"I have to disagree.  Bush 43 was treated with plenty of disrespect while in office and beyond.  His intelligence was mocked, every achievement in his life was attributed to his father's connections, there were accusations of not fulfilling his National Guard service etc."

Not the same thing. His intelligence was mocked because he could barely string a sentence together and he said and did some very stupid things. His achievements were attributed to his father's connections because, well that's where  they came from. And the National Guard thing seemed credible to a lot of people who knew him at the time, apparently  , if impossible to prove one way or the other (because the files went missing).

But his plans were not blocked or  ignored in congress,  protests were against his policies, not some bizarre notion of him being a Kenyan Communist or a reasonable equivalent of same.  And people weren't calling for him to be impeached for stuff that happened on Clinton's watch.  In fact,  the Clinton administration was even blamed for the Bush administration deliberatley ignoring intelligence that could have prevented 9/11, even though Clinton's people went to great lengths to point out how important it was.

Bush got disrespect for acting stupid. His politics, however, were carried out, he was not effectively made to answer properly for his many damaging screw-ups. Both the press and his political opponents treated him with exceptional deference and groveling respect in his function as president, to the extent that he got away with some pretty bad stuff.

In contrast, Obama gets blamed for Bush's financial crisis, he gets Tax revolts even though he cut taxes,  the Republicans threaten to block every proposal he makes and his own party is wavering, even though they are in a solid majority.

Obama is not getting disrespect for what he's done. Unless you think he's a Kenyan Communist who has implemented huge tax increases and who, as president,  caused a world-wide financial crisis that started about a year before his presidency with the aid of a time-machine and a mind-control device (which he used to brainwash the Bush administration).

Obama is respected, perhaps, as a good speaker, but as a president he receives not even a small fraction of the deference, respect and acceptance of his political agenda from the press, his opponents or his own party that Bush did. I think he'd rather have the jokes.

Matthew - I'm originally from SF and lived there most of my life, but for the last two years I've been living a few hours inland of SF.

Not quite as far north as Redding, but in the red middle part of California, for sure!

Speaking of the Tea-Bagger movement: it's interesting that Jeff points out the fact that it's a anagram for Taxed Enough Already - (but also named because of an anchor's on-air melt-down, where, among other things, he ranted about American's having a new Boston Tea Party.  This lead to various protestors wearing Tea-Bag Hats - during rainy protests.  Yup.  Faces full of tea.  I know. ) - and this opens it up to explore why race is an issue here.

Let's be clear - I'm not calling Jeff a racist - nor anyone else here - but allow me to explain this.

Considering that the average republican doesn't want military budgets cut, nor wants to pay someone everytime they walk on the sidewalk or drive on a road, or directly pay police, firefighters, etc, we can agree that they're not against tax in general - rather they're against the mis-use of tax.

Or, more specifically, they're against the money going to social programs.

Which primarily benefit minorities.

This is not new - basing your opposition movement around the false premise of suddenly being shocked at our national debt - that's a bold move of dishonestly, but Republicans have been upset at social programs since FDR. 

But it's usually just one of a platform of issues whereby they differ from the opposition party.  The fact that it's become their whole party platform (that, and supporting rape and opposing anything the President suggests, even when it's exactly what the Republicans asked for) - that they're against their money going to programs that primarily initially benefit minorities?

THAT'S why it kind of stinks of race issues.

Not because Obama is black or whatever.

Let's clear something else up before we move forward - I've been having these debates here on this forum for going on 8 years now, so we've done this song and dance thousands of times, so let me save the usual gang the trouble of posting their stock reply - "But I saw a guy getting his welfare check and he had a new fancy car and gold chains and where I'm from they would call him uppity!"

Yeah.  Clearly, most people who need public assistance aren't good at managing money.  No Duh. 

But that's the magic key there - both sides have dug in so deep and are so involved in just reacting that we've lost sight of an important aspect of public assistance - it's not supposed to be permanant. 

How would I reform it?  I wouldn't cut it - I would make sure it included plans to teach the guy to fish, not just give him a fish.

Shame on the left for not being more proactive about fixing a broken system, but even more shame on the right for wanting to do away with the system in the first place.

But that side adventure aside - let's get back to the problem with the manufactured Tea Bag Movement: The rabble is out in the streets protesting the socialization of the US Government and their tax money gone - WHEN IN FACT, OBAMA CUT TAXES for EVERYONE.  His plan to end the Bush tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy?  The one where the tax rate for the richest 1% of Americans goes up 3 points to what it was a decade ago - when we had peace and prosperity?   That hasn't happened yet.  For now?  Everyone is getting a break, Federally.

So - What is the rabble complaining about?  Their taxes went down, not up.  Are they mad that they're paying at all?

Well.  Here's the thing.  I hate paying car insurance each month, but if I get into an accident, I'll sure be glad that I had it.

It's a dishonest movement that exists only to continue the idea of Politics-as-wrestling.  If these protesters are so against governent spending and so concerned about the national debt, why weren't they celebrating Clinton and Attacking Bush? 

By Republican reasoning, the government shouldn't be giving anyone anything. So as soon as they get back from Social Security what they paid in, plus 10% (to make up for the government holding their money all those years), they should start giving back their check every month. After all, they didn't earn it, right. Repubs are only against social programs, because Dems are for them. As simple as that.