Whither the Tea Party: Is the Movement Now Irrelevant?
(The New American) -- by Joe Wolverton, II --
After nearly three years in existence, the Tennessee Tea Party disbanded Thursday, according to a message sent to members from the leaders of the group, Robert and Tami Kilmarx.
While there yet remain other Tea Party-affiliated groups in the Volunteer State, the end of even one of them may augur a decline in the electoral influence of the Tea Party.
This perceived de crescendo of the Tea Party symphony is distinctly different from the loud and animating drumbeat that helped march scores of Tea Party-backed candidates into Washington in 2010.
There is no question that the Tea Party wasn’t without failure in the 2010 midterm elections (for instance, the defeats of Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell), but Sarah Palin became a household name and legitimate constitutionalists such as Rand Paul now sit in Congress, faithfully protecting the Constitution from enemies, foreign and domestic.
The voting trends developing in the presidential election campaign reveal the rapidity of the decline in Tea Party clout, however.
For example, in the Iowa caucuses, the three candidates most closely associated with the Tea Party — Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich — finished very far down the tote board. Bachmann, in fact, bowed out of the race after failing to make a respectable showing in a very conservative state.
Let’s not forget Herman Cain. Cain, the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, was being wooed by Tea Partiers (who actually briefly shot the candidate to the top of the leader board) around the country and being touted by them as the favorite to replace President Obama in the White House.
As everyone knows, Cain dropped out of the race for the Oval Office amid allegations of sexual harassment and marital infidelity.
Regarding the sub-par showing of these Tea Party favorites, Judson Phillips takes a very pragmatic approach: “God bless them, they’re good people, but, for whatever reason, their campaigns did not take off,” he mused.
Republican voters in Iowa instead voted for one man — Mitt Romney — who is perhaps the Tea Party’s least desirable candidate, and another — Rick Santorum — a “conservative” who voted repeatedly while serving in the Senate to increase the federal debt ceiling and to exponentially expand the size and scope of the Department of Education as a result of his vote in favor of the “No Child Left Behind” program.
Toby Marie Walker, founder of the Waco (Texas) Tea Party, was “upset” by the success of the former Senator from Pennsylvania. As reported by Business Mirror, “She [Walker] said that Santorum would appeal to some socially conservative voters but that he violated the core tenet of the Tea Party — fiscal responsibility — during his tenure in the Senate.
In light of the dearth of genuine constitutionalists among the slate of Republican presidential hopefuls, one would think that Tea Party adherents in the Hawkeye State would gleefully get behind a legitimate conservative such as Ron Paul. While it is true that 26,000 Republicans participating in that party’s Iowa Caucus voted for Ron Paul, a significant number of those were Independents.
According to data breaking down entrance polls conducted by Edison Research, Ron Paul won 43 percent of Independents who voted in Tuesday's caucus.
The question, therefore, of why those who align themselves with the Tea Party would not rally behind a man with unassailable constitutional bona fides such as Ron Paul, remains unanswered. This inexplicable contradiction may contain a clue to the Tea Party’s slouch into electoral irrelevance...
Perhaps the longevity of the Tea Party was doomed from the beginning. As a loose coalition of various simpatico organizations that prided themselves on the lack of a central authority, it is a difficult proposition to expect them to coalesce behind any one candidate. Binding a few groups together long enough to propel this or that local or state candidate into office is one thing, but finding a candidate who can appeal to a significant majority of groups across the country is probably too much too hope for out of any movement...MORE...LINK
Chris Moore comments:
Let's review that last paragraph again, because the same principle applies to the Occupy movement.
As a loose coalition of various simpatico organizations that prided themselves on the lack of a central authority, it is a difficult proposition to expect them to coalesce behind any one candidate. Binding a few groups together long enough to propel this or that local or state candidate into office is one thing, but finding a candidate who can appeal to a significant majority of groups across the country is probably too much too hope for out of any movementThe corrupt, Israel-frist neocons have triangulated the right, poisoned the Tea Partiers against Ron Paul, and then abandoned the remainder to wither and die. The corrupt, Israel-first neolibs are doing the same to the Occupy movement -- triangulating it via the Jewish-owned Democratic Party, and leaving those they can't co-opt to whither away.
If Ron Paul can't somehow eke out a victory, it's time for an America-first party that represents soldiers, patriots, civil libertarians, war opponents, constitutionalists, private unions, the Working Class, the Middle Class, the rural, Christians and Main Street.
To the devil with the two-party regime, the neolib and neocon Israel-firsters and their Zionist-Globalist fascism. They putrefy everything the touch, which is why America is really starting to stink under their psychotic hegemony.