 5 or 6 elections cycles. That’s the only way we can curb the corruption from both parties.

        As I said, I’ve been paying in for 34 years and I haven’t tasted a dime. And I wouldn’t care if I never did, if the government would stay out of it. But you don’t start to give  those that haven’t contributed at the expense of those that already have. In my world, that’s just bad business.

  • They certainly didn’t take off when Bush was doing his own bailouts.

    If memory serves, Bush only had one bailout. But I could be wrong, they were coming fast and furious back then.

    • Bailouts started in the beginning of 2008 with Bear Stearns and continued throughout the course of the year.

  • I think that we need to remember that coverage of the real estate bubble’s implosion really didn’t take off until shortly before the 2008 elections.  It was (IMO) one of the factors in McCain’s defeat, as I believe that he was polling quite well until the bottom fell out of that market.  This is when the bailouts and unemployment numbers really started to get pushed in front of our faces every night.
     
    I think that, had Obama focused on the economy and made an effort that wasn’t business as usual (bailouts, in particular) he may have found more support and the tea party movement may not have had much momentum at the start.  But he has stumbled badly, the economy has stumbled along with him, and I think that gave the movement the impetus it needed.  Once it became the face of voter outrage, Republicans rushed to take credit for it and Democrats rushed to discredit it.  And those efforts continue apace.
     

  • Well if it’s not careful, and breaks out into a full fledged party it’ll look like 1860 in reverse.

    Like it or else the Republican “Stupid Bastards and Nitwit Democrat Lite Club” is very very sadly the greatest hope of putting the breaks on all this.  Meaning I don’t have a lot of hope, and have resigned myself to the slow train to hell rather than the Democrat Hellbound Express.

    We want to change it, as they say “think globally, act locally” ( and local may be at a State level).

  • “The day Newt Gingrich got involved was the day I walked away decided the prefect must be the enemy of the better.”
    Fixed that for you.  By the way, can you find one trace of an inimical influence Newt has had?
     

  • “Suggesting otherwise just lends credence to the *sshats who would dismiss the TP movement as nothing but disguised racism.”
     
    An *sshat just like Pye here:
    “I sumbit to you that Hayworth’s tea party support, sans Sarah Palin, isn’t because of fiscal concerns, it’s because McCain doesn’t hate brown people.”
    …”Is he saying the tea parties are in fact racist in his opinion?”
    That’s exactly what he’s saying.
    Pye, who also writes:
    “By this time, libertarians began to take a skeptical eye to the tea party as it seemed that Republicans were successfully co-opting the movement.”
    That’s actually happening in the other direction, Pye.  From the from the ground up, the Teapartiers are taking the Republican party.
    Which party will continue to disgust you because they aren’t all as libertarian as you, which sort of attitude is why the LP had it’s high water mark with Anderson, no overshoes required.
    Except for the bull$hit.  Plenty of that in the LP.
     
    Politics is the art of the possible, take all the time you need Pye and figure it out.

    • Hmmmm, someone takes things a little personally. When you want to have a discussion without hurling around insults, let me know.

      • I don’t care to speak to you.  I don’t care to speak at you.
        My concern is in limiting the damage you can cause.
        Catch you way later.

  • I think that it’s possible for everybody to be right and be wrong on something as complex as a nationwide movement like the Tea Parties.  As McQ, Dodd and shark all point out, there was a small movement in favor of fiscal responsibility (read: reduced deficits) when Bush was in office.  They’ve been joined by people concerned about the eclipse of personal liberties in favor of a MUCH expanded federal government; Republicans who are p*ssed off that they are in the minority; national security whonks who shudder to think about what Imeme is doing to our defense and foreign policy; older people who worry that the new health care “system” will be funded at their expense; doctors and other medical professionals who don’t want to be de facto state employees; businessmen who worry that they are next on Imeme’s enemy list; and a tiny fraction of people who just don’t like Barack Obama because he’s black, has a funny name, may be a closet Muslim, may not have been born in the United States, etc, etc.  I suspect that one would have found a similar diversity of motivations among American patriots in 1775 or among Americans on both sides in 1861, but the key is that the motivations were all essentially aligned in a single grand cause against a single opponent.  In the case of the Tea Parties, that cause is reducing the size of the federal government and the opponent is Imeme.

    Tom Perkins (satirizing Jason Pye) – “The day Newt Gingrich got involved was the day I walked away decided the prefect must be the enemy of the better.”

    While I understand anybody’s reflexive mistrust and dislike of Newt Gingrich, I have to say that I agree with what I take to be Tom Perkins’ point.  Politics makes for strange bedfellows, and while I don’t kid myself that Gingrich is interested in the Tea Parties solely for what he can get from them, I’m not going to let his attachment to the movement sour it for me.  He’s like a guy running around in front of a parade hoping that, if he waves his stick enough, the parade will follow him when in truth he’s busy looking to see where the parade is going so he can go along with it.

    Jason PyeIt was even more obvious at the Tax Day Tea Party where Sean Hannity, the Republican cheerleader, showed up to broadcast his show. By this time, libertarians began to take a skeptical eye to the tea party as it seemed that Republicans were successfully co-opting the movement.

