Per Clear and Present Danger, I believe that it's called the "Ol' Potomac Two-Step."

Except that when you look at polls and ballots, you see R's, not T's. Until you do, the Tea Party is little more than the Christian Coalition; yet another lobby within the Republican Party, and like the Christian Conservatives in the early 90's, the flavor of the day, used to try and fool certian segments of the population into voting for them. I've been down that road before, and I gladly say no thanks.

If it were the Tea Party, they might be of interest to me. As long as they remain under that Republican umbrella, though, it is politics as usual.

Term limits. Good enough for the POTUS, good enough for Congress too!

We have term limits already. They're called elections.

There is no T because the R and the D do not want to confuse the public anymore then they are. After all, the idiots keep putting them back in office then complain and moan about it. It is a vicious cycle. :O: Yes, the T does look like a R under sheeps clothing. For the most part it is however the T are new people with we hope..new ideas.

Look at Barbara Mulkulski. Senator for MD since 1987. I think it is time for her to go. Time for real change across the board.

I see it the opposite way. If the Tea Party was serious about reform, they would have split, as this was the time to do it. The Republican Party was on life support, as Americans had firmly rejected the Neo-Conservatism of the past 20 years in 2006 and again in 2008. Voters are indeed fed up with the Liberalism of the current Democratic Party, but are far from interested in embracing the Republican brand of conservatism again. This environment was the perfect time for the Tea Party to break away and stand on their own as the party of Paleo-Conservatism; Fiscally conservative and socially libertarian, which is exactly what they claim to be. By remaining under the Republican umbrella, they cloud their intentions, giving the impression, and I believe a correct impression, that they will continue to place the social policies of Neo-Conservatism above the tenants of fiscal conservatism. By rallying behind the face of John Boehner, they only confirm their dedication to the Neo-Conservative agenda.

I do not know the answer to this but how long did it take for the Independent party to get separate billing? Perhaps the Tea Party is running into the same deal? :hmmm:

You're right; it did take the Independents a long time to get that billing. And perhaps the Tea Party is in the process of doing so. Should they do so, I would find them much more interesting.

Well thats the intention. It still doesent explain how Mr. Reid has been able to hold office for this long. Either the voters are apathetic or just dont know any better.

Well that apathy is beginning to wane, at least amongst conservatives.

I remember way back when when a few people in my neighborhood were canvasing door to door for the Independant Anderson (I think it was Anderson). The people when to my neighbors door. Upon stating what they were there for my neighbor screamed and slammed the door on them. :haha:

So what's your solution then? Vote for the party currently in power and let them become even more entrenched? Not vote and let the partisan vote decide the election?

Seems to me continually voting out the incumbents regardless of party is the only real path to follow. IMO of course...

You're right in that this is not a very good solution. Personally, I believe what is truly required is a fracturing of the dual-party system. No longer would polticians be able to run on the 'vote for me, I'm not him' line. No longer would there be the underlying message that you have to vote for one of them. With viable third, fourth and fifth candidates, positions and ideas would take priority over personality and party.