jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (31 posts)

Would the Tea Party have started if Mccain was elected president?

  1. EPman profile image60
    EPmanposted 6 years ago

    Would the same outrage still exist? Or did Obama's presidency ignite the flame?

    I tend to think that Obama being elected certainly was fuel on the fire -- that is to say, the Tea Party would not be as big or popular if John McCain was president. Much more people would be too complacent simply because a white Republican was in office.

    It would be a lie if one were to say that everybody was in the Tea Party for the right reasons. Some people are angry because Obama is black; others just hate him because he is a Democrat; and others just chant Socialism without understanding the implications behind this word, or why Capitalism tramples Socialism.

    To be fair, there is certainly a large number of individuals in the Tea Party who have honest, genuine and justified disdain towards government policy -- both when Bush was president and now while Obama's president. Their concerns date much farther back than the 2008 presidential election, and they are backed by reason, sound economics, and the Constitution.

    What do YOU guys think? Is there true validity behind the Tea Party's motivation? Do you think they have legitimate concerns, or are they just a bunch of racist extremists?

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The Tea Party's surge might have been blunted if McCain had been elected; however, the libertarians and social conservatives who comprise the Tea Party movement were not and are not McCain fans although many of them do like Palin. However, much of the money that has come from Dick Armey's Freedom Foundation, the Koch brothers and others which has fanned the Tea Party hysteria might not have been forthcoming if McCain and Palin had been elected. On the other hand, high unemployment has been a big contributor to the Tea Party, and the number of people out of work would probably be higher today if McCain had been elected. He demonstrated during the campaign that he didn't have a clue about how to deal with a recession.

      1. Stump Parrish profile image59
        Stump Parrishposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        In my under educated opinion, the tea party is a sect of the libertarian party hijacked by the christian conservative movement. The probem I have with them is their use of the repub, public relations firm, The faux news network. They also have the religious leaders explaining in extra confusing terms why the party members, (aka fox viewers) should vote for the canidate/fox employee da jour.  "Nothing sways the stupid more than arguments they can't understand.- Cardinal de Retz"

        1. profile image60
          C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "In my under educated opinion, the tea party is a sect of the libertarian party hijacked by the christian conservative movement."

          Good point. One that has a lot of truth to it. I believe the portion of the tea party movement seen as "radical" is the christian conservative component.

  2. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    The outrage was there with Bush....it was us Libs!!
    And we were called America-Haters for it.

    No, there would not be a Tea-Party if McCain had been elected.  They would have just branched off into Ron Paul supporters...maybe worked to grow another party.
    But I never saw one sign with anything negative about Bush/Cheney in those Tea-Party rallies. I see it as totally because Obama is black. That gives them the courage to dis-respect him.
    Because they saw what happened when you dis-respected Bush...you were arrested. At the very least, your rallies were military-occupied territory.
    And no one in public office ever yelled out "You Lie" before--to a President-- at a State of the Union Speech! They think Obama is less human than they are. There is no respect...eveh though he is the President. He didn't have to do anything, and the dis-respect was there....from BEFORE day one.
    With Bush, he earned our dis-respect.
    That's how I feel about it.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image72
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Obama's race is clearly a significant factor.

      1. Ohma profile image80
        Ohmaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry but his race is only a factor to people that think he should be given a pass on being held accountable because of it.
        His bad choices and shady politics can all be buried if you scream racism every time someone questions his actions.

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Ron Paul, 2012

      1. Doug Hughes profile image61
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Don't Bogart the joint, my friend.
        Pass it over to me......

        1. Doug Hughes profile image61
          Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          For those of you who aren't old hippies -
          Country Joe and the Fish
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvGJvzwKqg0

          Because loosing touch with reality isn't just for libertarians. Some of us just need some help.

          1. EPman profile image60
            EPmanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Our political viewpoints may diverge in completely different directions but...

            You are a genuinely funny guy! lol

  3. EPman profile image60
    EPmanposted 6 years ago

    Anybody who hated Bush but loves Obama has no credibility. Zero. Similarly, anyone who hates Obama but loved Bush also has no legitimacy. Both were/are perpetuators of bad policy.

    As someone who really would like to see our deficit diminish, I worry about supposed tea-party candidates. It seems as though their balanced budget rhetoric can sometimes be just as shallow as Obama's "change" crap. There isn't a lot of substance to the speech and their voting records do not reflect Constitutional or free-market principles.

