As the Teabagging "movement" emerges from its infancy, it is becoming more and more clear that they are not "Americans concerned by big government", but are merely another wing of the Republican Party.
Apparently not satisfied with their partnership with Fox, the GOP is now pretending that this "grass roots" movement -- made up almost entirely of white, conservative Republicans -- is a spontaneous emergence of Americans disgusted with big-government policies. Oh, and it just happens to be heavily promoted by Fox...
This assertion defies even the most basic third grade level logic. Anti-tax groups have been around for decades. Groups like the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association have been consistently and credibly spreading a message against the growth of government and the taxes that must inevitably fund a larger government. They have continued to spread their message when both Republicans and Democrats were in power. They spread it at the State level; they spread it at the Federal level. They are there, day in and day out fighting against the expansion of taxes.
The Tea-baggers on the other hand have emerged only since the election of President Obama and are railing exclusively against the Obama Administration... while innocently protesting any characterization that it is a anti-Democratic/Obama organization. If this were true, where were these people when the Bush Administration left office with a $1.2 trillion dollar deficit? Where were these people when the Bush Administration bestowed the one of the greatest corporate welfare programs in American history in the form of Medicare Part D? (Yet again paid for with the American national credit card.) Where were these people when the Bush Administration passed tax cuts without spending offsets?
If this is true, why are the Teapartiers overwhelmingly white Republicans? If this is a grass roots organization, there should be a much wider demographic than appears at the various Teaparty events. Where are the minorities? Where are the Democrats or the Libertarians or the Progressives or the Greens or the Constitutionalists?
It is a breathtaking level of hypocrisy that we are now witnessing as these "fiscal conservatives" emerge from eight years of profligate spending and begin screaming about how our government is spending too much money.
It is incredibly ironic that the Republican party has labeled themselves as fiscally responsible since the days of Reagan when in fact the only President in the last 30 years to balance a budget has been a Democrat. That people ever believed this label in the first place goes to show the power of the GOP message machine.
In the end, one can only conclude that these efforts are simply bread-and-circus entertainment to keep the right occupied and energized during the time they will spend in the wilderness. They lack the credibility to be anything but a sideshow.
Of course, this is not to say that the Obama Administration should not listen to the Teapartiers along with everyone else in their message to spend wisely. If anything, the Obama Administration has a much greater mandate to spend only what it must, even as we all face tough economic challenges. But these pressures exist because of what is right and because of what is history -- not because some Republicans got together and decided to call themselves "Teapartiers" instead.
Comments
"TEA-Baggers"
So now you have stooped to this low of using this term to grab attention. Your mother would be so proud!
But then again, I see how you are trying to mislead people by saying bush left office with a $1.2 trillion deficit (how about providing links to credible sources), when in fact, the 2008 deficit was $455 billion (comments can't contain links, by you can find it on the CBO blog).
True, when he left office it was nearly $1.2 trillion, due to $700 billion TARP that bushed signed AND was endorsed by Obama. Let's see, basic math,,,$700 billion plus $455 billion equals...$1.15 trillion. So, Obama was largely a part of that.
You conveniently left that out.
"So now you have stooped to this low of using this term to grab attention. Your mother would be so proud!"
This is a term they themselves used to refer to themselves. It's common vernacular now.
You are contradicting yourself. First you state: "But then again, I see how you are trying to mislead people by saying bush left office with a $1.2 trillion deficit " and then you finish up with "True, when he left office it was nearly $1.2 trillion".
I'm sorry if the facts don't play nice with how you wish the world were, but the facts ARE the facts. I made no mention of the Obama spending because that is over and above the Bush deficit, and is therefore irrelevant.
Thank you for your comment Concerned American!
Do you even know where the term "TEA-baggers" came from.? It would not be appropriate for me to say on a public forum. But you might as well be using the term MILF (or something of that nature).
I would like you to post something where that term is being embraced by those who are in the tea party movement.
Apparently, you do not know the difference between contradiction, disclosure and omission.
"Do you even know where the term "TEA-baggers" came from."
I am aware of both meanings of the phrase. In reference to the meaning I'm using -- a political group -- there are two origins. The first is a reference to "teabagging" during a Fox promotion of the group, and the second is an widely circulated email that suggested sending teabags to Congressional representatives.
I honestly don't mean to use the term as a pejorative.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!