While O’Donnell has never held a political office and has socially conservative views, she was able to capitalize on a trend sweeping through Republican Senate primaries across the country.

Eight incumbent or party endorsed Republican politicians have fell to outsider candidates related to the Tea Party movement. The movement arose out of Republican Congressman Ron Paul’s presidential campaign, in which the term was used to describe a fundraiser. Paul’s campaign emphasized the virtues of small government and fiscal conservatism, tenants that the Tea Party movement has adopted.

Supporters and candidates that endorse the movement are opposed to Obama’s $787 billion stimulus and want to repeal his health care package passed earlier this year.  They see these statutes as representative of a government that is spending well beyond its means and is hindering individual freedom and free enterprise. As such, they see Washington insiders as complicit in the policies which explode government influence in citizen’s daily lives.

This movement has ousted several high profile Republicans including Sen. Arlen Specter, Sen. Robert Bennett and Sen. Lisa Murkowski. Specter switched parties, as did Governor Charlie Crist of Florida, who is now running as an Independent after falling in the polls to Tea Party favorite Marco Rubio in the Republican primary. Bennett and Murkowski, along with  party establishment picks in five other states, have lost to primary challengers affiliated with the Tea Party movement.

Larry Schwab, a professor of political science at John Carroll University, points out that the general trend of the party of the President losing seats in midterm elections, the sluggish economy, and that most of these challenges are occurring in states that would likely elect a Republican contribute to lessen the ability of Democrats to portray their opponents as out of the mainstream. 

“The important thing is that they are Republicans,” said Schwab.  All of these aforementioned characteristics play into the hands of the opposition party.

Despite this, Schwab also points out that a few of these races may have a significant impact on the ability of the Republicans to take back the senate.  

“Political commentators like Charlie Cook … have changed the status of the Senate races in Nevada and Delaware,” said Schwab. 

Prior to Tea Party candidate Sharron Angle winning the Republican primary, many thought the race would be won by Republicans. Now, however, it’s a toss up. Similarly, in Delaware the Democratic candidate, Chris Coons, is favored over O’Donnell whereas Castle was a strong favorite over Coons. The difference in these races could prevent the GOP from gaining the 10 needed seats in the Senate in order to gain control in that body. 

While Tea Party candidates have made an impact on the 2010 congressional elections, it is largely tempered by the trends of recent history and the poor economy. The movement has seemed to take hold in predominantly Republican leaning states, but in some states such as Nevada and Delaware is making a critical impact on the elections in those states.

Fearing it would jeopardize the chances of Congress passing his other New Deal initiatives, Roosevelt decided to leave it out.

Since then, however, national health insurance has been a main priority for many Democrats.

Proposals have come and gone, starting with President Harry Truman’s in 1947. Most recently, the Clinton administration made strides toward a national health insurance plan in 1993 but fell short of its goal.

With the inauguration of President Obama, the wheels are again beginning to turn towards establishing a comprehensive health care system.

According to Larry Schwab, a professor of political science at John Carroll University, Obama will likely let Congress take the lead on any proposal.

“[Obama] is not going to propose a specific plan, but rather broad principles, and he will work off what the Democrats are doing in [congressional] committees,” said Schwab.

The majority of Americans receive their health insurance through their employers. Obama has signaled that he favors a plan that would allow those who are happy with their private insurance to keep it, and to simply incorporate a few “tweaks” to the current system to cover the roughly 45 million uninsured Americans.

According to Schwab, some of the tweaks that Obama has considered and which will be debated on by Congress include whether to incorporate a mandate on individuals to purchase insurance and a mandate on businesses to provide insurance to their employees.

They will also have to decide whether any of the public health insurance programs, such as Medicare – which covers the elderly and disabled – and Medicaid – which covers the poor – should be expanded.

One of the most controversial issues has been whether to establish a public health insurance plan that would compete with private insurance plans.

Democrats, who support this measure, believe it would stimulate competition in the private market, for health insurance, which would help to keep costs low.

Republicans, however, argue that private insurers wouldn’t be able to compete with a public plan, which would crowd out private plans and eventually result in a completely public health insurance system similar to those used by many European countries.

Another important concern of any plan would be containing costs. In 2008, health care spending in the United States was a record $2.4 trillion, and is projected to reach $3.1 trillion a year by 2012.

Even though the United States spends more on health care per capita than any other industrialized nation, many of those countries are still able to provide national insurance, and their populations also have longer life spans and better infant mortality rates than the United States.

