Tea Party Ousts Republicans

[Dr. Shane]

The real story in the New York congressional race that was won by a Democrat isn't the issue of medicare as the media and Democrats want to tell us. There was a Tea Party candidate in the race. The combined votes for the Tea Party and the Republican candidates were 5% more than those received by the Democrat. It was the Tea Party that sunk the Republicans, not Medicare reform.

So I guess the "party" isn't over. The Tea Party sabotaged the Democrats in 2010. Now the Republicans are their target.

[bonnie]

The real story in the New York congressional race that was won by a Democrat isn't the issue of medicare as the media and Democrats want to tell us. There was a Tea Party candidate in the race. The combined votes for the Tea Party and the Republican candidates were 5% more than those received by the Democrat. It was the Tea Party that sunk the Republicans, not Medicare reform.

So I guess the "party" isn't over. The Tea Party sabotaged the Democrats in 2010. Now the Republicans are their target.

Could it have something to do with the third party candidate

masquarading as a tea party candidate siphoning off votes.

Didn't the winner turn thumbs down on Obamacare

[bonnie]

Strange how a resounding defeat of democrats in 2010 was not heralded as the end of the democrats by the press. One win in a 3 way race with a pseudo tea party candidate,only 47% of the vote signals the end of the republican win in 2012.

Maybe we don't have to worry about Obamacare,just get a waiver and problem solved

[Dr. Shane]

Could it have something to do with the third party candidate masquarading as a tea party candidate siphoning off votes.

I don't know about the masquerading claim but the third party candidate definitely doomed the Republican. Let's not forget that the tea party candidates for the US Senate in Nevada and Maryland also cost the Republicans a couple of seats they would have probably won with a mainstream Republican candidate. If the Tea Party chooses the Republican nominee Barak may get his second term.

[bonnie]

I don't know about the masquerading claim but the third party candidate definitely doomed the Republican. Let's not forget that the tea party candidates for the US Senate in Nevada and Maryland also cost the Republicans a couple of seats they would have probably won with a mainstream Republican candidate. If the Tea Party chooses the Republican nominee Barak may get his second term.

Considering that 47% of americans are on foodstamps,I think he has a good chance. Those with their hands out know where their bread provided by others is buttered.

What would make you think every election with a tea party candidate must win or it is all over?

[Dr. Shane]

I am not on welfare. But I was and praise God from Whom all blessings flow for welfare. Without welfare I would probably have died from a drug overdose, been shot or be sitting in prison. Welfare saved my life. I wouldn't have even had food to eat without welfare so without welfare to begin with I may have not even grown old enough to get to drug rehab. Welfare fed me, put me through drug rehab and college. America is great. Where else can one be born poor white trash and become so successful? Obama understands that. Most mainstream Republicans understand that too. It is the far-out extremists that think welfare is a bad thing.

[bonnie]

I am not on welfare. But I was and praise God from Whom all blessings flow for welfare. Without welfare I would probably have died from a drug overdose, been shot or be sitting in prison. Welfare saved my life. I wouldn't have even had food to eat without welfare so without welfare to begin with I may have not even grown old enough to get to drug rehab. Welfare fed me, put me through drug rehab and college. America is great. Where else can one be born poor white trash and become so successful? Obama understands that. Most mainstream Republicans understand that too. It is the far-out extremists that think welfare is a bad thing.

Welfare is not a bad thing.Abuse of welfare is.Many people,my family among them, were as poor as your family.Welfare did not feed us,altho many times we would probably have had more to eat.

Drugs are a choice and not all people that live in poverty take drugs.

Not all that are poor rely on the taxpayers to educate them.For those that want an education bad enough,it can be obtained.It may take awhile but I don't believe in forcing my neighbors to educate my children

[Dr. Shane]

Not all that are poor rely on the taxpayers to educate them... I don't believe in forcing my neighbors to educate my children

I am definitely in favor of public education. That is the most basic of rights. No, poor people in countries without education do not obtain it. Very few of them ever learn to read or do basic math. Praise God I live in America.

[bonnie]

I am definitely in favor of public education. That is the most basic of rights. No, poor people in countries without education do not obtain it. Very few of them ever learn to read or do basic math. Praise God I live in America.

I was referring to a college education.That is not a right.

Nor should anyone have had to college educate my children or grandchildren

[Dr. Shane]

If financial aid is not available for the poor to go to college the overwhelming majority of them will go to work. They go to work for the rich that are able to afford college. Thus there are generations that stay in poverty and generations that remain wealthy. There are very distinct classes. This is true in third world countries where public assistance is not provided to the poor for college.

In America that is not the case. Many of the rich in America went to college with public assistance. There are not such distinct class distinctions here. Many of the poor have children that become part of the middle or upper class.

[bonnie]

If financial aid is not available for the poor to go to college the overwhelming majority of them will go to work. They go to work for the rich that are able to afford college. Thus there are generations that stay in poverty and generations that remain wealthy. There are very distinct classes. This is true in third world countries where public assistance is not provided to the poor for college.

In America that is not the case. Many of the rich in America went to college with public assistance. There are not such distinct class distinctions here. Many of the poor have children that become part of the middle or upper class.

In america if you want a education it can be done without the taxpayer picking up the tab. Being poor is not a liscense to make other people pay for it.

Motivation,hard work and a desire to suceed goes a long way. I am not about to cry a river for those that use "poor" as a crutch.

