TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?!

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Sure it does - the Tea Party is the Republican party. There is no difference between the two of them whatsoever. It is a faction within the party, one which seeks to shed the failures of the past by pretending they didn't support those people at the time. Nobody buys it, though, outside of a group of illogical wanna-be Galts like yourself.Cycloptichorn

I think you are very wrong to say that the Tea Party is the Republican Party. There is much difference. It should be obvious that they are not one and the same, simply by observation of things like what happened in Alaska.

There is nothing bad about the Tea Party movement. It is simply a movement at the grassroots that is tired of big government out of control. I think you are correct that the people in the movement would probably otherwise vote Republican most of the time, and may often be registered Republicans, because Republicans are closer to conservative principles than are Democrats, there can be no doubt about that. However, I also think some people in the movement may be independents and even Democrats that are fed up with how Washington is broken.

What exactly happened in Alaska? One Republican beat another one. There's not much else to it. Perhaps you can expound on what you mean.
Cycloptichorn

farmer, some of those reforms the Repubs were in favor of, and so was I, such as transportability of insurance from one state to another. I have always been in favor of tweaking the current system to improve it, with reforms like the above, but I don't think that is what we got, and I think you know it. Another reform I was hugely in favor of was drastic tort reform, but I don't think we got it.

My brother was a general practitioner doctor for his entire working life, farmer, and we have had many conversations about the subject. I also have friends and close relatives as nurses, so I do not come to this subject with ignorance.

People simply want freedom and liberty to determine their own health care. They are very suspicious of a cheap Chicago politician that openly says he wants single payer government provided health care. I am not sure what all will result from this legislation, but suffice it to say I am not at all optimistic. I think Obama's aim is to cause more businesses to turn to the government for insuring their employees, and I look for costs to skyrocket. I also look for increased government expenditures that will spiral completely beyond what was predicted. It did not need to be this way. We could have instituted reasonable reform to improve what was already the greatest health care system on earth.

It is my opinion we should throw out the bill completely and start over. And I think the majority of Americans agree.

farmer, some of those reforms the Repubs were in favor of, and so was I, such as transportability of insurance from one state to another. I have always been in favor of tweaking the current system to improve it, with reforms like the above, but I don't think that is what we got, and I think you know it. Another reform I was hugely in favor of was drastic tort reform, but I don't think we got it.

It is my opinion we should throw out the bill completely and start over. And I think the majority of Americans agree

Several key provisions of health reform remain popular, even among those who support repeal of all or parts of the law. Majorities of supporters of repeal would like to keep tax credits for small businesses offering coverage; the prohibition on insurance companies denying coverage based on medical history or health condition; the gradual closing of the Medicare prescription drug “doughnut hole”; and financial subsidies to help low and moderate income Americans purchase coverage. By contrast, two-thirds of the general public support repealing the individual mandate, another key provision in the law.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What exactly happened in Alaska? One Republican beat another one. There's not much else to it. Perhaps you can expound on what you mean.
Cycloptichorn

I am not real familiar with that race there, but I think Joe Miller was favored by Tea Partiers, so that even though he won the Republican primary, Lisa Murkowski decided to run on her own. If not mistaken, I believe she represented the old establishment Republican type of candidate, and was not willing to admit she had lost in the primary to somebody that she could consider a legitimate Republican. That should tell you as it does me that there can be much disagreement between the Tea Party choice of candidates and political policies, vs the establishment Republican Party.

So cyclops, I think there will be a time of shakeout in the Republican Party, to see if the Tea Party movement influences the party, and to what extent, to hopefully bring the party back to its more conservative roots. It is obvious that the two are not one and the same. Otherwise, there would have been no need for the Tea Party movement at all.

To say the Republicans and the Tea Partiers are one and the same, is frankly silly, I think so anyway, cyclops.

I think being the lib that you are, you simply fear any conservative grassroot movement, because it threatens to derail your liberal agenda that you seek to incrementally gain power.

A good example would be Bill Halter and Blanche Lincoln in Nebraska.

Is this serious? The 'tea partiers' don't threaten our agenda, they ASSIST our agenda. If you don't believe me, you should realize that the Tea Party activists cost your party the Senate this cycle, by nominating total idiots in several states, who couldn't win if they tried; whereas more moderate Conservatives would have definitely won or at least had a much better chance of it.

Therein lies the problem with so-called populist movements. People who yearn to be elected to office will, if successful, want to perpetuate their stay in office. To do so, they not only look for ways to benefit their constituency, they boast of it. "Pork" is irresistable to politicians, and always will be.