Censored Whig Letters

FDR vs. the Great Recession
We must tackle four big issues to revive our economy

By Stephen Herzenberg

http://post-gazette.com/pg/09331/1016439-109.stm#ixzz0Y6i5F4NX

I keep seeing this image of Franklin Roosevelt rolling over in his grave.

What might have our late, great President perturbed? Today’s debate about how to get the economy going again.

Since the start of the Great Recession, the U.S. economy has shed more than 7 million jobs, 208,000 of them in Pennsylvania. We are living through the deepest economic contraction since the Great Depression.

In the 1930s, Roosevelt stabilized financial markets and used government spending to create demand in the face of flagging consumer spending and business investment. In the Great Recession, the Obama administration has, with significant success, taken similar steps. As a result, the U.S. economy expanded at a 3.5 percent annual pace in the third quarter and job losses have slowed.

But it hasn’t been enough. Unemployment is still rising, inching past 10 percent last month.

Double-digit unemployment carries a lot of symbolism. As Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff has noted, Congress is under pressure to do something.

So far, momentum is building for a federal tax credit that would give companies an incentive to hire new employees. Never mind that many companies will hire new workers with or without billions more in taxpayer subsidies or that other businesses will play games to increase their new-employee count.

As Mr. Rogoff says, the real appeal of a job-creation tax credit may be that it “beats doing nothing.”

But hold a job-creation tax credit up against what Roosevelt did in the New Deal and it looks like, well, nothing.

Roosevelt attacked the root cause of The Depression — the failure of middle-class purchasing power to grow, which caused income inequality to spike in the 1920s while speculation by the well-to-do generated a stock market bubble. Sound familiar?

It should. In the current decade, U.S. income inequality reached the levels of the late 1920s. In recent years, the richest 1 percent of Pennsylvanians have been taking home 68 cents of every dollar increase in income.

To get middle-class consumption going again in the 1930s, Roosevelt championed the “Big Four” social policies:

• a minimum wage to lift purchasing power at the bottom;

• a law strengthening workers’ rights to unionize, laying the basis for the emergence of America’s middle class through manufacturing unions;

• unemployment insurance, which enabled jobless workers to feed their families; and

• Social Security, which enabled the elderly poor to avoid destitution and increase their consumption.

So far, what is Washington offering as the Great Recession’s Big Four? The Big Zero.

To be fair, Congress is dedicating a lot of time and energy to health-care reform, which will yield economic dividends for decades to come. But what about policies specifically designed to reinvigorate the middle class?

There are some ideas kicking around the margins that can help shape what today’s Big Four might look like. Three of the best ideas would update elements of the New Deal.

First, the minimum wage should rise again with the overall wage level. Though long forgotten, between 1938 and 1968, the purchasing power of the minimum wage more than doubled. Let’s put minimum-wage earners on that same track today.

Unionization is another important tool to rebuild the middle class, starting in the service sectors that pay too poorly — in offices, health care and child care, supermarkets and retail stores, hotels and restaurants, and building services.

Unionization won’t cause these local jobs to disappear; you can’t outsource a nurse’s aide job at the local hospital to Tijuana. If these workers earned $15 per hour plus benefits — instead of $10 per hour with no benefits — the American middle class would come back. Empowering workers to achieve this specific change is why Congress must pass a proposed federal law that restores workers’ freedom to create a union — the Employee Free Choice Act.

We also need to update our unemployment insurance system. Today’s unemployed workers don’t just need income to tide them over until the assembly line starts moving again. Unemployed — and many employed — workers also need more access to job training that is linked to credentials and career pathways.

The final piece of today’s Big Four would be a massive investment in an environmentally sustainable low-carbon economy, implemented in a way that rebuilds our fragile manufacturing base and expands the number of family-sustaining jobs.

FDR did a lot for our country some 75 years ago. It’s time to build on his legacy with ideas for long-term recovery equal to the scale of today’s recession. And to let the poor man rest in peace.

Stephen Herzenberg is executive director of the Keystone Research Center in Harrisburg www.keystoneresearch.org .

Read more: http://post-gazette.com/pg/09331/1016439-109.stm#ixzz0Y9UJJcMG

Who’s afraid of the big, bad Fairness Doctrine?