    For what it’s worth, Hannity frequently tries to make it clear that he’s a conservative rather than a Republican.  It so happens that the GOP is a marginally more conservative party that the democrats, so he is often aligned with them in the same way that McQ and the other “owners” of Q&O, though professed libertarians, often agree with the GOP.

    I also agree with Tom Perkins‘ assertion that the Tea Parties are doing much to take over the GOP, not vice versa.  This is another battle in the ongoing war for the heart of the party, waged between ideological conservatives (and libertarians)  who want small government on one side, and establishment Republicans who want big government with themselves in charge on the other.  At the moment, the forces are pretty evenly balanced, with some small advantage to the establishment types.  Part of the problem with the small government side is that it is fragmented for reasons similar to those expressed by Jason Pye: various groups and factions cannot agree on certain core issues and / or flat don’t trust each other.  Many people don’t like or trust Gingrich and therefore will not ally with him; the same can be said for Yosemite Sam, Sarah Palin, Rudy, Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, and a host of other people who are opposed to Imeme and his agenda and therefore SHOULD be allies, but may actually be at virtual sword points with each other.

    My opinion is that the real key is reduced government spending and fiscal discipline: once the federal government is forced to live within a reasonable budget, much of its power to do mischief will be taken away.  At any rate, it’s a good place to start.

  • It takes a while to rile up the American public and this issue has been a slow build-up. Also, while many have complained about spending and wanted more limited government back during Bush II days, keep in mind we also had 9/11 and Iraq to temper such calls. The war was more critical then, and the economy was doing fairly well. The deficits were large but as long as your’re growing at a fair clip, they can be supported or tolerated.
    Now, again, keep in mind the American public is not really tuned into politics or Wall Street stuff, so when Bear Stearns goes down, not everybody (myself included) figures out that within 6-9 months Lehman will fall and we will enter a free fall economically. Even when that happens, everyone is scared and in a panic – you are not worried about limited government when your bank might fail or when your money market account breaks the buck. Its only once this has all settled down and after the elections that the public starts looking at the ramifications.
    Also, its seems to me that this situation has created a lot of libertarians or more sympathy for them. Maybe now is not the time to declare that people who were not on the Long March are not ideologically pure…

    • Harun[W]hile many have complained about spending and wanted more limited government back during Bush II days, keep in mind we also had 9/11 and Iraq to temper such calls. The war was more critical then, and the economy was doing fairly well. The deficits were large but as long as your’re growing at a fair clip, they can be supported or tolerated.

      An excellent point.  While “anger” and “rage” are emotions normally ascribed to the Tea Parties, I’d say that the more accurate is “frightened”.  When many people are out of work, fear that they soon will be, and know people who are and HAVE BEEN unemployed for months with no prospects, they start to get nervous.  For better or for worse, they start looking to DC to see what the government is going to do to improve the situation: they start paying close attention to what goes on in Congress and the White House.  When they see our elected leaders spending trillions that we don’t have, they start to get VERY worried.  Worry quickly becomes anger, especially when there is a well-founded perception that the clowns in DC don’t know what they’re doing and, worse, have no intention of listening to the people.

    • Bush’s deficiets topped out at 400B. Obama’s first deficiet was 1.6T, a factor of four higher than ANY of Bush’s. Obama put us into the red more in one year than Bush did in his worse four combined.

      Bush is the guy who makes $50k and went $2k into debt for a jetski. Obama also makes $50k, and went $8 into debt at Las Vegas. Yeah, debt is bad, but some is scarier than others.

  • The day Newt Gingrich got involved was the day I walked away

    >>>Here’s the thing…..I could be wrong but it seems to me the strength (and possible flaw) of the “tea party” is that it really isn’t a party coalescing around national leaders. Yes, Gingrich and of course Palin have tried to fill that void, but overall it really seems to me that – as mentioned earlier- they really don’t take their cues from Newt or Sarah.  Becoming an instrument of a couple of national figures makes it infinitely easier for the left to discredit and marginalize the Tea Parties.

    This movement will work best at state and local levels.  And despite whatever agendas there may be, at  the heart of every single one of them is less govt, smarter (and less) spending.

    “Personally, I don’t believe the tea party movement as principled as many of promoters and leaders believe it is. For example, during the health care debate, tea partiers echoed Republican criticism of ObamaCare, including the line that it would cut Medicare. If you’re complaining about Medicare cuts, are you endorsing tax increases in the future? Medicare has to be cut to avert a fiscal crisis”

    >>>> I’ll chalk that up to being a  “throwing things at the wall to see what sticks” attack on Barackycare until I see evidence to believe otherwise.

  • The only people who post to this site with a plausible claim of being in a political mainstream are pogue and Scott Erb. (Not “the” mainstream, since there’s really a handful, but libertarianism isn’t any of them.) ~50% of the country supporting your movement of doctrinaire libertarianism is basically utterly out of the question.
     
