Yes, except for a few things:
1) Have taxes been raised? Um…no. They haven't. They've gone down since Obama got to office. Remember that whole bailout thingie?
2) The Teabaggers didn't vote for Obama. Which means that “without representation” equates to “really really sore loser”.

@jwest. It was dying to be made fun of. Finger sniffer or not, if some semi-large group were to start a movement and call themselves the “MuffDivers” or the “Filthy Sanchezes” with the nearly willfull cluelessness with which the Teabaggers advertised themselves, then somehow get a major news station to do 24-hour coverage on said movement, using the hilarious term over and over and over again, I don't see how anyone could help but be doubled over with laughter.

1. Didn't vote for Obama.
2. Don't like Obama. At all.
3. Will probably be getting a tax break under his withholding tax change.

And I'm still wondering where all of them have been for the past 8 whole years.

And Fox “News” used it to pump up their ratings.

It’s obvious you haven’t read or listened to a word about the tea parties other than what could be gleaned from left wing hate sites. It might help to try a perspective outside of that tiny box.

Reaction to the tea parties has, however, provided one of the truly best descriptions of an individual ever written. David Shuster’s screed about “Teabagging” had one blogger commenting:

“Shuster was like an 8th grader who couldn’t stop sniffing his finger”

That is writing.

Same for the Democrats. Many made hay over the way that Bush turned the Clinton surplus into a deficit. But that doesn't mean the Democrats were ideologically committed to balanced budgets. No, it was just a way to swing a handful of small-government Independents over to vote against the Republicans.

But the majority of Americans just don't care about deficits and government spending – at least over the long term. Yes, a short-term Perot-style eruption could come around. But no party is able or willing to sustain it.