November 25, 2013

"I may have missed something, I cannot help but wonder, Professor..."

"... given your many recent blistering critiques of Obama, if you now regret voting for him."

Asks St. George in the comments thread to yesterday's post "Juan Williams reveals that the White House is calling the Republicans' opposition to Obamacare "the original sin.'"

I expressed whatever regret I have in the form of voting against Obama's reelection, but I have never said I think it was a mistake to have voted for him the first time. For the voter, the decision-making point arrived in November 2008 and the choice was between Obama and John McCain. I stand by my contemporaneous post "How McCain lost me." How can you compare what Obama actually did to imagined scenarios about McCain? If McCain had won in 2008, we'd have heard about the amazing brilliant alternative path into history we might have taken with Barack Obama.


MadisonMan said...

People forget McCain's bumbling response to the Economic meltdown -- suspending his campaign, and running back to DC to do...what? Exactly?

He didn't go back to lead, that's for sure. It was bizarre, and it cemented my vote for Obama.

This whole Repent Sinner vibe from commenters here towards people who voted against McCain/for Obama is very tedious.

I look forward. Looking back with regret accomplishes exactly what?

Original Mike said...

"How can you compare what Obama actually did to imagined scenarios about McCain?"

At the time, there were imagined scenarios about both men (that's how the future "works".) The Obama downside scenarios were far worse (IMHO). Unfortunately, in the event, it turned out our imaginations were lacking.

Bob Ellison said...

Regrets, I've had a few.

The me of a few years ago made mistakes. We all did. Thank goodness we didn't have much power to destroy with those mistakes.

I look forward to the me of a few years from now and hope that he will make fewer mistakes, but it seems likely, given past experience, that he will make just as many.

Anonymous said...

Re: "If McCain had won in 2008, we'd have heard about the amazing brilliant alternative path into history we might have taken with Barack Obama."

It would put the JFK alternative-realities to shame, no doubt. 50 years later they would be writing about the racist political assassination. Tea Party on the Grassy Knoll.

Brando said...

There's a difference between "shame" and "regret". Regret is something you would have done differently if you could go back in time (such as not running the red light that got you into a car accident). You can be ashamed of something that you still wouldn't take back, because although it was shameful it was still the better of two bad options.

Like a lot of Bush voters who were disgusted with his policies (such as the Iraq war), but will still defend their decision because Gore or Kerry would have been worse. Or Obama voters who think McCain or Romney would have been worse.

It would be nice to elect someone you can remain proud of by the day they leave office. Maybe that will happen some day.

Original Mike said...

"Looking back with regret accomplishes exactly what?"

Reflection is the beginning of wisdom.

Brando said...

Plus, at the time voting for McCain seemed like voting for Palin, due to the former's age and health. I can't fault anyone for having had to deal with the choice of Palin or Obama.

Original Mike said...

And when you screw somebody, even unintentionally, it is good manners to apologize.

MadisonMan said...

Reflection is the beginning of wisdom.

I don't see regret in reflection.

Aside -- very glad I got into work early today.

Original Mike said...

"I don't see regret in reflection."

It's a pretty unusual person who doesn't regret making a mistake.

Moneyrunner said...

So we get another stupid comment about Sarah Palin. Let's see, Palin was a successful governor, Obama was an unsuccessful community organizer with allies like Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. But then, Palin could see Russia from her front door... oh wait.

Bob R said...

While I voted for McCain, I don't hold it against anyone who voted against him. He probably would have been a lesser evil, it's not clear by how much. It's very possible his foreign policy would be worse than Obama's. (A high bar, I know. But McCain would definitely work at it.) The last five years have shown him to be just as erratic and self centered as he was before the contest with Obama.

Hagar said...

That stunt of McCain's, where he and Lindsey Graham went to Egypt and insisted the generals reverse their counter-revolution and put Morsi and the Moslem Brotherhood back in power, was a powerful reminder of just how abysmally bad McCain's personal and professional judgment can be.

Hagar said...

There is no way you can say "But his advisers and the establishment would have kept him in chck." McCain does not listen to anyone here on Earth.

Humperdink said...

Let's face it folks, Obama was an Affirmative Action hire. Not qualified in any sense of the word. But it felt good, didn't it? *gag*

PB said...