    If the GOP blows this (and I worry they will), it will be a huge blow to those in the Tea Party who have legit concerns towards an ever-diminishing free-market and an ever-expanding government. They need to critique tea-party candidates with as much scrutiny as they would a Democrat. They need to stop eating up the words of every Republican who talks about cutting spending.

    Wish there was an easy way to cut through the BS in politics, but the two seem destined to be forever coupled.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      wurd

  4. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 6 years ago

    Most of those on the uber-right like the Tea Party don't like McCain. In fact, too many of them think he's a liberal! That's why they stuck him with Palin - to rally the very conservative base that didn't care for McCain.

    1. Doug Hughes profile image61
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      correction - 'to rally the evangelical base that didn't care for McCain".

  5. Paul Wingert profile image80
    Paul Wingertposted 6 years ago

    Maybe the Tea Baggers would exist if McCain would of won. A lot of people saw McCain as Bush's third term and the Tea Baggers need something to bitch about. One of tgheir many issues is that they want this and that but complain about the costs even though they knew the costs beforehand. But they do provide endless material for the late night comedians.

  6. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    "Anybody who hated Bush but loves Obama has no credibility. Zero. Similarly, anyone who hates Obama but loved Bush also has no legitimacy. Both were/are perpetuators of bad policy."

    I do not see Obama as a continuation of Bush. I do like Obama, and dis-liked Bush/Cheney. There is a difference of night and day if you ask me.
    In fact, anyone who puts them up as the same people has 0 credibility in my opinion.

    They only use it as an excuse to bash Obama...because 99% of the Obama bashers WERE Bush lovers!

    This is the litmus test for me: The Bush tax cuts. ANYONE who is for extending them to million/billion/ka-trillion-aires is a FAKE. They talk about the deficit, and here they want to explode it....and for what?

    What is the Tea-Party take on that issue?

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You don't see Obama as a continuation of Bush?

      Really?

      Let's see... we're still in Iraq, Afghanistan, we're bombing Pakistan, the Patriot Act has only been given more power; there are currently debates on denying US CITIZENS the right to trial in an open court by their peers; spending and the deficit have continued to climb (at faster rates, mind you); Guantanamo Bay is still open AND USED;...

      Do you really want me to go on? Obama has not stopped hardly any thing that people hated Bush for.

      They're the same. Sorry to burst your "democrats are angels" belief.

    2. EPman profile image60
      EPmanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You really are the maker of LULZ.

      Obama has in no way, shape, or form brought forth change I can believe in. More of the same. Yep yep.

      Continuing our foreign interventions, running up the deficit, bail outs, violating the privacy of individuals, total lack of transparency, maintaining corporatism, increasing executive power, devaluing the dollar -- ummm HELLO??

      Tax cuts are not a form of spending! You don't run up trillion dollar deficits by letting people keep THEIR money. How can you denounce tax cuts for ANYONE as part of your fiscally responsible strategy, but still support BAILOUTS?

      How can you propose that bailouts help the little guy, but tax cuts DON'T??!!

      Please stop drinking the kool-aid.

  7. Jed Fisher profile image86
    Jed Fisherposted 6 years ago

    The TEA party had its roots in the Ross Perot movement. Remeber him? Perot was all about paying off the national debt. He asked, "Would you rather be making potato chips, or micro chips?" So here we are, making potato chips.
    Blathering about race, concerning a US President who's half British and half Kenyan royalty... which means that half is part Asian, part Arab, part Italian royalty...whatever. Spend a little time at a Southern barbeque joint and take a good look around, it's less segregated than any place in Los Angeles.
    All the hoo-yahs who hope the Red Neck Racists will shoot your problems for you, forget it. Not going to happen. Most likely, the Red Necks will vote for Obama again, just like last time. Because, he rose from the lowest of the low, the son of a single mother forced by circumstance to move back in with her parents.
    Please don't cloud important issues with race.

  8. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    How do you explain it then?
    Here you have people saying Obama is just like Bush....yet, where WERE they when Bush was pres?
    Where were the Bush/Cheney hate signs at the rallies?

    Who EVER yelled out liar at a President?
    Refused to meet with him when invited?
    Question his birth,his church, his love of country?
    Van Jones, ACORN, Black Panthers, Shirley Sherrod.

    And WHO was it that said Obama hates white people?
    Make an issue of race? It is THE issue my man.

