Tea Party Started Under Bush – UPDATED

In a very well-done piece at Patheos, Tim Dalrymple argues that while the tea kettle might be whistling under Barack Obama, the flame was initiated during Bushs’ presidency:

The tea started brewing under Bush. It’s important that Democrats and Republicans alike understand this. Democrats know that they are about to suffer a rebuke of historic proportions, but it’s important they understand the reason and not imagine themselves the victims of racism or irrationality. And it’s important for Republicans to understand that their legacy of government growth and deficit spending is also suffering rebuke. The Republicans will recapture the House (if they do) not because Americans love the GOP but because the Democrats doubled down on the Republicans’ big-government tendencies.

It’s a long, well-thought-out piece, and you’ll want to read it all!

Related:
The headlines at Drudge, on possible incidences of voter fraud are not surprising, are they? I gathered when–in the face of disastrous poll numbers–David Axelrod said “stay up late…” because the Democrats would pull off a victory, that we’d be seeing questions at the polls.

Obama’s numbers hit a new low. Well his rhetoric has been very unlikable, lately.

UPDATE:
Katie Couric visits “the great unwashed”. That would be you and me.

More:
Childish
Jimmie Bise, Jr: “Back in formation…
Threatening opponents with audits?

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • http://vita-nostra-in-ecclesia.blogspot.com Bender

    The tea started brewing under Bush.

    Started brewing? Maybe you could say it happened under the second President Bush or, more precisely, UNDER THE CONGRESS during his Administration.

    But that is not when the whole process started. Folks started getting out the tea when the first President Bush went back (or was talked into going back) on his “no new taxes” pledge.

    And they put the water on to boil in 1995, when, immediately after having taken the Congress, the Republicans started making excuses for why it couldn’t deliver, and then they allowed the lifers and others to spend like drunken Dems. For example, it was when Dick Armey said in early 1995 that the Contract with America did not promise to work to actually pass term limits, but only to have a vote on them, that Bender in disgust stopped calling himself a Republican.

    And then it was during George W’s Administration when the Republican Congress continued with its Dem-lite practices. The Congress being filled with Arlen Specter and Chuck Hagel and Lincoln Chafee types, President Bush could not be as conservative as he might have been, having to placate and go along with them. I suppose it could be argued that Bush was at fault for not vetoing the things that the Republican Congress passed, but the undeniable fact is that it was the CONGRESS that passed all the crap which got the tea to simmering.

    This was abundantly clear after Bush left office, and too many Republicans continued with their spineless, worm-like, weasel ways. And since such Republicans do not, in fact, have any cohones, to use Sarah Palin’s word, that they are wholly incapable of reproducing. They are dying out. Not soon enough, but it will end only one way, with the dinosaurs becoming nothing more than goo in the ground.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention The Anchoress | A First Things Blog -- Topsy.com

  • dry valleys

    So the Koch brothers were vocal in their opposition to Bush, were they?

  • nohype1

    Even Peggy Noonan seems to be recognizing the importance of Bush in explaining the Tea Party movement:

    “The tea party did something the Republican establishment was incapable of doing: It got the party out from under George W. Bush. The tea party rejected his administration’s spending, overreach and immigration proposals, among other items, and has become only too willing to say so.”

    If the establishment had not been so eager to try to choke off any voice of dissent by hurling the racism charge, they might have realized this a year ago.

  • http://vita-nostra-in-ecclesia.blogspot.com Bender

    Who the hell are the Koch brothers????

    No one knows who they are except a bunch of muck-raking libs who are trying to make something out of nothing, just like they kept citing some obscure nobody named “Richard Mellon Scaife” years ago as evidence of some nefarious vast rightwing conspiracy.

  • Pingback: Tin Plated Over Bearing Swaggering Dictator with Delusions of Godhood (II) « Temple of Mut

  • Mutnodjmet
  • http://vita-nostra-in-ecclesia.blogspot.com Bender

    Psst. Hey Peggy — the Tea Party is more about jettisoning the likes of you than it is a reaction against George Bush.