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/11/09/whos_afraid_of_the_big_bad_fairness_doctrine/

by Steve Almond

OF ALL the Big Lies told by the pooh-bahs of talk radio - that our biracial president hates white people, that global warming is a hoax, that a public health care plan to compete with private insurers equals socialism - the most desperate and deluded is this: that the so-called Fairness Doctrine would squash free speech.

Nonsense.

The Fairness Doctrine would not stop talk radio hosts from spewing the invective that has made them so fabulously wealthy. All it would do is subject their invective to a real-time reality check.

If you don’t believe me, consult the historical evidence. The Federal Communications Commission adopted the Fairness Doctrine in 1949. Because the airwaves were both public and limited, the FCC wanted to ensure that licensees devoted “a reasonable amount of broadcast time to the discussion of controversial issues,’’ and that they did so “fairly, in order to afford reasonable opportunity for opposing viewpoints.’’ That’s the whole shebang.

Pretty terrifying stuff, huh?

Predictably, the abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 spurred a talk radio revolution. Why? Because talk radio’s business model is predicated on silencing all opposing viewpoints. If Rush Limbaugh and his ilk were forced to engage in a reasonable debate, rather than ad hominems, they would forfeit the moral surety - and the seductive rage - that is the central appeal of all demagogues.

Would talk radio’s bullies freak out? Absolutely. They know the Fairness Doctrine would spell the end to their ongoing cultural flim-flam. Besides, there’s nothing so intoxicating to a fraudulent moralist as the perfume of fraudulent martyrdom.

The real shock is that journalists haven’t supported the Fairness Doctrine. Then again, consider the state of “mainstream media’’ outlets. Increasingly, they dine on the same fears and ginned-up wrath as talk radio. Rather than wondering, “Does this story serve the public good?’’ they ask, “Will it get ratings?’’

This is how fake controversies (death panels, the birther movement, etc.) have pushed aside real issues, such as how to fix health care, or address climate change. It’s quite a racket. Talk radio hosts foment ignorant rage, then their “mainstream’’ brethren cover this ignorant rage as news.

In so doing, the Fourth Estate has allowed the public discourse to devolve into an echo chamber of grievance. The result is a body politic incapable of recognizing the true nature of its predicaments, let alone potential remedies.

And herein lies a tragic irony. This is the very reason the FCC installed the Fairness Doctrine - not to silence extremists who broadcast inflammatory lies, but to force them to share their microphones with those who beg to differ, in reasoned tones, who recognize that the crises of any age warrant mature debate, not childish forms of denial.

Barack Obama arrived in Washington determined to lift our civic discourse above the din of the echo chamber. But he appears determined to ignore the very tool created to serve this end. Forget about bickering with Fox News, Mr. President. If you want “fair and balanced’’ voices on the public airwaves, convince Congress, or the FCC, to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

If Obama and his congressional counterparts don’t have the guts for that fight, Americans of all political persuasions will continue to seek out “news’’ and opinions that merely reinforce their biases, rather than forcing them to question those biases. America will continue to limp along as a nation of enraged dittoheads, rather than free-thinking citizens who may differ in our politics, but share an honest desire to solve our common plights.

Which brings me to a final mystery: If today’s conservative talkers are so sure they’re right about everything (and they certainly sound sure), and if they believe so ardently in the First Amendment, why don’t a few of them screw up the courage to invite me onto their programs to discuss the risks and rewards of the Fairness Doctrine? No shouting or cutting off microphones. Just good, old-fashioned freedom of speech.

Actually, consider that a dare.

Steve Almond, a guest columnist, is the author of five books, most recently the essay collection “(Not that You Asked).’’

10 Reasons Why Democrats Who Opposed Health Care Bill Made a Political Mistake

Even if you completely ignore how critical it is to reform the broken American health care system, most of the 39 Democrats who voted against health care reform in the House last week made a political mistake. Here’s why:

1). The most basic reason is that the major elements of the bill are popular in the districts of the members who voted no.

For instance, the firm of Anzalone Liszt recently released the results of a poll it conducted in 91 Democratic Blue Dog, Rural Caucus and Frontline districts (those most vulnerable to Republicans). The poll found that 54% of the voters in these battleground districts support the choice of a public option. Provisions like ending the ability of insurance companies to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions have over 80% support.

