Not going to get into the long winded thing of this, AGAIN, in another thread. Especially since it will derail it because this isn't about Tea Parties. So here's the general answer. First, many conservatives/republicans were annoyed at Medicare Part D. Second, human nature (and political theory) generally has groups of people complaining or voicing concern in a different manner when someone close to them does something wrong and when someone they dislike does it. Your sister ends up cheating on her boyfriend you're somewhat friends with, you have a stern talk with about how that's wrong and put you in a tough spot. If some guy you can't stand cheats on your sister you're likely to get in a much more vocal confrontation. Does that mean you condone cheating in one case and not the other? No, it just means people react differently to different situations based on what they wanted accomplished. In politics loud, public complaints about your party while its in power is actually detrimental to your goals, which is to get your views put in government, because more often than not rather than changing your sides views it simply causes the other side to get elected in. Then instead of someone that does 3 things you dislike out of 10 you have someone doing those same 3, and 6 more on top of it. Even your "propogandist, extreme right" individuals like Rush and Hannity complained about Medicare Part D. You would have a point if there was NO annoyance by Republicans/Conservatives about it, but there was. It simply was expressed differently, something that is true for decades upon decades for both political parties and humans in general.And just look at BushCare Part D (Medicare Part D)... what a bunch of morons we have in office. If that doesn't show people how politicians didn't care about our deficits and instead cared about senior votes... nothing will. And all they still care about is votes. Why else would they add an entitlement to an already failing program? Where were the Tea Parties on this one?