    Don't you see? Because Bush was questioned for his policies. Obama is questioned for who he is.

    And they paint him as this: A black muslim from Kenya who is out to destroy America. Race an issue?  Wake up.

    1. Jed Fisher profile image86
      Jed Fisherposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I suppose it's all a matter of interpretation. Seing a modern leader, preaching a doctrine of social equality, of "Love Thy Neighbor" if you will, who rose from the modern equvilant of being born in a manger, I suppose it might be considerd a racwists slur by some people if they heard someone refer to him as Black Jesus. Yeah, whatever.

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I remember someone throwing a shoe at Bush, but not obama; people laughing at Bush's completely idiotic sentences, but giving Obama "street-cred" for getting a busted lip; people wanting to have Bush beaten for what he did.

      Are you kidding, Lovemycrhis? People hated Bush with a passion. Don't act like "suddenly everyone has ganged up on the president because he's a Democrat!!!". This crap has been around since the beginning of democracy.

      I happen to remember reading about Burr and Hamilton DUELING over disagreements.

  9. profile image60
    C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago

    The Tea Party would have existed either way. The size an make up would have been different had McCain won. The tea party has it's origins in Libertarian ideology. The Christian movement co-op'd themselves in to the Tea Party. While they share some common ground there are huge issues such as abortion that will divide them. I believe that in the end the Christian right will migrate back to the Republican Party. The Tea Party will become a true extenstion of the Libertarian movement.

    Its not Obama's ethnic background or race that is eciting the movement in my opinion. It's his policies and vision. Both the Tea Party and the Christian Right is dead agains amnesty. They both want the border sealed. Neither group supports the current health care policy as it exist today. They disagree with it because of the way it was developed in secrecy. "We have to pass it to know what's in it" was the quote that disturbed this group the most, in my opinion. I believe that most in the Tea Party movement see the current health care policy as a stepping stone to a single payer system. Something they are dead set against.

    Ironically the Libertarians support the idea of ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Something Obama promised to do but so far has failed to deliver.

    The state of the economy is probably the biggest issue. In reality the President, no matter who he/she is, has little controll over the economy. Too often the sitting President takes the fall for a bad economy that began it's slide long before he was elected. In the end we tend to judge Presidents by how things were going for ourselves financially while they were in office. Thats not a good gauge in my opinion.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Libertarianism and Anarchy - the only political beliefs that make sense and don't contradict themselves.

      Ron Paul 2012.

    2. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      If they support ending the war, where were they when it was being started?
      Those who protested were called anti-American.

      The economny is the fault of the policies of Bushco. Where were they when it was being destroyed?

      All of a sudden, they protest the war, the economy, and they blame it all on Obama.

      Where were their voices when it was going down?

      Maybe they were afraid of being called an America Hater. Maybe they were afraid of Fox news.
      Because anyone who says Bush was hated worse than Obama....give me a break! You had a whole network praising him as a God every day, and a whole talk radio 20 hrs a day praising him as a God. Get real.

      Even the lame stream media was on his side. Which network was against the invasion of Iraq? Which? Even NPR was on the bandwagon.

      And which Democrats told the world their first and fore-most goal was to make Bush a one term president? Which term of his office did every single Democrat obstruct his every move?

      And that shoe was thrown at Bush by an Iraqi citizen...becuase of what Bush did to their country.

      He was hated by people....because of what he did.

      You say Obama is hated for what he does....then why the campaign to smear him before he took over? It's been non-stop smearing for 3 years.
      Why try to paint him as a non-American who hates white people?

      And you think Obama has any say over the military? Read Gordon Duff, at Veterans Today....he says Bush handed over power to the Pentagon years ago. Says there has been a campaign to take over the military power of USA since the 1970's. Says they are called Dominionists. Heard that from a poster here too--and that Sarah Palin is one.

      So, Obama is fighting a much more powerful machine than you can imagine. And Bush was part of it. Hell, his daddy was instrumental in creating it.

      And why don't you tell me where all that corporate money went this last election? Who was that money helping out? It wasn't Obama.

      A lot of things have happened since Obama was elected that never would have happened with Bush. A lot of people have found a voice that were silenced for 8 years.

      Those of you who don't remember the horror and sadistic nature of the Bushco years and say Obama is the same......you did not experience what we did. You must have been oblivious to it.