What’s more, many voters in the districts of Members of Congress who voted no have particularly large numbers of downscale working class voters who are uninsured at some point in any given year – and would qualify for subsidies under the bill. The more they learn about the bill, the more they will like it.

2). Once the bill is passed it will become even more popular. Social Security, Medicare, and child labor laws were all controversial when they were first passed. Now they are all revered features of the American landscape. The same will be true of the health insurance reform that makes health care a right for all Americans.

By Election Day a year from now, the elements of health care reform will be even more popular in these districts than they are today. The only problem will be that the Democratic Member representing the district will have voted on the wrong side of history.

3). As former President Bill Clinton noted in his comments to Senate Democrats, history shows clearly that the party that nationalizes the mid-term elections is far more likely to emerge victorious. Nationalizing the 2010 mid-term election means running a national campaign that focuses on the successes and plans of the Obama Administration and Democratic Congress.

If the job picture has begun to improve, and the Congress passes the bulk of the Obama legislative program, the Democratic message will be very strong. If it does not, next November 2nd will be a very long night.

The Members of Congress with the biggest stake in the party’s success nationalizing the election are the most vulnerable members – a number of whom voted against the bill last week. If the popularity of the President and Democratic brand go south because of the party’s inability to pass health care reform (as it did in 1994), these are the Members most likely to be looking for another line of work.

Just as a rising tide raises all boats, so a receding political tide leaves those in the shallowest political water aground.

4). If Democrats are successful at passing their agenda and nationalizing the Mid-terms – which would otherwise be terrific news for the most vulnerable Members – the Members who voted no on the health care bill will look like skunks at the garden party.

When President Obama tours the country to promote the Democratic record to swing voters and to mobilize our base, it will be hard for him to say, “And now that you’re convinced and excited, go cast your ballot for the guy who voted against our program.”

5). In next year’s elections, marginal Democrats desperately need highly-motivated Democratic voters to turn out to the polls. It’s hard to inspire the base, if you voted against the program they supported.

In last week’s Virginia and New Jersey Governor’s races, Republicans were much more likely to vote than Democrats. Many of the voters who came out to support President Obama in 2008 simply didn’t bother to vote. If that happens again in 2010, many marginal Democrats are toast.

Among other things, my political consulting firm organizes get-out-the-vote programs. I can tell you firsthand that it is a lot easier to motivate volunteers and voters to support someone who is a fighter for the causes people care about than it is for candidates who are scared of their own shadows. There is a lot you can do to turn out voters with good organization. But to really spur turnout you need to inspire voters. And, to build get-out-the-vote organizations, you need to inspire volunteers and party activists. Neither happens when candidates vote like Republicans.

In almost all of the districts where Democrats voted against the health care bill, it is particularly important to mobilize young people – and in most cases, African Americans. These are the two groups that most intensely support health care reform – and President Obama.

Remember, in 2010 President Obama will not be on the ballot. Voters will have to be inspired to turn out by the local Congressional and Senate candidates.

6). News flash to Democrats who voted against the health bill: not one of the “tea party” gang is going to support you in 2010. Whether you voted yes or no, they are all going to work their hearts out for your opponent. The “tea party” gang you saw at your town meeting in August does not represent swing voters in the district – they are the hardcore base of the Republican Party.

Instead of worrying about them, better to worry about inspiring your own highly-motivated volunteers and activists to compete with them. Voting against health care reform is not the way to do that. The same goes for grassroots donors.

7). Whether or not marginal Democrats voted for the health care bill, they will be held personally responsible for that bill – and the entire Obama program – by the Republicans in the next election.

When I was sixteen years old, it snowed in my old hometown of Shreveport, Louisiana during Mardi Gras week. They shut the schools, so my pal and I took the train to New Orleans to explore the wonders of Mardi Gras.

As I wandered wide-eyed down Bourbon Street one night the hawker at a strip club gave me a real lesson in life. He said, “Come on in sonny, they’re going to say you did anyway.”

That’s exactly what will happen to every Democrat in the Mid-terms. The best way to prepare for that politically, is to stand up proudly and support the Democratic program – not to slink around in a defensive crouch.