Our sons did not have any money,parental help,or welfare.

All they had was a desire to suceed.They did it on their own.Going without,grabbing whatever work they could.Poor was not a excuse to them,but a strong motivator

They are not rich now and their children did not qualify for any student loans.That had to come from their own pocket.That required many hours of hard work.Both from them and my grandchildren.My granddaughter works a double shift every chance she gets as a CNA,plus a regular shift.She started that in her junior year while keeping her grades up.She did not have any special skills,only the knowledge from her dad that he would match her efforts

She doesn't expect anyone else to pay her way.

Poor is not an excuse

[Dr. Shane]

In America if you want a education it can be done without the taxpayer picking up the tab.

[bonnie]

This isn't a hypothetical. We can actually observe countries that don't provide financial assistance for their poor to go to college and see how it works. What happens is a permanent under-class is created. The way of escape being part of the under-class is to sneak across the border into the US, work in the fields for a couple of years and then use the money earned to go to college back home. That is how my brother-in-law broke out.

[karl]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

In America if you want a education it can be done without the taxpayer picking up the tab.

This isn't a hypothetical. We can actually observe countries that don't provide financial assistance for their poor to go to college and see how it works. What happens is a permanent under-class is created.

When the USA did NOT provide publicly funded education was when we had the highest literacy rate.

Statistics for the percentage of enrollment in American K–12 private schools in the latter part of the nineteenth century reveal that in 1879 private secondary enrollment made up 73.3 percent of the total; by 1889–1890, in the wake of the growth of public secondary education, that figure had dropped to 31.9 percent. By 1900, 7.6 percent of the total school enrollment was in private schools.

In 1850, literacy rates in Massachusetts and other New England states, for both men and women, was close to 97 percent. This was before Massachusetts created the first public-school system in America in 1852 (of course, these literacy numbers did not apply to black slaves since many states had laws that forbid teaching slaves to read).

Ever since the first public schools were established in Massachusetts in 1852, and in most of the states by the 1890's, literacy among adults and children has been deteriorating. Today the literacy rate for students in our public schools is the lowest it has ever been. Compare that literacy horror statistic to the over 90 percent literacy rate for the average man, woman, and child by 1852.

[Guest]

That's right karl.

[phkrause]

Strange how a resounding defeat of democrats in 2010 was not heralded as the end of the democrats by the press. One win in a 3 way race with a pseudo tea party candidate,only 47% of the vote signals the end of the republican win in 2012.

Maybe we don't have to worry about Obamacare,just get a waiver and problem solved

Not true at all. Fox News couldn't stop talking about the demise of the Democratic Party. And how the Republicans are going to scoop up the Senate with no problem. Well now not even one year later and the tables are already turning? Like I said just after the elections last year, as to how ficycled(sp) the american voters are. They wanted a change from the previous party so they elected the Democrats, than they voted in the Republican Party to take over the house, which I think is a good thing. And now it looks like they can't believe of the lousy job that they've done, even though its been barely a half-a-year, they now want to vote the other party back. Unreal they really have no clue, and that's because neither party can tell them the truth about anything. I have yet to see a debate that actually talks to the issues, instead of running down the other party.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

Strange how a resounding defeat of democrats in 2010 was not heralded as the end of the democrats by the press. One win in a 3 way race with a pseudo tea party candidate,only 47% of the vote signals the end of the republican win in 2012.

Maybe we don't have to worry about Obamacare,just get a waiver and problem solved

Not true at all. Fox News couldn't stop talking about the demise of the Democratic Party. And how the Republicans are going to scoop up the Senate with no problem. Well now not even one year later and the tables are already turning? Like I said just after the elections last year, as to how ficycled(sp) the american voters are. They wanted a change from the previous party so they elected the Democrats, than they voted in the Republican Party to take over the house, which I think is a good thing. And now it looks like they can't believe of the lousy job that they've done, even though its been barely a half-a-year, they now want to vote the other party back. Unreal they really have no clue, and that's because neither party can tell them the truth about anything. I have yet to see a debate that actually talks to the issues, instead of running down the other party.

One special election win means they want the other party and the tea party is done??

[bonnie]

The third party candidate had run for office three times before as a democrat and lost. Sunk 3 million of his own money and ran as a pseudo-tea party candidate which siphoned off votes as most people do not pay close attention.They hear the blurbs and make a decision.

Regardless of what it means and regardless of the economy I think it very possible Obama can win another term.

The takers are more aggressive than those they take from and that may get him another term.

[Dr. Shane]

Well now not even one year later and the tables are already turning?

I don't think the tables are really turning much. The Republican in this race adopted the position of radical medi-care reform. Perhaps something radical is needed but too much too fast never wins elections. The Republican candidate was did not defend the reform well and the Democrat played fear tactics on the elderly. That issue along cost the Republican a few percentage points. However, even then, the Democrat only got 47% of the vote.

The political party in the White House always has trouble gaining seats in Congress. So Congressional Democrats have an uphill battle in 2012. Even if Obama wins re-election, it is unlikely that Democrats could win control of the House. In fact, Republicans may learn from this NY election and retone their message. They could end up winning control of the Senate. If unemployment is still above 8% Obama and the Democrats are going to be in trouble.

[phkrause]

Here's an interview with Dianne Rehm's about this exact thing. Check it out.

http://thedianerehmshow.org/audio-player?nid=14274