    [I do think there is an element of it, Bender. No one defended Bush more vociferously than I did, and I recall the hate mail I got b/c of it. The people who in large part make up the tea party (or who helped it get started) were the ones who were calling Bush a RINO (or a "fake" conservative or a "closet socialist") back then. Dalrymple's larger point, that the TP was already simmering before Obama came into office is, I think, quite sound. You auld grouch! :-) -admin]

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    The Anchoress: Tim Dalrymple argues that while the tea kettle might be whistling under Barack Obama, the flame was initiated during Bushs’ presidency

    Then how come Tea Party leader, Glenn Beck, has been arguing that ever since the socialists took over the government two years ago, they have undermined the Constitution, trashed the economy, and threaten the foundations of America’s freedom?

  • tim maguire

    Zachriel, you have quite a bit to learn about current politics if you think Glenn Beck is the founder and/or leader of the Tea Party. To my knowledge, he isn’t even a member. Same goes for dry valleys, just substitute Koch brothers for Glenn Beck.

  • Kurt

    Zachriel–He’s been saying those things because they are true. The Democrats have accelerated all of the bad tendencies of the last administration in their overreach and overspending.

    But then again, your comment calls Beck “the leader” of the Tea Party, assuming that he started the movement or had some role in its establishment. The truth is that he latched onto a movement that was already underway. If there is one person who really got the movement rolling, it wasn’t Beck, but Rick Santelli in his February 2009 rant from the Chicago Exchange.

  • http://vita-nostra-in-ecclesia.blogspot.com Bender

    The people who in large part make up the tea party (or who helped it get started) . . .

    . . . are for the most part now nostalgic for George W., realizing that they did him wrong, while they are all still boiling over and against the Grahams and Murkowskis and Castles of the party.

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Kurt: But then again, your comment calls Beck “the leader” of the Tea Party, assuming that he started the movement or had some role in its establishment.

    So, the 87,000 or so people who showed up when Beck organized his rally had nothing to do with the Tea Party.

    Kurt: If there is one person who really got the movement rolling, it wasn’t Beck, but Rick Santelli in his February 2009 rant from the Chicago Exchange.

    That would be after Obama got elected.

  • Kurt

    You’ll notice I said he “really got the movement rolling.” Things started to coalesce at that point in time, though people were fed up with the deficits and spending while Bush was president, and TARP angered many people who are now active with the tea party.

    And nice try, but even the lamestream media had to concede that there were at least 250,000 – 300,000 at Beck’s rally. If you study the pictures of the crowd, you can see that it was similar in size to the 9/12/09 rally that the press did everything it could to ignore.

  • Sandra

    It (the TEA party movement) may have started under Bush, with several items, (for conservatives) having to do with the Federal Budget, the enlargement of Federal Powers, and the whole debacle on illegal immigration / migration through the U.S. and Mexican border.

    But “the heat has been on under the kettle” for a number of years and ignored by most politicians, from all political parties.

  • Joe Odegaard

    I’m so unwashed.

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Kurt: Things started to coalesce at that point in time, though people were fed up with the deficits and spending while Bush was president, and TARP angered many people who are now active with the tea party.

    Yes, amazing. They just had to wait for the economy to be torn apart by the fiscal policies of the Bush Administration to begin blaming the new Administration within days of the inauguration.

    Kurt: And nice try, but even the lamestream media had to concede that there were at least 250,000 – 300,000 at Beck’s rally.

    Sorry, that is incorrect. It is q

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Oops.

    Kurt: And nice try, but even the lamestream media had to concede that there were at least 250,000 – 300,000 at Beck’s rally.

    Sorry, that is incorrect. It is quite easy to verify from aerial photographs. The density of the crowd was quite low, more of a picnic distribution in most areas. You are certainly free to make up your own truthiness, though.

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Curt Westergard, the president of AirPhotosLive.com: You really have to have a position overhead to count it well, and if you use a very oblique angle from the top of the Washington Monument, the sparse areas – and there were many because of people with blankets and chairs – tend to look more dense because you’re looking at it from the edge. We instead are looking at it from above. And that perspective is essential. Anything less than that is sort of like guessing how many people are in a line by just looking at them through a doorway, for example.