It’s much better politically to present a clear contrast to the Republicans than to try to be “Republican Lite.” In general, if people want to vote for a Republican, they will vote for the real McCoy – not a weak imitation.

. Voters like fighters. As a political consultant, I have worked in districts all over America — with a host of other political consultants. I can tell you for certain that political consultants, as a class, are notoriously risk-averse and – unfortunately — often completely nearsighted. Many of them think that today’s controversy will look the same way on Election Day, and they are generally wrong.

Worst yet, they often advise their clients to keep their heads down, and to avoid making waves. Generally I have found this to be horrible advice. On the whole, swing voters – and certainly mobilizable voters – like fighters. They like candidates who have strong beliefs, and stick by their guns. That quality is an independent variable in deciding how persuadable voters cast their ballots.

Not long after the 2004 election, I was in a New Jersey taxicab. The driver was a typical male New Jersey cabbie. “So what do you think of Corzine?” I asked. “Oh, Corzine, tough guy. Like him,” he replied about the then-Senator.

“What do you think of Bush?” I asked. “Like him too. Tough guy. Stands up for what he believes,” came the answer.

“What about Kerry?” I asked. “Kerry? Can’t stand him. Flip-flopper.”

“How about Hillary Clinton?” I asked. “Tough gal. I like her,” he said.

Ideology, policy positions – none of that mattered to this cabdriver who liked Corzine, Clinton and Bush. He wanted a tough, committed leader. But the Republicans had sold him on their core message – “John Kerry is a flip-flopper.”

It’s generally very hard to hide or finesse your core beliefs, and because swing voters are often more concerned with whether you have strong beliefs than the content of those beliefs, it’s usually a bad idea to try.

9). Even if the economy begins to improve, the electorate in 2010 is likely to be angry. In that kind of environment, the candidate with the most populist message has a huge leg up.

At its heart, the health care issue is a battle between the interests of average Americans, and health insurance companies. It’s a contest between everyday working people and insurance CEO’s who make $12 million a year (that would be $5,769 per hour). It is a classic battle between the interests of Wall Street investors and Main Street health care consumers.

The polling is clear: it’s great politics in any one of these swing district to stand up to health insurance companies. It’s a terrible idea to cozy up to Daddy Megabucks, the Health Insurance Tycoon.

10) Finally, one of the most important rules in political life: if, as an office holder, you believe that there are political downsides to either side of a vote in Congress, you are always politically better off defending the decision you believe in.

I’ve talked to many Members of Congress who told me that they would like to vote for health care reform, but are afraid to take on the political opposition.

All Members of Congress are going to have to defend their health care votes. Instead of bobbing and weaving – instead of voting one way and believing another – politicians are almost always better off defending the side of the argument that they believe in their hearts is right.

It’s bad politics not to, because in the end the voters cast their ballots for the character qualities they see in the candidates much more than anything else.

Americans United for Change has put out a wonderful ad that summarizes in 30 seconds the reasons why voting against health care reform is bad politics. You can see it on Youtube.com at: Bad Politics.

And remember, each of the 39 Democrats – and all but one Republican — who voted against the health care bill have one more chance to redeem themselves. When the bill comes back from the House-Senate Conference there will be one more up or down vote on health care reform. Before then, let’s all do everything we can to convince them that in this case, it’s good politics to do what is right.

Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the recent book: “Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win,” available on amazon.com.

Memo to Congress: On Health Care Vote You Must Choose Between Insurance Companies and Average Americans

Memo: 11/6/09

To: Democratic Members of Congress

Re: Your Vote on Health Insurance Reform

When you cast your vote this weekend on the historic health care reform bill, you will be faced with a simple, clear choice: cast a vote for average Americans, or for health insurance companies.

The stark clarity of the choice is obvious to most Americans, but it has not yet come into focus for some of your colleagues. Yesterday I spoke with several Democratic Members who professed to still be studying the “details” of the bill and pondering their decision.

The health care reform measurers have been debated and discussed in Congressional Committees, articles and columns, town meetings, and millions of discussions throughout America for six months. Time for dithering is over. Now – in the words of the old union anthem — Members of Congress have to decide which side they are on.

