He probably feels he has little to gain by acknowledging them, since they indicate a sizable percentage of the population is upset at his policies. I don’t expect anything from him; he can look presidential and thus above the fray.
The overall anti-politician slant of the tea parties is covered here:
http://voices.kansascity.com/node/4274
I’m not sure if I agree the events are truly non-partisian. The West Palm event had both Republicans and conservative Democrats as speakers, but it was clear the crowd was 99% Republican. “You should have voted Republican” and “I voted for Sarah Palin” were common sentiments. (Interestingly enough, McCain’s name was rarely mentioned).
Pajamas Media says the Tea Parties have bad news for both parties:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/dc-tea-party-republicans-should-not-be-rejoicing-quite-yet/
But really, since the only realistic opposition to President Obama is through the Republican party, it strikes me that it’s fabulous news for Republicans and terrible news for Democrats. The Republican ideology is certainly highly compatible with what was said at the Tea Parties.
Now all we need is candidates that express that ideology instead of the traditional dealmaking that’s destroyed the credibility of our government, on both sides.
(I forgot to mention that my reporting includes 180 photos of the Tea Party - if you like creative signs and the like, it’s a real feast for the eyes!)
> (Interestingly enough, McCain’s name was rarely mentioned).
Considering that it was Florida that, for all intents, gave McCain’s campaign the win.
Had he lost Florida, the election would have turned out differently.
Not saying that the GOP would have prevailed, but it would have had a much different dynamic to it and Hussein may well have lost.