I would like to congratulate Matt Westerhold for finally cementing himself as an opponent of conservative American values.
His commentary titled "By the Book" solidifies his biases.
His commentary is flavored with passion as most good commentaries are but a good commentary does not leave truth, fact, and objectivity at the door.
Matt calls Rush Limbaugh the de-facto head of the tea party movement when there is no evidence of this. Rush has talked about and supported the tea parties but he has never attended or organized a tea party. Glenn Beck would be better suited to wear that title.
Matt makes a contradictory summation by pointing out that Rush is un-American but in an effort not to offend he categorizes Rush's listeners as "patriotic Americans."
An objective reporter could conclude tea partiers have had as much disdain for George Bush's irresponsible fiscal policy as for Barack Obama's and the tea partiers are proud of their disrespect for all politicians, the corrupt political process, and including but not limited to the president.
Barack Obama has become a uniting force as it is the magnitude of his policies that has "awoken a sleeping giant" of patriots.
A reporter could also conclude the tea party movement is simply a grassroots effort where Republicans and Democrats alike have put aside differences to battle the excesses of this administration, past administrations, and future administrations.
Most, if not all tea partiers have realized the excesses and the bureaucracy of a thoroughly corrupt government is an impediment to truth, justice, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and prosperity.
Two million proud Americans rallied to have their voices heard, and the Register won't give a voice to one of them. It really makes one wonder who is the pawn of a political leader -- the tea partiers or the Register?
Jon P. Morrow