There has already been movement toward establishing electronic medical records, which appeared in the economic recovery package passed earlier this year.

Obama has recently said that he may consider taxing employer-sponsored health insurance, which may also help to control costs.

Schwab also said that there will be a move toward a cost containment board, which will analyze health care in the United States and attempt to make it more efficient.

Lately, discussion has also arisen among the Democratic leadership in both the House and Senate over the use of a special parliamentary procedure called budget reconciliation.

Budget reconciliation is the process in which the rules of Congress would be suspended in order to expedite passing a budget.

Usually, this measure is used if Congress wishes to alter tax policy or make alterations to entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

Democrats claim that it would be fair to include health care policy in a budget reconciliation process citing Republican use of this procedure when passing President Bush’s tax cuts in 2001. Republicans, however, disagree with this assessment, claiming that health care policy is outside the realm of intended uses of reconciliation.

Whether or not this process will be used will be a critical factor, said Schwab, because it would eliminate the Republicans’ ability to filibuster in the Senate.

According to Schwab, one of the best defenses against criticism would be selling the program to the American people properly.

“This is one of the lessons from the 1992-93 proposal, where the primary focus was insuring the uninsured,” Schwab said. “The best way to sell it is to make cost containment the first priority.”

This strategy would put the focus of any health insurance plan on middle-class Americans rather than the poor, which may be more appealing politically.

While Democrats in Congress and Obama are preparing their plans, there is an opposition growing among Republicans, who claim that such a policy is a “slippery slope” toward socialized medicine.

However, it appears as if the public is behind a comprehensive health care plan.

“For decades, generally the polls have favored Democrats over Republicans [on health care policy] and would rather go toward a government side plan as opposed to a the market side [approach],” said Schwab.

The most recent in the long line of egregious actions of mismanagement was the distribution of bonuses to executives of AIG from funds they received from the federal bailout package.

The public expressed its outrage over the past few weeks, and politicians have been forced to deal with the situation.

Government leaders from both parties have attempted to fan the political flames while, at the same time, trying to curry favor among the American electorate.

Gary Ackerman, a New York congressman, said, “Even if all these people gave back double the amount they received and spent the week in the public pillory, it wouldn’t fix the problem. The real problem is greed.”

Similarly, Lynn Jenkins, a Kansas Republican, said, “My constituents in Kansas have bailout fatigue.”

These two statements are indicative of the type of spin that politicians are trying to put on the situation.

Ackerman is attempting to put the blame on the avarice of business leaders, while Jenkins is trying to shift the focus to the government by criticizing federal bailouts.

Both politicians are making political calculations, as has been seen in the past.

The first political fight came with President Barack Obama’s stimulus package. Every Republican in the House and all but three in the Senate voted against the bill.

Larry Schwab, a professor of political science at John Carroll University, believes that this was, in part, a political decision for Republicans. He said the vote was part of the calculation, considering that “the Democrats will get the credit anyway, and the Republican Party couldn’t come out in a winning manner.”

While Schwab sees politics being played in the current situation, he does not foresee this scandal as a true recruiting point for the GOP. “Support for the Republicans is quite low,” said Schwab. “I don’t see the Republicans gaining too much.”

Schwab also said that how this situation will play out politically depends on the perceived recovery of the economy.

This means that politicians must wait and see what becomes of the stimulus package and other efforts put forth in order to curb the effects of a slumping economy.

The foremost person in this scandal is Obama, who must deal with this situation. While his administration has been hurt, Schwab said, “[it] won’t do much harm.”

Whereas some former presidents have strongly rallied against similar actions Ð Theodore Roosevelt called corporate executives “malefactors of wealth,” and Franklin Roosevelt referred to the same people as “economic royalists” Ð Obama’s response has been tepid toward the scandal.

Referring to AIG at a press conference last week, Obama said, “This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed.”

Obama also said, “All across the country, there are people who work hard and meet their responsibilities every day, without the benefit of government bailouts and multi-million dollar bonuses. And all they ask is that everyone from Main Street to Wall Street play by the same rules.”

That was as far as Obama went in his condemnation. Schwab points out that Obama must tread lightly because of his proposals in other areas, which will require a public-private partnership.

This is especially apparent on the mortgage front, where Obama is looking to have the federal government buy up toxic mortgages from banks.

The financial crisis has engulfed the nation over the last few months and has, in turn, gotten the attention of political leaders attempting to place themselves in favorable conditions with the public.

Nowhere is this more apparent than with Obama, who is attempting to make the political moves that will allow him to pursue his proposed solutions.