Sometimes, I just have to shake my head at the things that appear to be "revelations" to folks in the political media. Helen Keller could have told folks all she heard and saw about the "Tea Party," when they first emerged. The rhetoric didn't fit the realities. And if we were to believe what got the tea party folks really riled up, then we should have heard about them between 2004 and 2009. We didn't.
So following the publication of an op-ed in the New York Times by two political scientists, we now have empirical evidence showing that the "Tea Party" is essentially a new brand for conservative Republican. I think I might have clutched my pearls as I read the op-ed. The vapors were beginning to take over.
Joan Walsh, over at Salon, has an enjoyable comment on this issue. Check it out and enjoy, while I collect myself after learning this news.
2 comments:
What got really them riled up in 2009? Here's a clue:
http://www.unitedliberty.org/files/images/obama_budget_deficit_2010.jpg
@TC: I know you realize that that first budget had the actual costs of the two wars, which had been kept off the books during the Bush administration. And your comment does nothing to address why there was no Tea Party prior to January 20, 2009.
Post a Comment