Why do Tea Partiers approve of Bush?

Okay, this is something I've wondered myself: Why do Tea Partiers generally approve of President George W. Bush? Consider this article from Campaign for Liberty:
"Why Do Tea Partiers Approve of President Bush?" by James Bovard
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1278

I agree with most of this article. Remember it was Bush who bailed out GM, not Obama (who merely continued what Bush started). Bush pushed through the first bailout. Bush imposed steel tariffs that hurt U.S. manufacturers. Bush ran up the debt. Bush increased the federal stranglehold on education. None of these things are consistent with what the Tea Party purports to believe.

The main point I disagree with is the author's stance on torture. I have never been convinced that water boarding is inappropriate.

The greater implication of the article is this: The fact that many Tea Partiers approve of Bush mean's that they do not have firm moral and political convictions. They say they want limited government but approve of someone who clearly thought government has no limits. I am sad to say this, but this makes me skeptical that the Tea Party will remain an important political force for long.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of the Tea Party and have attended a rally or two. In its short life so far it has been effective. Look at someone like Rand Paul. Never would have been elected without it. Probably the same with Ron Johnson (people like him might never have run without it). There is a group of good people who made it into government as a result of it. So it IS effective. I just don't think it will last, unfortunately.