    If you look at the aerial photographs, you can see lots of green, and lots of people on blankets and umbrellas. The density is not there to support the higher numbers.

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel
  • dry valleys

    On about the billionaire Koch brothers

    Of all the things they can be called, marginal isn’t one of them.

    As for Rick Santelli, I’d think twice before joining a movement he started if it’s all the same to you. The “losers” had to borrow because it was the only way to live in a neoliberal society in which people can’t earn a decent living in the way their grandfathers did.

  • J

    During Pres. Bush’s term, he attempted a few things (Mier’s appointment, amnesty, social security reform (alas))and was met with vibrant, vehement opposition…..and he and the republicans listened. I believe that was the start of the tea party, we knew if we were strong in our voices and actions, the politicians would listen.
    This bunch in power did not/will not listen so the people have strengthened their voices, actions and resolve….God love them.

  • Doc

    Ya gotta admire old Zach. He dives in with the Lefty talking points at every opportunity. If the Progressives insist that Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin couldn’t draw a quarter million people (who weren’t transported, bought and paid for by Huffington Post, SEIU and George Soros) then by gosh, only 87,000 were there, despite photographic evidence to the contrary.

    And please ignore the infamous chart which shows the deficit for the last few decades and the way Obama’s and Pelosi’s spending overwhelms everything that preceded it.

    Understand that Zach and the rest of the Left can’t really conceive of a grassroots movement, since all theirs are Soros and union funded and organized, aka, astroturf movements. This is why Pelosi instinctively labeled the Tea Party movement astroturf and Zach always has to assign “leaders” to the Tea Party. Pure projection.

  • expat

    Will we ever know how many concessions Bush made to keep Congress on line with anti-terrorism efforts? Would he have fought harder for SS reform or for reining in Fannie and Freddie? For me it is hard to decide what was too much compassionate conservatism and what might have been a matter of priority.

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Doc: If the Progressives insist that Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin couldn’t draw a quarter million people (who weren’t transported, bought and paid for by Huffington Post, SEIU and George Soros) then by gosh, only 87,000 were there, despite photographic evidence to the contrary.

    It’s the photographic evidence, that is available to anyone who wants to study it, that indicates a very respectable turnout of 87,000 or so.

    Doc: And please ignore the infamous chart which shows the deficit for the last few decades and the way Obama’s and Pelosi’s spending overwhelms everything that preceded it.

    The last Bush budget was over a $1 trillion, without the additional stimulus spending. The Recession, and the structural deficits were inherited, and it would be imprudent to addrss those until the economy is on a healthy trajectory.

    Doc: has to assign “leaders” to the Tea Party.

    It’s not reasonable to say that Glenn Beck, who organized a substantial Tea Party rally at which he was a lead speaker, is not a leader of the Tea Party. Beck thinks socialists took over the government two years ago, they have undermined the Constitution, trashed the economy, and threatens the foundations of America’s freedom. Which does relate to the thread topic.

    In retrospect, some Tea Partiers mention they were disgruntled by some of Bush’s policies, but nearly everyone in the Tea Party voted for and supported Bush at the time.

  • Doc

    Actually, I’d say the socialists took over the House of Representatives 4 years ago. If you understand how important a majority is in the House and look at the hard Left tilt of the most important committee chairmen, it’s clear that the 4 year reign of Pelosi has been an unmitigated disaster for this country. This is why she will become one of 435 again in January.

    Gateway Pundit, Instapundit, Powerline, and other top blogs all had photos from the air comparing the Beck/Palin rally to other large events at the Mall and it was clear that a quarter million was far closer to accurate than 87,000 (where did you come up with that one?).

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Doc:Actually, I’d say the socialists took over the House of Representatives 4 years ago.

    And that would show you don’t know what the term socialism means.

    Doc: (where did you come up with that one?).

    From overhead photographs that have been analyzed by a number of statisticians and methodologies. But you can purchase the high-resolution pictures and count them yourself.