Only one small group of Americans would benefit economically from the defeat of the House health insurance reform bill: the private insurance industry. They want to be free to continue raising premiums four times faster than wages. They don’t want the government to prevent them from denying coverage to people who get really sick or have pre-existing conditions. Their profits and CEO salaries and bonuses have been heading skyward even in the midst of the recession.

They love being exempt from the anti-trust laws and the freedom that gives them to divide up insurance markets and raise prices without the fear of serious competition. They are thrilled that, according to an AMA study, 94% of insurance markets are “non-competitive.” Health insurance companies love things just the way they are.

Of course if, like CIGNA Insurance CEO Ed Hanway, you made $12.2 million a year ($5,553 per hour), you might also like things the way they are. Like the insurance industry, you too might have spent tens of millions of dollars trying to frighten senior citizens, confuse your colleagues and promote right wing myths like “death panels.”

The House stands on the brink of passing historic legislation that creates a public health insurance option that will end the stranglehold of the insurance industry on our health care system. For the first time, the bill will make health insurance available to almost everyone in America – allowing our country to join the ranks of every other developed nation in making health care a right.

The battle to make health care a right in America has gone on for almost a century. At every turn, measures to do so have been blocked by special interests that were capable of convincing enough Members of Congress that the favors they could do, the campaign contributions they could make, the misinformation and fear they could spew, meant more than the lives of the 22,000 people who die each year because they don’t have insurance. Or that those things meant more than the financial ruin that is visited upon million of Americans for no fault of their own except they had the misfortune of getting seriously ill.

What is at stake in the vote this weekend is a question of values. Do we value the wealth and power of a set of large corporations more than the lives and welfare of our families, our friends and our neighbors?

Many of your colleagues in Congress will wish that one provision or the other of this legislation were different. But in the end, each of you is now forced to make only one choice: will you vote with the insurance industry or with everyday Americans.

And there is no political excuse for any Democrat. We’ve all seen the polling. The elements of insurance reform – especially the public option and provisions to prevent denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions – are popular everywhere. In every corner of America, the insurance companies are right down there at the bottom of the popularity heap with Wall Street Banks and Jack the Ripper.

And something else. If Democrats lose on health insurance reform, the Members who will pay the price are those in the most marginal districts — the same way they did after the failure of health care reform in 1994. The political fortunes of Democrats in swing districts depends on the popularity of the President and the Democratic brand – and that hinges on the success of health insurance reform. The fact is that just as a rising tide raises all boats, so a receding political tide leaves those in the shallowest political water aground.

Finally, here is a news flash: not one of the “tea party” gang that came to the Capitol yesterday has any intention whatsoever of ever voting for a Democrat – whether or not you vote for health insurance reform. They are the hard core of the Republican right that has managed to hijack their own party and convert it into a club that talks to each other rather than the American people.

There is no reason, no excuse, for any Democrat to vote no on health care reform.

And there is one more reason why every Member should vote “aye.” This is one of the most historic votes you will ever take. Would you have wanted to tell your grandchildren that you were one of the few Democrats that voted against Social Security, or Medicare, or the 1964 Civil Rights Bill? This is the same kind of vote.

Don’t be on the wrong side of history. Leave a legacy that will make you proud for generations to come. This weekend, vote yes for health insurance reform.

P.S.: For those of you that are not Members of Congress – call your Member right now — the moment you stop reading this article – and tell them to vote yes on health care reform. Many Members have instructed their staffs to count the number of calls they get on each side as we approach the vote. Weigh in with your vote right now.

Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the recent book: “Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win,” available on Amazon.com.

http://factcheck.org/2009/11/boehner-misrepresents-factcheckorgs-findings/

Boehner Misrepresents FactCheck.orgs Findings
November 2, 2009

Last week House Republican Leader John Boehners office issued a “Leader Alert” titled “10 Facts Every American Should Know About Speaker Pelosis 1,990-Page Govt Takeover of Health Care.”

Its a partisan document containing misleading characterizations of the bill. But the bullet point that bothers us most is #2, which reads:

MASSIVE CUTS TO MEDICARE BENEFITS FOR SENIORS. Despite grave warnings from CBO, FactCheck.org, and the independent Lewin Group that cuts to Medicare of the magnitude included in Speaker Pelosis bill would have a negative impact on seniors benefits and choices, Speaker Pelosis health care bill stays the course and cuts Medicare by hundreds of billions of dollars.