Those of us in Chicago who were paying attention when Emil Jones claimed "I'm gonna make me a Senator!" with his sponsorship of Obama's US Senate campaign, knew a fraud when we saw it. The autobiography at an early age after having done nothing, the magical sealed court documents that found their way into reporter's hands, and the history of out and out socialism were clear signs of a disaster to come. The state senator who wasn't man enough to stand up and vote yes or no, but set a record for voting present. The junior US Senator who did nothing in the US Senate.

If there's one talent I've developed in my life, it's the ability to spot con-men and frauds. Obama stands out among them.

Paul said...

But Ann,

Obama shoved his socialist agenda on Obamacare and 'stimulus' in his FIRST TWO YEARS.

That was after your first vote for him.

McCain, for all his faults, would have VETOed it as at least one part of the government would be sane even if the other two (all Democrat controlled) were not.

But I do say.. the country is getting just what it deserves. Mass unemployment, bankruptcy, and maybe a nuke war in the middle east.

MadisonMan said...

doesn't regret making a mistake.

The assumption you are making is that a vote made with sober reflection in 2008 is (or was) a mistake.

No. I realize hindsight is 20/20 and all, but because things don't turn out the way you had hoped does not make a vote a mistake. Time makes a mockery of plans, that's all.

cubanbob said...

McCain probably would have been a mediocre president but there is no credible reason he would have proposed the kind of programs Obama did. That alone would have made him great in comparison to Obama. As for Sarah Palin she would be infinitely better on day one than Obama. I'm always amazed by those who call her an idiot and support Obama. Compared to Obama she is a rocket scientist.

Henry said...

I really don't understand why this question is so important to some people.

Unknown said...

The original sin was the Dems' party line vote on the damn thing.

Original Mike said...

Less hoping and more thinking was called for.

rhhardin said...

McCain just had a great sense of personal honor that attached to random things making no sense.

Obama was a liar from the start.

Go with the crazy guy.

Paco Wové said...

"This whole Repent Sinner vibe from commenters here towards people who voted against McCain/for Obama is very tedious."

Plus what Henry said.
I think McCain would have been an awful president, only slightly less awful than Obama. (Some days I think that the Almighty decreed that 2008 would be the end of the American experiment, one way or another. Choose your destroyer, citizen!)

Henry said...

I sadly voted for McCain on the basis that divided government was better than undivided government. I voted with very low expectations for the Republican nominee.

But you have to remember that McCain would have been president with big Democratic majorities in Congress. He may have pushed back. But everywhere he hedged, everywhere he compromised, everywhere he let himself be gamed into "bipartisan" walkbacks, we would have had bad law that would be much much much harder to overturn today.

Gahrie said...

The first thing we have to do to get better candidates is convince the media to be honest brokers again.

tim in vermont said...

Shorter Althouse of these past few months.

"Methinks I have been enamored of an ass."

Gahrie said...

not even fair and balanced...lets just start with honest....

MadisonMan said...

convince the media to be honest brokers again

Good luck with that. The bosses of the media are making money hand over fist. Why should they tempt fate with a change.

Humperdink said...

The beauty of an Affirmative Action hire is that once hired, you can never get rid of them. No matter the abysmal performance. Cries of racism quickly follow. Companies then pull out the checkbook to make the problem go away.

In our beloved president's case, we had the opportunity to remove him in 2012. Just couldn't do it for fear of the racism chant. And the country is paying a huge cost. On multiple fronts - jobs, healthcare, GM, cash for clunkers, Solyndra, shovel ready. The list is endless.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

I regret that the Republican Party refused to give us Romney and Romneycare in 2008. The websites would have worked in the states that opted to join the program. He would have been great at the bailout negotiation table, wth just the right experience and competence to calm the markets.

That's the original sin.

Known Unknown said...

McCain is a mega-asshat, but would've been less of an epic CF than the current resident at 1600 PA AVE.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

As further evidence, Romney's plan to let Detroit work itself out through the bankruptcy process worked wonders, even as imperfectly executed by the Obama car czar.

If he chooses his moment to come forward with 10 ways to fix Obamacare ...

Mr. D said...

Professor Althouse's reasoning was defensible, because John McCain is a train wreck of a politician, too. We had horrible candidates galore in 2008, so you had to choose the lesser evil. It's just tough to live through an 8-year-long cautionary tale.

jacksonjay said...

