Lone Candle
Champion of Truth
Some leaders and elected representatives of the Tea Party really believed in their supposed motivations about government spending, debt, and pork. But for the most part, the Tea Party was a big, damn lie. If all those Tea Partiers really cared about such things, they would be protesting and organizing just as hard against Trump right now.
https://reason.com/podcast/2025/10/22/what-happened-to-the-republican-party/
“A decade ago, only a fairly small group of congressional Democrats voted to support President Barack Obama’s free trade agenda. Protectionism was on the rise, helping fuel the campaigns of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Most of the “yes” votes for Obama’s trade program were Republicans.”
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/10/05/jared-polis-trump-democrats-campaign-free-trade-inflation-00592744
Tea partiers give Trump a higher proportion of their support than do non-tea party Republicans, but Trump has always had a significant amount of support from both. The tea party as a movement motivated by debt and government spending was a myth. Someone truly angry about debt and spending does not support Trump.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/05/16/trumps-staunch-gop-supporters-have-roots-in-the-tea-party/#:~:text=GOP%20tea%20party%20supporters%20were%20most%20likely,stands%20for%20in%20a%202016%20postelection%20survey
“The Tea Party that arose in 2009 seemed initially focused on bailouts, health care, and taxes. But new research suggests that concerns about cultural change and distrust of distant elites, the same themes that drove Trump supporters, were also central to the Tea Party—not just in the electorate but among activists and even for aligned Members of Congress.
What made the Tea Partiers in Congress different from your average Republican, the so-called establishment Republicans, was not their position on fiscal or economic matters. Instead, it was they had different positions on civil rights and social policies.
…
In the book, Change They Can’t Believe In, Chris Parker and Matt Barreto had previously shown that the Tea Party’s mass supporters stood out for their racial concerns, not their economic views. Gervais and Morris finds that it was not just voters, but legislators who stood out mainly on cultural concerns
…
In terms of the Tea Party organizations, I think they were absolutely interested in lots of fiscal conservatism, and this is really what their ultimate goals were, were to see fiscally conservative policy passed, but they saw in the Tea Party movement, or the feelings of resentment in the electorate as an opportunity, and I argue it was the same case with House leadership as well. Going into 2010, Paul Ryan, Eric Canter, Kevin McCarthy and John Boehner as well, saw an opportunity here, saw an energy that could be utilized to retake the House and perhaps pass fiscally conservative legislation. It’s sort of a means to an end, sort of this latent resentment here, is there to be mined and utilized, even if they don’t necessarily agree with the rhetoric or agree with the goals of the Tea Party in the electorate.
…
the Tea Party wasn’t just a group of angry people wearing three quartered hats and waving flags. It was and is this sustained alternative energy within the Republican Party.”
https://www.niskanencenter.org/how-the-tea-party-paved-the-way-for-donald-trump/
“They were the 187th and 188th executive orders of Trump’s second term, on just its 203rd day.
That’s more executive orders than predecessor Joe Biden issued in his entire presidency, 162. It’s also more than George H.W. Bush (166), Gerald Ford (169), and 24 of the first 25 presidents. (Ulysses S. Grant, with his 217 over eight years, will likely be eclipsed by Trump’s 2025 totals this fall.) Neither the famously power-expanding George W. Bush, nor Barack Obama of the notorious “pen and phone,” signed as many as 188 executive orders in any of their combined four terms.
…
The move toward federal government by presidential fiat comes as a transformation not just of Republican orthodoxy, but of Trump’s own prior statements and actions.
At a campaign event in February 2016, the GOP front-runner complained that “the country wasn’t based on executive orders….Right now, Obama goes around signing executive orders. He can’t even get along with the Democrats, and he goes around signing all these executive orders. It’s a basic disaster. You can’t do it.” The next month, he vowed: “I want to not use too many executive orders, folks. Executive orders sort of came about more recently. Nobody ever heard of an executive order. Then all of a sudden Obama, because he couldn’t get anybody to agree with him, he starts signing them like they’re butter. So I want to do away with executive orders for the most part.”
The 2016 Republican Party Platform decried executive-branch overreach, starting a multiparagraph section on the subject with the declaration that “Our Constitution is in crisis.””
https://reason.com/2025/08/12/forget-obama-trumps-pen-and-phone-are-bigger-even-than-fdrs/
“Anyone following the rise of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again movement can’t help but recall former First Lady Michelle Obama’s efforts to improve Americans’ diets — and the vitriol she faced in response.
Now, many of the same Republicans who skewered Michelle Obama as a “nanny state” warrior have embraced the MAHA movement.”
…
” Kass said he was happy to find common ground with Kennedy and his MAHA brigade where possible. But he argued Kennedy’s HHS has done little to actually improve the health of the public so far, and was instead mostly taking steps that would do real damage, including by undermining the use of vaccines.”
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/06/14/michelle-obama-nutrition-adviser-maha-interview-00405018
“It’s not inherently wrong for the federal government to refrain from funding an extremely wealthy private institution of higher education, especially one with an endowment of $14.8 billion. But the Trump administration isn’t trying to save money for taxpayers—it’s using the money as leverage to make the university police student expression.”
https://reason.com/2025/04/07/trump-columbia-free-speech-obama-biden-title-ix/
Biden Outshines Obama In Judicial Legacy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rbPVe9JHwA
“Airwars, an independent nonprofit that tracks strikes and casualties in conflict areas like Iraq, Syria, and Libya, provides regular assessments of civilian deaths. And in their latest data which spans the first year of Biden’s presidency, civilian deaths and strikes plunged in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen.
The differences are striking, even keeping in mind we’re comparing just one year of Biden’s presidency with four years of President Donald Trump and eight years of President Barack Obama.
During the length of Trump’s four-year presidency, Airwars documented more than 16,000 air and artillery military strikes in Iraq and Syria, which itself was a decline of more than 1,500 strikes when compared to Obama’s second term. During Biden’s first year, there have been 39 total military strikes spread between both countries.
Alleged civilian deaths in Iraq and Syria skyrocketed under Trump’s four years in office to more than 13,000 compared to 5,600 during Obama’s second term. Thus far, Airwars reports only 10 under the Biden administration. There have been no reported civilian deaths in Somalia thus far during Biden’s term, compared to 134 under Trump and 42 under Obama over both of his terms. Strikes in Yemen, which had declined each year throughout Trump’s administration, have dropped to just four this year (Airwars did not provide civilian deaths for Yemen).
This follows reporting earlier this year that Biden had quietly imposed restrictions on the use of drone strikes outside of active war zones. Trump had eased restrictions and allowed the military and CIA to decide when to strike, thus explaining the dramatic increase in strikes and civilian deaths in Somalia during his term. Biden is now requiring the White House to vet and approve these strikes, for now, until the administration sets up new formal policies (about which we know very little, but observers hope will require more procedures to ensure that civilians aren’t killed).”