No, they're not catering to voters. They're trying to score brownie points. There is a difference, and the tactic is incredibly divisive.
What would that difference be? Can you give me an example of each and explain how they differ?
Health care is the here-and-now, and that's fine. Jobs are a big issue, and I know that many of my own acquaintances care more about whether they have a job than whether two people they hardly know can get married to each other. Also, the uterus thing? Referring to emergency contraception and birth control, just to be clear. The only government issue there should be determining a) what the side effects are and how severe they might be and b) making sure that gets disseminated. Whether or not I should take it is my decision, fullstop, end of story.
I agree with you that it should be up to you whether you use birth control and emergency contraception. As long as it's safe it should be readily available (and even if it's not completely it should be arguably with a warning label on it) in my opinion, but not everyone feels that way. I think they're wrong, but to say certain topics should be out of the political discourse because you think people are wrong on them is essentially... well, basically saying "I'm right so everyone should accept that and STFU."
Going back to my point about the Tea Party, its really frustrating to see a movement built on "clean out the crap" and "fiscal responsibility" when most of the Tea Party Patriots are turning out to be above the poverty line, college educated white men. It's like they're trying to take baby steps out away from the GOP umbrella while still keeping the soles of their feet planted firmly in the GOP's ('grass') roots.
Because the Tea Party "Patriots" are
Republicans. That's the big secret, there's no difference whatsoever. They're simply a rebranding that doesn't answer to the current enshrined GOP authority which allows them to expose the same ideals without having to deal with an anti-incumbent sentiment or be responsible for the GOP's obstructionist strategy. If Tea Party Candidates are elected I guarantee you they'll be absorbed right back into the GOP in due time; when it's politically convenient. They may differ on some things, but it's like the difference between Bernie Sanders and the Conserva-dems.
Through I am not so sure of a third party. Would it break a grid lock by-partisan. Really don't think so, the Libertines don't appeal, socialist based parties don't appeal.
I'd argue that both already exist in the current political mainstream, but as a subsection of each party. There's a layer of socialists on the fringe of the Democratic bloc (note I did not say party, Bernie Sanders is no Democrat) and a couple true libertarians somewhere floating in the GOP cesspool (Ron Paul is the only one who comes to mind).
And now with ruling by the supreme court with corporate campaign donations. It looks like the grid lock will last for years. Because the truth looks like. Our leaders are in campaign mode throughout, from the first day sworn in, to the next election. Just to keep their position. So why not address that, take away this. Limit terms for both senate and the house to two terms. Make it truly a government by the people for the people.
So you make the government more true to the people by preventing the people from re-electing whoever they want with term limits? I'm not really seeing your point here at all.
Not sure such an idea will work. I like many is pretty much disenfranchised. It sucks they cannot even pass a health bill. I have a half older sister living with her husband and my nephews with lung cancer. She works for the cable company been at it for eighteen years. Her husband works also, they have pretty good insurance through the company. But now she cannot get continued treatment because she has maxed the insurance payout. Because she works she can't get help from medicaid. Despite the fact she is paying for all those that don't pay. So now she is faced with quit job to get treatment, and more the likely lose home. Or no treatment and keep home. Hope that the cancer just goes away.
That sucks, I wish your sister the best.
So I am fed up with the government. Both sides alone suck with their plans. Work get something done. Do what you were elected to do.
For all the talking that was done about the Senate Healthcare Bill, I can only name around 10-15 provisions that were actually in it. Given it was a little over 2000 pages, there was probably a lot more than just that going on, but it wasn't communicated well to the public just what comprised it.
People who were interviewed by the media stuck to their talking points on the matter pretty strongly, and instead of educating the American Public on it, both sides continued to give the same biased account of what was going on. In the end there was no debate over legitimate differences and constructive dialogue, and because of this it turned into the same nonsensical banter that pundits engage in on a daily basis, except on a national scale, involving elected officials.
I'd say this happened because the democratic party is largely inept, Obama has enough issues to contend with and he made the mistake of actually trusting the rest of his party to handle it without being babied every step of the way, and the Republicans played dirty (which they are truly the masters of doing--they're lightyears ahead of the Democrats when it comes to political manipulation and savvy). However the public is every bit as responsible for this as our elected officials are.
We put morons into power, we fell for the same mixture of scare tactics, bullshit, and rhetoric that the Republicans have been using since Reagan (and possibly earlier, Nixon and Goldwater may be the genesis of that), and a good portion of our populace has largely tuned out from political discourse entirely. Senate elections, if you average them from on and off years for the presidential election, only have a little over half of the population participating in them, and yet you have so many crying that the will of the people isn't being heard, respected, or followed. If that's the case, it's because they're not keeping up with the civic duty to vote and educate themselves properly on the issues beforehand.
We live in a Republic, where the vast majority of officials with the power to make important decisions are elected by the people. Those who are not are primarily appointed by those we do elect, and therefore we are still indirectly responsible for them. Either you believe this and accept that we, as a whole, are responsible for the failures of our government or you believe that the system is rigged and we live in a state of subtle tyranny.
I prescribe to the first belief and thus recognize that the people are what's wrong. Washington's a symbol of our failings to make good political decisions, not the other way around.