Lets face it! Lots of White women fall for the sweet talkin Black guy! "Oh look, I am so not racist!"

garage mahal said...

How bout first apologizing for voting for Bush twice?

rcocean said...

Why do people have this odd desire for others to admit they were wrong.

Admit Atlhouse! Admit it! You were wrong, you were soooo wrong to like Obama.

I didn't vote for O or McCain. McCain should never have been nominated, he was craziness on stilts.

Writ Small said...

It is those who voted O in 2012 I can't take seriously. 2008 gets a pass.

JPS said...

Brando, 7:59 -

"I can't fault anyone for having had to deal with the choice of Palin or Obama."

I, however, fault any Obama supporter who argued with a straight face that Palin was too inexperienced for the vice presidency.

Rae said...

When they said REPENT REPENT
I wonder what they meant

- Leonard Cohen, The Future

bbkingfish said...

McCain has been an loose cannon since 2008, a pathetic, angry old man shaking his fist at Republicans and Democrats alike. The only thing he's been consistent about is when there is a chance that the U.S. might have a chance to get into a war, he's for it.

McCain distinguished himself in two ways in his run for president: 1.) Getting bamboozled by a transparent small-time political grifter in the VP selection process, and 2.) his hysterical Chicken Little impersonation in response to the financial crisis.

President Obama may have disappointed you, Prof. Althouse, but you did not make a mistake when you voted for him.

rhhardin said...

I'm more interested in the theory that women's voting calculations won't work in a democracy.

They have to be aware of this and vote like men, when voting comes up.

He doesn't mean well, ladies.

Rusty said...

At least, professor, McCain was a known entity with a clear track record in politics.
Obama was unknown and had no clear record in politics.
You knew, professor, that Chicago has more federal prosecutors than the rest of the country. Could this have been because Chicago and Cook county are the most corrupt urban areas in the country? Why yes they are.
You never asked the obvious questions or you ignored the answers.
Did you honestly think he was the only virgin in the whore house.
This administration has wrecked lives and livelihoods with abandon.
Your apologia is nice,but no you don't get a pass.
You're supposed to be smarter than that.

Anonymous said...

"Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran". Not even speaking of the poor judgment in choosing Palin as a running mate.

"We are all Cechens now!"

MadisonMan said...

You! A Law Professor!

Repent Sinner!

Sorun said...

Let me publicly state, for the record, that I regret voting for Mondale in 1984.

cubanbob said...

How bout first apologizing for voting for Bush twice?"

The Democrats ought to first appologize for nominating Igor and Lurch.

cubanbob said...

"Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran". Not even speaking of the poor judgment in choosing Palin as a running mate.

"We are all Cechens now!"

11/25/13, 11:38 AM

Hahaha! Two months ago Zero wanted to bomb Syria and speaking of poor judgement who picked Joey " Plugs The Plagiarizer" Biden?

Pianoman said...

I seem to remember several posts at the time stating that it was important for the Democrats to own the levers of power so that the electorate could see what the Democrats would do ... which is essentially what has happened. I'm not sure the Professor was making that claim, and I'm not sufficiently interested in the topic to spend time sleuthing through her archives.

IMO, the results haven't been catastrophic, and there's nothing that can't be walked back by the electorate if they choose to do so. I always try to keep in mind Prohibition, which rose to the level of a Constitutional Amendment, and was eventually repealed. That seems much bigger than administrative CFs like ObamaCare, and yet the American public was willing to learn from their mistakes.

Hopefully the revelations concerning the IRS, NSA, ACA, etc etc etc will be enough to cause the public to sober up a little, and perhaps reassess their values. There's a certain percentage on both sides that will never give up on their beliefs (the Zealots); fortunately, they don't dominate the populace as much as they dominate popular culture.

Drago said...

cubanbob: "Hahaha! Two months ago Zero wanted to bomb Syria..."

You don't understand cubanbob. The Inga's of the world know that the impact of bombing in congested areas is always mitigated by the political party ID of the executive authorizing the bombings.

Thus: McCain wanting to bomb selected Iranian sites to preclude Iranian enrichment in quantities sufficient for nukes is bad bad bad.

Obama wanting to bomb syria to help his muslim brotherhood pals to remove Assad is good good good.

