A question about the Tea Party people: Where were they?

[Kyril Enko]

When George W. Bush was magically transforming Clinton's surplus into a record-breaking deficit, where were they?

When Dick Cheney was taking 200+ years of legal precedent and waterboarding it to fit his twisted vision of "liberty" {ugh!), where were they?

When John Ashcroft was shredding the Constitution, where were they?

When, for eight years, on every aspect of fiscal, economic, social, legal, foreign, defense, and intelligence policy they were being lied to by their own government, where were they???

It's virtually impossible to avoid the unfortunate conclusion that their suddenly-discovered outrage has little to do with taxes or "tyranny" (ugh!), but a whole lot to do with the color of Barack Obama's skin.

In spite of all the bullshit that she's gotten from the wingnuts, the lovely Ms. Garofalo was right!

[firedupdem]

1. They were fine with all that was going on because people with the

same skin color were doing it. They are nothing but a bunch of racists being sponsered by an entire network and propped up by the rest. It's all about race and nothing else.

[Zoeisright]

15. [phone]

Bingo.

[Blue_Tires]

19. +1

[Catshrink]

2. I love what Keith's been doing this week

or should I say last week: Where are the people of color in the tea party movement? He asked the question every day, read their criticisms of him that didn't answer the question, then reasked the question. He was relentless.

Where are the people of color in the tea party movement?

[Lasher]

3. They were busy staying the course.

And warning everybody about tax and spend Democrats.

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. Answer: Breeding with cousins and siblings

[frazzled]

5. But where will they be tomorrow? (Funny Garrison Keillor column)

http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/201002200200/OPINION05/2200307

[Brother Buzz]

6. Sticking magnetic ribbons on SUV's was hard work

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmsOIjzQ1V8

[Kyril Enko]

7. Yeah.

And putting on those lapel pins without poking themselves took tremendous concentration.

[Kyril Enko]

10. That was tongue-cheek, btw

I'm new here: Thus, I'm unsure as to how many DUers are into sarcasm :)

The video was hilarious!

[damonm]

14. Welcome to DU!

BTW, the sarcasm smiley is useful - there are some here who are immune to sarcasm...

[Brother Buzz]

16. That video made me cry

It came out in the early years of the war and this old dumb draftee saw a very eerie comparison between the Sheeple supporters of that war and the Chickenhawks, with no skin in the game, supporting the war in Vietnam.

I was was in Muhammad Ali's camp, "I ain't got no quarrel with them Viet Cong ... They never called me nigger."

[FrenchieCat]

8. Good Question. I wish the Corporate Media would ask and then answer it....

But of course, they won't.

[Kyril Enko]

11. Of course not!

They're too busy being enthralled by this "grassroots movement."

[JoePhilly]

9. Add this to your question .....

First ... earmark spending ...

2001, GOP congress, 18.5B in earmarks ... no tea parties.
2002, GOP congress, 20.1B in earmarks ... no tea parties.
2003, GOP congress, 22.5B in earmarks ... no tea parties.
2004, GOP congress, 22.9B in earmarks ... no tea parties.
2005, GOP congress, 27.3B in earmarks ... no tea parties.
2006, GOP congress, 29.0B in earmarks ... no tea parties.

2007, DEM congress, 13.2B in earmarks ... right wing screams
2008, DEM congress, 17.2B in earmarks ... right wing screams
2009, DEM congress, 19.6B in earmarks ... right wing holds Tea parties.

2010, DEM congress, 10.2B in earmarks ... the right wing will continue to scream, roll on the floor like angry toddlers, and pretend to care about earmark spending .... even though 10.2B is less in earmarks than every year since 1995.

Interestingly ... for the 4 years of data for the Dems, each year has less in earmark dollars then EVERY YEAR that the GOP held the Congress and the white House.

The far right's mock indignation is hilarious.

Data Source ...
http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagen ame=reports_porkbarrelreport


And then ... ask them why there were no tea parties each time the Debt Ceiling was raised under Bush ... it was raised almost every year ... here's a source.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/105193.pdf

[Joe the Liberal]

12. They can't stand seeing a black man be in a position of power.....

that's not what their version of America is about, notice how only 2-3 black people ever show up to their little rallies. Race aside though I think they have an equal hatred for Democrats in general and liberals even more. If Obama was white I think they would still be out their protesting in their corporate backed tea parties.

[Kyril Enko]

13. "2-3 black people???"

I've never seen anything other than 0-0 African-Americans at tea parties! Are you certain you weren't looking at a reporter or camera operator?

[Quantess]

22. The teabaggers hired a black singer to perform in NYC on 9-12-10

Other than that one black singer, I haven't seen a single African Americans at the teabag events.

[old mark]

17. Of course this is true. They want "their" country back-from the Kenyan Userper...

the black man who dared to get elected President.
They are just bigots and the media is making them appear legitimate...Incidently, where were all these "concerned journalists" when Bush was president? Why are they suddenly worried about the deficit or the wars when they were silent and invisible for the last 8 years?

mark

[Kyril Enko]

18. Ah, yes, our "LIBERAL, LEFT-WING" media

I lost all respect for those bastards in the autumn of '02 when they morphed into cheerleaders for Bush-Cheney's Iraq idiocy!

[jrodefeld]

20. This is a very good question

But the truth is, there were actually quite a few people who were complaining about the deficit under Bush. These people are known as "Libertarians" and I am one of them. But I think for the most part we still appeared to have a fair amount of prosperity in this country and people weren't suffering due to the deficit, so people were more quiet. The economic meltdown of 2008 changed everything. People are HURTING unlike anything we have seen in generations, and that is the primary motivator for the anger out there. Also, I think it took a while to understand the levels of corruption in our government and the financial sector. So, I think the circumstances of our country and economy have MUCH more to do with the anger than the Democrats being in power or the fact that the president is black. If McCain won or if Hilary won, I think the anger would be about the same.

You are right that those who didn't protest against the atrocities under Bush can be labeled hypocrites, but I think there were many of us who did object. But again, Americans rarely are motivated to take action and rally unless they reach some critical mass of personal financial pain.

So, I think there is SOME element of racism out there, but I think it pales in comparison to the anger about being abused by insider deals and wall street criminals and the double standard of how we are dealing with the economy. I mean, honestly, Independent registrations are at an all time high and there is a rejection of BOTH parties out there. Its not as if a bunch of Bush apologists are out bashing Obama just because he is a democrat. Deal with the IDEAS, rather than the perceived hypocrisy of some protesters. Just be fair in your analysis.

[Ikonoklast]

21. Those out of power are angry because they are out of power.

And the sheep won't bleat under a Republican, even as they are led to slaughter.



Oh, and I like the 'rejection of both parties' meme. That's Libertarian wishful thinking and dogma, rolled into one. Sorry, but I'm not buying.

It's the Republicans that are running away from their fracturing party and calling themselves 'Independents'...Democrats, not so much.