great stuff -- social vs fiscal conservatives, Jim DeMint, cutting defense, Aqua Buddha, witchcraft, social security, the Pauls, hipsters, stimulus, Democrats against pot legalization, Palin... THE LONG-TERM MEANING OF THE MID-TERM ELECTIONS <script type='text/javascript' src='http://reason.tv/embed/video.php?id=1493'></script> Just how libertarian is the Tea Party (50%)? Do GOP gains in the midterm elections mean voters like Republicans or are angry at Obama? Are any of the newly elected pols serious about cutting spending? On November 11, 2010, Reason's Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie, authors of next year's The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong With America, led a freewheeling discussion with The Winston Group's Kristen Soltis and the Institute for Humane Studies' David Kirby about whether we've just witnessed the first act of a Republican revolution, a speed bump on the road back to Democratic power, or the beginning of something truly strange and new in American politics.
They're libertarian up to the point where it stops being convenient for them. (i.e. when boys start kissing, women start getting abortions, and you start puttin' your gubbermint hands on their medicare)
rand paul has already pissed off the teabaggers by calling for cuts in military spending. as far as the GOP is concerned, teabaggers are the new evangelicals - a bunch of tools and nothing else. i think its going to be very fun to watch over the next few years.
There is a libertarian element in the Tea Party. Like most conservative movements outside the small core controlling monied leadership of the GOP the majority are working class religious fundies who have been convinced to hate government against their own economic interests partly because hot button issues like Roe v Wade has been used to convince them government per se is bad. So the majority religious fundies in the Tea Party hate the government for a different reason than the libertarians who feel that they could amass more money if they weren't taxed.
Not to derail the thread, but I have a question. Should all of the new members of congress that ran on repealing the new healthcare bill be required to forgo their free federal healthcare benefits? Seems like the right thing to do no?
No, that does not make sense. Most Americans with insurance get it through their employer. This would be no different.
I don't know... Seems like "most Americans" agree with the idea... Poll: Republicans Want Anti-HCR GOPers To Just Say No To Gov't Health Care Republicans and independents have decided that incoming members of Congress who ran against health care reform and still take their government-funded benefits are hypocrites. Democrats, not so much. That's one conclusion from a new national poll from Democratic firm PPP, which shows big majorities of GOP and independent voters saying the politicians who ran against the health care reform law should forgo the health care benefits they're entitled to as employees of the federal government.
No it's not, it is through private insurance companies. You might as well say they shouldn't get any sort of paycheck too.
They campaigned on repealing employer based health-care and abolishing Blue Cross Blue Shield? If anything the Democrats should drop their private insurance. Or every citizen should be employed by the government, now that would be liberal heaven.
We've been hearing from resident Tea Partiers here on CF.net that the Tea Party has no central control and no central over their message. To me that says that the Tea Party could be anything.
