So there's a silver lining after all: If the Republicans start generally being seen as madmen, the Democrats will get all that juicy corporate monies!
No, though maybe in some cases. What might happen is that money currently going to Tea Party groups (Libertarian) from corporations and other wealthy entities seeking tax breaks or deregulation (Don't Tread on Me) on various issues that pertain to them that yet don't think the downfall of the current government is the best idea would go to more moderate on this issue Republicans. Democrats would continue to get money if they are useful to the purpose at hand, such as the insurance lobby bribing the heck out of
Max Baucus to be able to basically dictate what's in the Affordable Care Act (which resulted in the removal of a government option that would have helped prevent insurance corporations from raising their rates excessively as has been the case prior to enactment through setting a sort of price ceiling via competition; and the necessity of the individual mandate which ensures those higher rates are paid by all.)
That said, the Tea Party is backed by very wealthy individuals, so I doubt it will have trouble finding donors until it is utterly rejected at the polls for it's ineptitude at attempts at governing. Hopefully in 2014 House elections if folks, especially if that ever so special generation in that they have a lot of the money and power, currently aged 45-60 or so can prove themselves able to be educated by people like us who have enjoyed the warm glow of the internet for most of our lives.
EDIT: I like posting stuff about Max Baucus in case people think I'm exaggerating about the bribing:
2008[edit]
Main article: United States Senate election in Montana, 2008
Baucus sought re-election in 2008 in Montana, a state that has seen political change starting in 2004 when it elected Democratic Governor Brian Schweitzer and then Democratic Senator Jon Tester in 2006 by a slim margin. Montana was the only state in the U.S. to switch a chamber of its legislature to Republican control in 2006. The legislative chamber had a one-seat Democratic majority that became a one-seat Republican majority.
Baucus raised a record amount of money for his 2008 re-election bid, 91 percent of which came from individuals living outside of Montana.[55] Similarly, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, Baucus's 2008 campaign raised $11.6 million, only 13 percent of which came from Montana donors; the rest included millions from health care and other industries overseen by Finance and Baucus's other committees.[56] The overwhelming ratio of special interest and out-of-state dollars to donations from Montana donors have raised questions:
So as Baucus and other lawmakers attempt to craft a bill that can smash through a virtual gridlock of interests, the awkward question lingers: To whom are they more attentive, their voting constituencies back home or the dollar constituencies who are at the Capitol every day?[56]
As a result of Baucus's significant fund-raising advantage, in the week that he announced his intention to run for re-election, he opened eight state offices—one more than he had official offices in the state. Baucus also announced that he had hired 35 full-time campaign staff members. Baucus won re-election in a landslide victory, by 73% to 27%, carrying every county in the state.
And that, my friends, is why no one except the insurance companies truly like the Insurance Health Act (My name for it if I were given the ability to name it). Liberals know it was written by a bunch of scummy corporats, and conservative leaders know it helps most people nonetheless and if it's successful despite it's flaws that it'll be another, if not the biggest positive achievement of President Obama.
In addition, I've heard that many Republican House districts have effectively gerrymandered themselves into not really having to worry about anything except for the party primaries. Thus they can only be 'challenged from the right,' which means in this case a Tea Party darling. That means they have to pucker up to them as much as they can get away with. However, I don't think this is true should public opinion turn solidly against the Tea Party. Thus I suggest any would be influencers of public opinion point out the folly of electing members of a political group seemingly determined to undermine the very government they are elected to, at any opportunity they may, no matter which party affiliation they are.
If moderate Republicans are seeking a way to remove the Tea Party from influencing their decisions so heavily, I can't think of a better time previously than now, and goodness knows that everyone else will cheer them after the Tea Party politicians' latest shenanigans, and do what they can to assist.
I mean, I saw today that Soldier's death benefits to their families are suspended by the Pentagon(as of earlier today, I saw it on a ticker while briefly watching CNN before a Tigers baseball game). As a member of a generation who's teenage and young adulthood was filled with countless calls to 'Support the Troops' from another generation who's members had many individuals who perhaps did not support their contemporaries or were not supported themselves in their youth as well as they should have been, it is sickening to see that same elder generation's politicians repeating this shameful choice in this regard, and I am willing to name the Tea Party at fault for this because I hold it to be true.
Poll
7 (6.5%)
Author
Topic: Bay12 Election Night Watch Party (Read 832446 times)