We never have said that seniors would suffer “massive cuts to Medicare benefits” under the pending House or Senate overhaul bills, and in fact have done our best to debunk claims to that effect. The only seniors who might see cuts are those enrolled in Medicare Advantage, about 22 percent of the Medicare population. Currently, many of those seniors receive a bit more in benefits than regular Medicare fee-for-service patients perhaps a gym membership, a pair of eyeglasses, a reduced premium. But, as weve written, Medicare pays the private companies that administer Medicare Advantage about 14 percent more per beneficiary than it does for the rest of Medicare beneficiaries, who wind up subsidizing the program, according to government analysts.

If current law didnt change, the value of the additional benefits given under Medicare Advantage would amount to about $85 per senior per month in 2019, according to the Congressional Budget Office. If the Senate bill passed (and the House bill is similar on this point), that would be reduced to about $42 per month. But under no circumstances would any senior receive less in benefits than the other 78 percent of the Medicare population.

Were sure seniors who see benefit cuts of any kind wont be happy about it. But to characterize these as “massive cuts,” and our article (as well as CBOs analysis) as a “grave warning” is simply rubbish.

We asked Boehners office to take our name out of the document, but spokesman Michael Steel said: “Im not inclined to do so,” and invited us to send an e-mail further making our case. We are doing so.

Armey Meets With Author Of Town Hall Harassment Strategy Memo To Plan Purge Of Moderates From GOP

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/03/armey-disruption-memo/

In late July, ThinkProgress first reported on a memo detailing how conservative activists can successfully disrupt Democratic health care town halls. The memo, authored by a Tea Party Patriots volunteer named Bob MacGuffie, was distributed on a listserv controlled by FreedomWorks — the corporate front group run by Dick Armey that is dedicated to organizing tea parties and other anti-Obama efforts around the country. A member of the listserv, Jenny Beth Martin, blasted out the memo on June 13th, declaring, “We here in CT have developed a strategy for holding our elected officials accountable. We show up en mass at the ‘town hall’ meetings they have!” The tactics included:

– Artificially Inflate Your Numbers: “Spread out in the hall and try to be in the front half. The objective is to put the Rep on the defensive with your questions and follow-up. The Rep should be made to feel that a majority, and if not, a significant portion of at least the audience, opposes the socialist agenda of Washington.”

– Be Disruptive Early And Often: “You need to rock-the-boat early in the Rep’s presentation, Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early.”

– Try To “Rattle Him,” Not Have An Intelligent Debate: “The goal is to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda. If he says something outrageous, stand up and shout out and sit right back down. Look for these opportunities before he even takes questions.”

In town hall after town hall during August, the strategy was used to target members of Congress who are considering support of health care reform. Although Armey disputes his relation to the memo, both Rolling Stone and Talking Points Memo have verified that FreedomWorks staffers, like FreedomWorks Florida coordinator Tom Gaitens, control the Tea Party Patriots listserv which distributed the memo. Armey has gone so far as denying even knowing Gaitens, who has worked for FreedomWorks for years and can be seen in the last ten seconds of this ABC News segment handing a microphone to Armey.

Now, the Courant is reporting that Armey plans to go to Fairfield, CT on November 11th for a “strategy session” with conservative activists and MacGuffie, the original author of the town hall harassment strategy.

An announcement sent out by MacGuffie proclaimed that he, like Armey, has actively supported Doug Hoffman’s bid to rid the NY-23 special election of moderate Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava (R-NY). Now, both Armey and MacGuffie are planning to purge the Republican Party of more moderate politicians.

MacGuffie has declared that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) are RINOs (Republicans in name only) who “have routinely abandoned or betrayed us.” Similarly, the next step of Armey’s agenda appears to be an intensified crusade to challenge moderate Republicans in primaries. The Politico reports that Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC), Gov. Charlie Crist (R-FL), former Rep. Rob Simmons (R-CT) and other Republicans who have strayed from rigid party-line positions face primaries from candidates inspired by the tea parties and town hall disruption type tactics.