I hope that clears it up for you.

Of course, the way kerry and obumbler have "crafted" this latest deal with Iran guarantees Iran will have nukes in short order and the best part of it?

No sanctions on Iran for doing it!!

Win-Win-Win for obama-iran-radical islam!!

Drago said...

Sorun: "Let me publicly state, for the record, that I regret voting for Mondale in 1984."

Ohhhhhh, so you were the one.....

My favorite story regarding the election of 1984 is Ed Rollins statement (regarding the republican party insiders) after the election: "They never forgave me for Minnesota"

B said...

The Inga's of the world know that the impact of bombing in congested areas is always mitigated by the political party ID of the executive authorizing the bombings.

The extra bonus here for the Inga's of the world is the huge potential hit to Israel's existence. Won't be able to lay it at their feet though...them just being good germans and all.

Rusty said...

Inga said...
"Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran". Not even speaking of the poor judgment in choosing Palin as a running mate.

"We are all Cechens now!"

No. Really, put the shovel and the wine box down.

Original Mike said...

@Pianoman: I also believe Althouse did champion the idea of a "packed" government. The result was ObamaCare, which can not be walked back nearly as easily as Prohibition. It is in the process of destroying the U.S. health care system.

I argued at the time that this strategy of giving the left both Congress and the White House was very dangerous. I believe we are seeing that scenario unfold before us.

Lydia said...

In 2008, we had a choice between a man with a little-known past (and what was known was not good), along with a grandiose sense of himself, and a man with a history of honor, bravery, and love of country.

I don't know how anyone who was not an uninformed voter or a dyed-in-the-wool leftist could have voted for the first one.

Brando said...

JPS--"I, however, fault any Obama supporter who argued with a straight face that Palin was too inexperienced for the vice presidency."

It's true that Palin's thin resume was about equivalent to Obama's in 2008, but nominating her basically neutralized McCain's best argument for why he should be elected (the experienced old Washington hand who knew how to get things done) instead of Obama (the neophyte). Though I suspect most people who voted against Palin did so more because of dislike of her hard-right positions and seeming pride in her lack of knowledge than because of her lack of experience.

Just like if Hillary runs in 2016, many liberals who thought Reagan was too old at age 69 will be rather mute about Hillary's age.

Robert Cook said...

Let me publicly state, for the record, that I regret voting for Reagan in 1980.

Michael K said...

McCain was a known quantity; Obama was not. What would have happened with McCain was the Panic of 2008 would have run its course and we would be in the third year of recovery with growth at about 5%. What we got instead is another depression. McCain was not Hoover.

gerry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
hombre said...

The Tea Party would have arisen under a McCain presidency. The stimulus was not Obama, but his policies in the face of economic crisis.

Given McC's support for TARP, a Democrat Congress and his pandering to the lefties and their media toadies, it seems likely that, ACA aside, he'd have been as ineffective as Obama.

Now that would have been interesting.

gerry said...

How did McCain lose me?

1. He did not understand economics, the most important issue.

Neither did Obama. And, with his oozing progressivism, Obama promised to ruin the nation with ill-begotten leftist redistributionism.

2. He lost the ability to make the experience argument.

And yet you bought that being a community organizer - and a very bad one at that - was acceptable experience. By golly, you are brilliant!

3. He never defined himself as a principled conservative.

So, naturally, you picked the obviously principled conservative in the race: Obama!

4. Erratic and incoherent, he lacked sufficient mental capacity.

Obama hadn't yet attributed to himself the divine power to control the ocean when he was running for office, I suppose. But he had a slimy trail of hate and anti-American influences with mentors like Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Williams Ayers, and moral influences like Tony Rezko. So, you didn't like McCain's "mental capacity", and instead you embraced Obama's, one produced by many years of association and experience with Wright, Ayers, and Rezco.

That's a powerful sense of moral direction you've got there, but in which direction?

Rusty said...

hombre said...
The Tea Party would have arisen under a McCain presidency.

The T. E. A. was the direct result of the Obama government bailing out the auto unions at the expense of the bond holders.
The whole thing coalesced around Rick Santelli's rant at the Obama administration.

paul a'barge said...

Yes, McCain sucked. Never any doubt about it.

But it was a hideous mistake to vote for Obama. As you now know (and admit).

