The February TEA Party Protest was against the TARP that Bush Passed, the ARRA that Obama Passed, and against taxes and spending in general.
The April TEA Party Protest was focused pretty specifically and significantly on taxes, both in keeping the Bush Tax Cuts in full (Something Obama has stated he wouldn't be doing), not raising more taxes in the future (Something that Obama's budget and statements suggest he wanted to do), and not raising taxes currently (something Obama WAS doing, with reference to the Tobacco tax).
How you can say that the original protest wasn't partially against Bush when it was protesting against the TARP bill he signed and pushed for is confusing, and you need to actually provide some kind of information to suggest why they were protesting the TARP I bill of George Bush but magically weren't protesting against George Bush.
How you can imply that the April 15th protests against taxes weren't legitimate when Obama had stated a desire to remove the bush tax cuts, had a budget submitted that called for numerous tax raises, and had already signed into effect a tax increase is beyond me as well.
Please, explain this logic to me. I at least manned up and explained my errornious statement, even though in the end it wasn't erronious. You're somehow making a claim based off....what? You're gut feeling?
The first protest was in part about TARP I, which was signed in by Bush. How is it wrong to suggest that it was therefore partially agaisnt Bush?
The second protest was about taxes, of which the cigerette tax was one such example, how is pointing out a tax increase when you demanded to know what tax increases happened (notice, only ONE of multiple things I said the april 15th protest was about) disingenuious.