Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

The Sept. 20 op-eds from Douglas Schoen and Heather Higgins ("Republicans Gain Ground Among Independents") and Rep. Eric Cantor ("Tax Fight: GOP Won't Back Down"), along with Peggy Noonan's "Why It's Time for the Tea Party" (Declarations, Sept. 18), typify what people really want: the "third option" sought by the tea party movement.

For too long now,
politics in America has worked like this: Democrats (and occasionally
Republicans) would propose $1 of new spending, usually framed as a
"benefit" for somebody. The GOP would often say "oh no, that's too much
new debt, let's spend just 70 cents." The two sides would compromise at
85 cents, and both sides would claim victory. The Democrats would cheer
the new spending and brag about bringing home more pork. The GOP would
brag about its fiscal prudence. And both sides would crow about
"bipartisanship" and their ability to "reach across the aisle."

The third way that
independents and tea party members want is a willingness to say "no" to
both sides. They rightly see both of the above negotiating positions as
wrong; it is not acceptable to have the two parties always negotiating
on the same side of the debate. Most of us do not run our personal lives
this way. Why should it be acceptable for Washington?

Keith Colonna

Cranberry Twp., Pa.