Victor Erimita said...

I was never a McCain fan. But McCain was not a lifelong associate of the leading lights of the American socialist movement. He did not spend 20 years attending the church of a racist loon. He did not reveal his deep antipathy to the Constitution and the foundations of America and have that antipathy covered up by the media. He would not have set out to destroy the nation's healthcare system. He would not have invaded Libya or rolled over for the Iranians. There would have been no Fast and Furious, Benghazi (ya think? after McCain's POW experience?) no siccing the IRS on his political enemies. He would have been a fair, maybe even poor, president. But not a catastrophe.

I continue to think that Prof. Althouse, or Peggy Noonan, or Mickey Kaus, David Brooks and a number of other thoughtful people who supported Obama and later found themselves appalled by his dishonesty, nastiness and incompetence, could do the nation a great service by openly examining how it was that they came to allow themselves to be so badly deceived by the Obama mirage in 2008, when so many of us saw the reality coming a mile away. Because the nation will learn nothing from its incalculably grave error electing this man without such self-examination. Really, it would be an exercise not in contrition (useless) but in mutual enlightenment, intellectual integrity and courage. I doubt any of them will do it.

Kirk Parker said...

MadMan (and Althouse),

The problem with your statement is that McCain was a known, if disagreeable, quantity, with plenty of history; so we knew what we were getting, knew what the downsides were likely to be, and *also* had some hope that the adults in the Republican Party might reign him in from time to time if he got really far off. No, this is not idle conjecture, the Republicans have a long track record of doing this (not just thinking of Howard Baker with Nixon, either--look how quickly Duke Cunningham went away and how few defenders he had!)

Meanwhile, we had with Obama not just a blank slate, but someone who actively rubbed our noses in being a blank slate. In addition, that extra-megalomaniac part from his acceptance speech alone (you know the one I mean!) was, to anyone with ears to hear, a complete disqualification all by itself. What kind of person would say such a thing??? What kind of wannabe-leader would pick a group of writers and advisors not one of whom would speak up and tell him how awful that was???

No, we all had adequate warning that Obama was a loose cannon and worse, and the only speculation was how bad the downside was going to be. And then who would Obama have on his own side to restrain him? Pelosi???? Reid, I'll admit, is actually my only real disappointment here; while he's long deserved the "Dingy Harry" nickname--is *is* a politician, after all--who would have guessed he would end up on the Power Is All That Matters bandwagon?


You have got to be kidding. A popular and successful governor, who got her start in statewide politics by attacking the entrenched (and corrupt!) interests of her own party, one who--unlike some governors of states like, oh, I don't know, how about "Arkansas"--had actually engaged in serious international negotiations regarding matters of great economic import. Yes, totally lacking in Ivy League polish, but having some real executive background, experience, and accomplishments; versus Senator I-Vote-Present???

Rich Rostrom said...

It depends on the definition and nature of the mistake. Some years ago, I saw poker pro "Action Bob" Harrington go all-in to call an amateur's big bet on the "flop" (the first three common cards in Texas Hold 'Em).

When the players' cards were revealed, Harrington had the higher pair. He had "read" the other player correctly. But there were two more common cards to be dealt. By chance, those two cards completed a straight for the other player, and he won the hand; Harrington was eliminated. Had Harrington folded, he would have remained in the tournament and probably won a bigger prize. So calling was in that sense a mistake.

But Harrington said afterwards that he'd made the right choice - the odds were over 3-1 in his favor. Calling was the choice with the most favorable outcome mix: not a mistake. Only with pre-knowledge of the last two cards could he have avoided the loss.

With Obama - there is an argument that based on the information available at the time, voting for him was the right decision, and thus not a mistake.

Since that time, Obama has executed various bad policies and demonstrated incompetence.

The question is: was Obama's bad Presidency as unpredictable as the cards that beat Harrington? There was evidence at the time that Obama would be incompetent; it was not clearly dispositive for most Americans, especially not centrists such as Professor Althouse. (It was for me, but our criteria differ.)

The mistake, if any, was in failing to evaluate that evidence correctly. So, Professor Althouse, in light of subsequent events, do you now think that you made such a mistake?

Harrington's decision was made on his "read" of the other player (which proved correct) and calculation of the resulting odds (which was rigorous math). He made no mistakes.