      1. EPman profile image60
        EPmanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I agree. Many from all sides of the political spectrum did not come to this realization until recent. People rallied with emotion after 9/11 in support of the war, but few acknowledged the catastrophe it would become.



        Aaaannd there's where you lose credibility. You trace all our economic woes back to one man, and it makes you look damn silly. You actually look worse than the Obama-haters because you criticize them for blaming it all on Obama while you simultaneously blame it all on Bush. Pff.

        The blame-Bush rhetoric is a superficial, shallow, slanted scratch at the surface of our problems -- one that only a terribly politically biased individual could contrive.

        I never hear you address the Federal Reserve or our fiat currency -- very real causes of our economic problems, irrelevant to Bush or Obama.

        No. All you whine about is Bush, the uber-rich, and those expensive tax cuts!



        Are you saying Bush was a popular president? I don't understand... I thought he was one of the most universally unpopular presidents the United States had ever seen? I hear Bush haters recite this all the time.

        If you already forget the hatred that almost every single American emitted towards Bush, then that is a true testimony to your blindness and inability to correctly interpret reality.

        And Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin, etc. were all outspoken about their opposition to Bush and many of his economic policies. They criticized him ruthlessly. Did they dedicate as much time to Bush-bashing as they do to Obama-bashing? No. But that's probably because they hate Obama more, viewing him as an intensifier of bad policy. But that doesn't mean they were singing Bush's praises -- they weren't!



        Again, support for the war was politically widespread post 9/11. Consequential emotions to our country being attacked negated reason and foresight.

        And on other issues, Democrats fought Bush tooth and nail. His every move was scrutinized and criticized. And unlike Obama's criticism, Bush's was not isolated to Fox! A whole plethora of media outlets jumped on any opportunity they could to slam Bush (and rightfully so!).




        Oh. So now Bush was hated? Uhhh, kay...

        Err, kind of took that in a different direction, huh?




        Because the right-wing exists to contradict the left just as the left exists to contradict the right. The result is a deterioration in our media.

        And criticism came to Obama pre-election based on his platform. You don't need to wait until someone is president to disagree with their stance on issues.



        If there is no executive authority in military actions then the president can't exercise his duty as Command in Chief, huh? So how is Bush the sole proprietor of this war? How is this then Bush's war?

        Please. Stop romanticizing Obama's presidency. According to your jargon, Obama is always fighting an uphill battle, constantly struggling to restore the "voice" of the people. Pshaw.

        Obama and Bush: two sides of the same coin. I'm not sure if this reality is falling on deaf ears or blind eyes (maybe both), but either way, YOU'RE WRONG.

  10. Evan G Rogers profile image82
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    This forum post is kind of non-sense. The tea party existed before Obama was elected -- for about an entire year. They just didn't have the numbers.

    The true tea party was created on December 16th, 2007 - the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.

    On this day, some 40,000 individuals (a record) donated some $7 million in one 24-hour time span to a man who was running for president on the assumption that the Constitution should be respected.

    I wrote a hub about this called "the true origins of the Tea Party".

    Since then, the movement has been hi-jacked by neo-cons and idiots who don't understand that medicare is a government-theft provided service.

    1. EPman profile image60
      EPmanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      What I should have said was "Would it be as popular as it is now if McCain had won".

      I heard it was started when people mailed tea bags into Washington offices, apparently protesting TARP?

    2. Doug Hughes profile image61
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "Since then, the movement has been hi-jacked by neo-cons and idiots who don't understand that medicare is a government-theft provided service."

      Real teabaggers want old poor people to die in the gutter of treatable ailments - treatable if you are rich. Let's do away with aid to the old - if you are old (and not rich) you have NO function in a producing-consuming society because old poor people ONLY CONSUME. Let them die!

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        If you ACTUALLY believe that "Real teabaggers want old poor people to die in the gutter of treatable ailments", then not only are you hopelessly confused, but you are also ignorant.

        Look through history - the more free the market, the more prosperity given to the populace. Where would you rather be poor? - China, or the US? North Korea or South Korea? Just about any African Country, or Europe?

        The answers are obvious, and the correlation is the freedom of markets.

        You also act like you are the one on the higher ground on such an argument, but you completely ignore the fact that you're paying for  such quote-unquote "beneficial" programs through STOLEN MONEY.

        Government is Theft. Liberty is the only safeguard against poverty. And no person wants people to be dying in the streets.

        Quit the obviously-idiotic rhetoric.

 
working