  • Doc

    I’ve been hearing you say how no one understands the meaning of socialism. Please provide your definition, Zach.

    This offers up a fine contrast between the Beck/Palin rally and the subsequent Lefty gathering which was absurdly given a roughly equal crowd estimate by the corporate media clowns. The only thing the Lefty gathering exceeded the Tea Party folks in was the amount of trash left behind.

  • Old Fan

    Actually, I think the title and the early aspect of the offering is rather poor.

    You see, Democrats and many anti-GOP elements exploited the idea of the Deficits exploding. Yet, none of it was really the Bush Administration or Republican fault. This is the same nonsense BECK FASHION of equating the Parties which is far from fair, or even conservative.

    The rise in the Deficits began after the Clinton Recession in 2000. This was a primary result of a failing to lower taxation (a product of the Clinton tax increases prior to 1994, and a Bubble the Clintons – Democrats – Media aided with a ‘everything is wonderful attitude’ while a Democrat was President (including those terrible Loan Guarantees for the corrupt ENRON).

    Having participated in the Tea Party Protests, I know they didn’t start until Obama was in Office, which is two years after Pelosi – Reid and the Democratic Party took over the US Congress and massively increased spending.

    No, to be objective, and look at the record, the Deficit increase occurred primary because of the Recession in 2000 and the tragic attacks on 9-11. 9-11 ALONE was estimated to have cost us some 600 BILLION in Revenue.

    If the Republicans had not been in charge, we may have seen what we have today, a potential Depression. The Bush Tax Cuts were essential to growing the economy once again. Many are stuck on fashion, they want to dump GW and the Republicans for the sake of saying we are “non-partisan”. It has some elements of good politics, but in the long run, the failure to be objective and honest hurts everyone.

    First off, Congress Spends, the President does not.

    Second, the Republicans holding the Majority in Congress from 2002 to 2006 spent less in % of GDP than during the Reagan, Clinton, Bush Sr., eras. We can all say it is still too much, but to debase them unfairly is wrong.

    The only reason we had a manipulated claim (sneaky to include Social Security funds) of a balanced budget from the 1990′s, was the efforts of the Republican Party taking over the House for the first time in 40 years. The Clintons called for massive deficit spending in EVERY budget they suggested. The Clintons were just as left as we see Obama, Pelosi, Reid today, wanting to Nationalize Health Care – providing the USA with the biggest tax increase in US History.

    Many today, are stuck on fashion, which some Conservatives have unwisely debased the best interests within the GOP. If we could return to the policies of the Bush Administration, or the spending levels of the Republican Majority from 2002 to 2006, we might actually be near a balanced budget – which is what was happening prior to Pelosi – Reid taking over in 2006.

    Conservatives used to be based on facts, reason, substance, objectivity, etc. They used to be fair to study whether the plans to lower Medicaid Costs with a prescription drug offering mixed with private sector elements was wise, with the intent to further reform Medicare and Medicaid with sound Free Market principles. They used to be able to study whether the exchange for an already massive education expenditure to instill competition, standards, testing was a win for the Nation in regards to the Bush deal with Kennedy.

    Today many pundits don’t offer a sound review of some worthy attempts. It doesn’t mean one has to agree, but the pragmatism of understanding how difficult it is to achieve serious reform in Washington. For example, the hero named the Gipper, never bothered to reform Social Security – GW Bush tried with a worthy effort.

    The reason why the article to me is mistaken, it tends to lend to fashion, which is not quite accurate. Some Conservative Pundits were foolish at the time, including some of my favorites, for obsessing about Pork. GW was focused on the priority of the BIG FISH – which was Social Security. Also, many Americans want reform, and do not want elimination of some programs entirely, which is often what the anti-GOP fashion is pushing. They are simply unreasonable about a great deal. If you can reform the problems, lowering their size, streamlining services, etc., you will have a victory. And often with the check and balances, sometimes this is all you can do at the time.