Evaluating Obama was a subjective process. Do you, now, think you made mistakes in that process?

JoyD said...

i, too, was on the fence during the Obama-McCain campaign. I was interested in and hopeful (there's that word) about Obama, whose campaign seemed to address our better angels. I was leery of his inexperience, but then I was downright appalled the more Sarah Palin TALKED. McCain worried me because he chose her. So that was that. No regrets about that part. Now we have new worries, and I suppose there always will be new worries, no matter which party is in power.

Michael K said...

" I was leery of his inexperience, but then I was downright appalled the more Sarah Palin TALKED. McCain worried me because he chose her. So that was that. No regrets about that part. "

Once again the antipathy that women have for other women, especially if they are pretty, rears its head. "How can that woman be pretty and smart ? Impossible !"

The recent study of girls sniping at the other girl in class depending on how she was dressed is an illustration.

MadisonMan said...

You extrapolate quite a lot from JoyD's rather bland statement.

George M. Spencer said...

Thanks, Professor.

I just finished reading a book about Grover Cleveland's presidency told through the prism of his secret surgery for oral cancer.

Like Obama, he came out of the blue, rising from Albany mayor to NY governor in about four years. He was viewed as incorruptible, heroic. His bride, 21, was a fox. (They wed in the White House. She gave birth there. Both were huge media events.) The press was his toady, nearly successfully covering up his surgery, which in those days was extremely dangerous. The word 'cancer' was never uttered and was seen as an agonizing death sentence.

When he was elected the nation was in a depression. He did all the wrong things. Quite cold hearted, Mr. Cleveland. He ordered the Army to the streets of Chicago to crush a railroad strike to the fury of that state's governor, and to get campaign funds from the sugar industry, he switched sides on a tariff bill enriching elites at the expense of shoppers. By the time he left office, the nation was still in depression. At the end, people loathed him, despised him. Today some theorize the operation permanently altered his personality--for the worse.

It might be the way Obama is remembered—A man clueless about how to fix the economy, a man who promised hope but delivered despair.

mccullough said...

Alt histories are too hard.

But I think with McCain, there would have been immigration reform along the lines that Obama now wants, as it was one of the few things he and the Dems (and a few Repubs) agreed on. That will not happen now.

The W. tax hikes would have expired in 2010 on all earners. Another thing McCain and the Dems agreed on.

Souter would still be on the Supreme Court, but Stevens would have stepped down and been replaced by Jose Cabranes.

The stimulus would have consisted of aid to states and cities and an increase in military spending.

Medicaid would have been expanded in exchange for catastrophic insurance policies being sold across state lines.

Libya would have been the same, with more ground troops Syria would have been bombed, with more ground troops. Iran's nuclear capabilities would have been bombed in a joint attack with Israel.

Putin would not be the head of Russia. David Cameron would not be the head of Great Britain.

Hillary would now be President.

Kirk Parker said...

St George,

"Like Obama, he came out of the blue"

... so far so good ...

"rising from Albany mayor to NY governor in about four years."

So, two executive positions, of increasing scope of responsibility? Very much UNlike Obama.


Michael's extrapolation is, indeed, extrapolation--but absent any further evidence it's the way to bet. Those good old boys in the Alaska Republican party might have disssed the way Palin talked, too, but at the end of the election she was in and they were out. The big bad oil companies, likewise, might have counted her a lightweight, but when the smoke cleared they were paying significantly higher extraction rates.

I'll take results over glib talk any day, wouldn't you? But apparently that's not good enough for JoyD...

hombre said...

Rusty wrote: "The T. E. A. was the direct result of the Obama government bailing out the auto unions at the expense of the bond holders."


donald said...

He nails joyd. Period.

We're 5 years in, if you voted for this monster and you're trying to rationalize it as anything other than the worst decision you ever made, then you are hopeless.

donald said...

Rusty was right. You are wrong.

It amazes me just how much people will lie lie lie for what the see as character assassination, er politics.

hombre said...

donald wrote: "Rusty was right. You are wrong."

If you are also claiming the Tea Party was a reaction to the GM/Chrysler bailout, both you and Rusty should watch Santelli's "tea party" rant on youtube. It has nothing to do with those bailouts and neither did the formation of the Tea Parties.

BTW, who do you say is lying?