    But whether the Tea Party can bring us unto Libertarian Utopia is not an interesting question. I can answer that right now: No. The interesting question is, can the Tea Party end up moving the country in a net libertarian direction sufficiently to avoid the economy completely crashing out due to running out of other people’s money to spend? Let’s argue more in the future about libertarianism when there’s a country to still argue about, and a country to do the arguing in.
     
    Libertarians shouldn’t leave the Tea Party, because there isn’t a chance in hell they’ll get the time of day in the modern Republican or Democratic party. At least in the Tea Party you’ll stand said chance of actually affecting the outcome. It won’t be perfect, but it might be better. Given the choice between having a small say or no say, I’ll take the small say; in the end it’s all most of us get anyhow.

    • Reading that reminded me I need to go and register as a Republican. Currently I’m registered Libertarian, and I want to have a say in which Republican takes on Barbera Boxer.

      • IMO, Jeremy and Don are people who understand politics is the art of the possible.
        Jason Pye either does not or does not care.

        • Right. One real world case that makes the point is the push for “shall issue” CCW laws, and the fact that Gun Owners of America opposed these laws because they were seen as an admission that a government liscense was acceptable.

          But reality is that Vermont style carry is not a possible first step for most states. “Shall issue” CCW can also lead to Vermont style carry, like it did in Alaska.

          Many libertarian ideas scare the masses. And you need to align with friends against a common enemy, even if you don’t agree with those friends on all issues. Strict adherence to libertarian principals and a refusal to team with nonlibertarians is a path to defeat.

  • Tea Parties were NAMED tea parties after santelli, but there were several tax and spending protests preceding santelli’s out burst based on TARPII and the incoming “stimulus.”
    As for the difference in volume and noise, there is a big difference between 800 billio nand 1.8 trillion.  That kinda in your face indifferent spending is able to stimulate more protesters.

  • This is a serious matter, for sure.

    Who and what is the Tea Party movement?

    I’m just on my first coffee (it’s Monday morning), so I’m not abuzz as yet. But there is definitely a theoretical thread that runs through the movement that could be called Founders patriotism. It’s a turning to the primary principles of America, which are obscured not just by things Obama is doing, but by a century’s worth of groundwork that lets him get away with it. (Obama is the other shoe dropping. Everyone paying attention knows that the Democrats have been ripening into this for decades, that nationalization of health care, for instance, an idea whose time had really passed in America decades ago, is the ghost in their machine.)

    One of the reasons that you see a lot of older people in the Tea Party movement is because they could be the last generation that was fully exposed to the primary principles growing up. They were the generation that understood Martin Luther King’s appeal to the primary theory of America. They got it.

    Now we have a couple of generations who have only been exposed to falsely derived secondary  principles, and where the French Revolution has been switched in for the American Revolution as substrate to those principles.

    We are a theoretically imperiled society, and the Tea Party movement is an attempt to see that peril and to reassert the primary principles of America. They understand American exceptionalism, that thing that all of us felt growing up, and which we could identify in our hearts and minds.

  • Well, I’m coffee’d up (not really;  I drink caffeine-free taste-alike, but you know what I mean) and McPhillips’ comment about the older folks made me reminisce about the olden days.  I remember my teenage angst and the feeling (like Sydney Poitier in “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?”) that I had to get the older generations “off my back”.  We were the first generation to have our own music big time. Bill Haley’s “Rock Around the Clock” kicked it off.  And other things, too.  The outgrowth of those feelings were the sexual revolution (grateful teenage boys should be singing our praises for that) and also less savory elements of modern society (PETA, ACLU, Code Pink, etc.).  Anyway, I think I have the long view on this.
    McPhillips’ comment about substituting the French for the American revolution is so good that, if he had that original thought, he deserves recognition for… I’m not an academic…coining a phrase?  It certainly has the ring of truth to it.  A large part of the battle today is whether we went wrong when we got away from the way things were in the Fifties, politically, I mean.
    We started by disregarding budget limitations because we had to “save the world from the Nazis”.  Now, all we need to justify crazy spending is a desire to “save the world from pre-existing conditions”.  Getting our financial wits about us is a principle that can definitely unite all of the various factions involved in the TP movement.  The Progressive Professor Erbs heads are so full of good thoughts that they have no room for financial common sense.  In a way, the current excesses are a blessing in that they allow for a solid majority of Americans to stand for  financial sanity with only the wackos and willfully ignorant outside the tent.

  • Indianapolis Tea Party from July 28, 2007…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T35-BYegosE
    Tax protests have occurred pretty regularly since the start of our country.  Wasn’t that what the Whiskey Rebellion was about.  I attended a 40,000 strong protest when Connecticut decided to enact the income tax there.
    And while it may not have the mass of showing up on the green in front of state or this nations capitals, I remember plenty of people decrying the growth of both spending, and the growth of government, here on this website, and plenty of other places.

  • I’d disagree with you.  You’ve forgotten porkbusters which specifically targeted big spending republicans.  Tea party could not have organized so quickly after Obama took office if it had not been in the works from the Bush admin.