    However, many questionable forces, there were even some Democrats pretending to be Libertarian after 2004 crying foul about ‘spending’, were exploiting and exaggerating for pure political purposes. Some intent on destroying the Republican Party, being long anti-Establishment in a very extreme way. They don’t seem to want to credit the GOP for their fine efforts in a number of cases, like the admirable fight in the GWOT after 9-11, Welfare Reform, Reagan-Bush Tax Reduction, etc., because they simply have a sincere axe to grind with all establishment entities. It would be foolish, and is simply not sound – Conservative, to follow that fashion over a cliff.

    Long ago, the Reform Party project flopped dramatically, enabling the exact opposite. Some extreme fringes were pushing this effort, and it hurt all. Some trying for their own aggrandizement, who failed to try to succeed within an established entity, also pushed for a quick gain for themselves. It never works.

    We can all be wary of professional politicians, and certainly there is a beast called Government, with many exploiting. But we simply cannot blame all, or lose our cool. Today, many Conservative Pundits will brag about TEXAS being the ideal gem of the Conservative Utopia. Guess who is largely responsible for this success in Government on the State Level in the Lone Star State? GW Bush, and his policies would – did serve us quite well in Washington.

    Fashion tends to play upon many things, especially those who push headlines for attention. The TEA Party Protests, which I participated in, during their origins, were largely created by Republicans who vote GOP – motivated with outrage over the Democratic Party Rule. That is reality.

  • Old Fan

    Bender?

    “the Republicans started making excuses for why it couldn’t deliver, and then they allowed the lifers and others to spend like drunken Dems…”

    They did deliver, in an objective review of the offering in terms of politicians in Washington, they succeeded a great deal.

    Your jaded, and your not looking at this objectively, thus guaranteed to make a huge mistake.

    To consider their success in Welfare Reform alone, is stunning. So was their reduction in spending.

    Sorry, you sound mighty fine, share your political embrace, but not the feverish over inflation.

    Simply not fair, reasoned, conservative.

  • Doc

    I just clicked on your link, Zach. No wonder your so called experts can’t get the number right based on that. The picture in the link captures only a fraction of that crowd.

    And I was negligent about the Lefty gathering’s superiority. They also had many more rude, offensive signs than the Tea Party folks.

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Doc: I’ve been hearing you say how no one understands the meaning of socialism.

    No. We showed you don’t know what the term means. Other people understand just fine.

    Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.

    There are very few socialists in the U.S., and virtually none in positions of power. Regulating commerce and providing a safety net are not socialism.

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Doc: The picture in the link captures only a fraction of that crowd.

    The first link provided low-resolution photographs of the entire area. You then asked where they came from, so the second link provided that. In any case, it’s easy to see the low density of the crowd, and to to estimate the crowd size by sampling. If can even purchase the high-resolution pictures, if you wanted to do a proper study.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    And, Zach, I seriously doubt you really know that EVERY tea partier voted for Bush. That’s pushing it, a little. . .

  • Doc

    Zach, I think you chose a rather limited definition of socialism. Try this one:

    Cultural Dictionary

    socialism definition

    An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.

    Now, while Pelosi, Obama, and other progressive Dems may yearn for full-blown socialism, they are smart enough to know that they can only achive their goals incrementally and only by deception. Fortunately for us, they still tried to grab too much too fast and the deception failed thanks to alternative media and an awakened public (aka, the Tea Party movement).

    By the way, the socialist One World rally claimed 175,000-200,000. If you were to click the link I provided above, you can see that the earth-destroying Leftists had far less than half the number of the Beck/Palin rally. And none of the pics you link to show the whole crowd at the Beck/Palin rally.

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Doc: Cultural Dictionary

    A cultural dictionary rather than an economic or political one? Anyway,

    An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity.

    There are few Americans, especially among those with political power, who don’t support strong and open markets as the engine of economic growth.

  • Doc

    Unfortunately, among those few Americans are the dominant Democrats in Washington, DC. Fortunately, their power is about to be severely curtailed.

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Doc: Unfortunately, among those few Americans are the dominant Democrats in Washington, DC.

    The vast majority of Americans, including Democrats, are not socialists. Just slinging the word around doesn’t make it come true.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X