Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

dansolo

(5,376 posts) Tue Dec 16, 2014, 08:22 AM Dec 2014

I thought the the tea partiers were against bank bailouts?

One of the frequent attacks on Obama by the tea partiers has been that he was responsible for bailing out the banks. But now, I haven't heard a peep out of any of them, even as an attack on Obama. Do they just have short memories, or is it because they are full of crap and will attack the unpopular policies that they actually support in order to associate them with Obama? It seems that they are perfectly fine with bailing out the banks after all. And when the inevitable happens again, they can point their fingers at Obama and the Democrats and let them take the blame.

10 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I thought the the tea partiers were against bank bailouts? (Original Post) dansolo Dec 2014 OP

That might be an opening to make Teabaggers sit out 2016. DetlefK Dec 2014 #1

Cruz tried to derail the cromnibus, and Vitter co-sponsered an amendment with Warren Recursion Dec 2014 #2

You seem to think mercuryblues Dec 2014 #3

No Tea Party politician voted for this bill yeoman6987 Dec 2014 #9

Enough money is involved to buy them out of whatever principles they still hold. n/t Orsino Dec 2014 #4

It's a complex relationship el_bryanto Dec 2014 #5

The teaparty grassroots is against bailouts, truebluegreen Dec 2014 #6

The teabaggers are useful idiots to those behind them. hobbit709 Dec 2014 #7

You answered your own question. They're against OBAMA bank bailouts. Vinca Dec 2014 #8

They aren't really being told about it underpants Dec 2014 #10

DetlefK

(16,423 posts)

1. That might be an opening to make Teabaggers sit out 2016.

Reply to dansolo (Original post)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 09:03 AM

Dec 2014

Hammer the Republicans for supporting bailouts. They will have to address that eventually.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)

2. Cruz tried to derail the cromnibus, and Vitter co-sponsered an amendment with Warren

Reply to dansolo (Original post)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 09:07 AM

Dec 2014

Keep in mind that the Tea Party dislikes the GOP establishment about as much as DU dislikes the Democratic establishment.

(Cruz is a bumbling buffoon and tried to derail it in a way that ended up helping Reid a lot, but he was clearly trying...)

mercuryblues

(14,532 posts)

3. You seem to think

Reply to dansolo (Original post)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 09:08 AM

Dec 2014

they actually have a moral compass.

It boils down to this: They hate it, if Obama is for it and love it when Obama is against it. Oh and until faux newz tells them what to hate they haven't a clue. I don't watch faux newz, but I am willing to bet they haven't spent a whole lot of time on this particular tidbit.

yeoman6987

(14,449 posts)

9. No Tea Party politician voted for this bill

Reply to mercuryblues (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 09:30 AM

Dec 2014

Orsino

(37,428 posts)

4. Enough money is involved to buy them out of whatever principles they still hold. n/t

Reply to dansolo (Original post)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 09:09 AM

Dec 2014

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)

5. It's a complex relationship

Reply to dansolo (Original post)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 09:11 AM

Dec 2014

I know it's simple to just say they only care about money - but that mostly applies to tea-party leaders like Cruz and the like. When you are an insurgent you can say all sorts of things to get support. Once in power, though, you have to play ball.

For the Tea-Partier base though, I would guess that if they noticed this they would be very upset - but their party organs are busy focusing their attention elsewhere - defending torture and killer cops.

Bryant